*****************************************************************
04/19/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.93
*****************************************************************
   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 IPS-English POLITICS: Role of U.N. Nuke Agency Called 
2 [NYTr] "New urgency" to curb Iran, Claims US
3 [southnews] Greece condemns threat to use force on  Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. May Ask IAEA to Pressure Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia: Iran Must Halt Uranium Enrichment
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy: Iran Sanctions Discussed
7 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf Nations Urged to Stay Neutral on Iran
8 SF Chronicle: Calling Iran's bluff
9 IRNA: OIC reiterates strong support for Iran's nuclear program 
10 IRNA: No united stance in Moscow over Iran nuclear issue 
11 AFP: Iran fails to split international community, Straw says 
12 AFP: Britain does not believe US will strike Iran 
13 AFP: US demands end to Russia-Iran nuclear cooperation 
14 AFP: US 'will do what we have to do' against Iran 
15 AFP: World powers seek unity on Iran crisis
16 IRNA: Iran hopes to settle nuclear issue through negotiation 
17 AFP: Iran to step up uranium enrichment work, asks Europe to join -
18 AFP: No decisions reached in Moscow Iran talks: Lavrov 
19 IRNA: Iran, Europe to discuss nuclear issue in Moscow
20 AFP: Rice expresses confidence in diplomatic solution to Iran nuclea
21 US: Deseret News: Diversify energy sources
22 US: National Review Online: Cant You Hear the Whistle Blowin?
23 BBC NEWS: Scotland: Renewable energy 'won't plug gap'
24 Irish Examiner: Forum urges Blair to scrap nuclear proposals
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
25 [NukeNet] Chernobyl: Greenpeace Says 200, 000 May Have Died In
26 UN Says Iodine Could Have Prevented Cancer Among Chernobyl Victims
27 NEWS.com.au: Chernobyl opened our eyes to the truth 
28 Guardian Unlimited: Number of Chernobyl-Related Deaths Debated
29 ForUm: Ukravtodor delegation to visit Chernobyl zone
30 Australian Financial Review: Nuclear boost to government power
31 RIA Novosti: Russian academic sees first nuclear fusion power plant 
32 RIA Novosti: New Chernobyl casing to be built by 2010 - Yushchenko
33 BBC NEWS: Health | 'Too little known on Chernobyl'
34 US: TheNewsTribune.com: Beautiful reactor, but still shut down | 
35 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Nine Mile Po
36 Platts: Greenpeace disputes official estimates of Chernobyl health i
37 REGNUM: “Ukraine should develop nuclear power industry”
38 Platts: ANALYSIS: UK lawmakers say nukes won't fill energy gap, gas
39 US: APP.COM: Debate continues over Oyster Creek nuclear plant
40 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee phone test a success
41 US: NRC: NRC and Pennsylvania Company, GeoMechanics, to Discuss Appa
42 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Riverkeeper to sue over leak at Indian Point
43 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point to shut down for refueling
44 Mos News: Chernobyl After-Effects Emotional not Medical — Russian Sc
45 Reuters: WHO must study Chernobyl's effect on Europe-report
46 US: NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Pl
47 Baltic News: Chernobyl, looking back
48 Baltic News: Experts disagree on nuclear power project
49 Scotsman: Inside the Dead Zone
50 Reuters: Nuclear's rise 20 yrs after Chernobyl
51 Belfast Telegraph: Cameron considers abandoning Tory support for nuc
52 CP: Nuclear power top option for Ontario compared to alternatives, p
53 UPI: India: 50k MW nuclear energy by 2030
54 NEWS.com.au: Chernobyl deaths 'underestimated' 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
55 Uranium's Effect On DNA Established
56 Herald: Harmful side-effect in depleted uranium   
57 US: CDC: Petition decision
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
58 Las Vegas SUN: Former Nevada Test Site workers helped by agency acti
59 US: Deseret News: Salt Lake-based firm touts recycling for nuclear
60 Las Vegas SUN: DOE plans $100 million in Yucca infrastructure improv
61 US: Deseret News: Salt Lake County joins foes of nuclear waste
62 Las Vegas SUN: New DOE strategy won't help Yucca situation 
63 US: LA Daily News: Firms due to bid on land
64 US: Salt Lake Tribune: S.L. County Council opposes N-waste storage 
65 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Ex-Envirocare joins battle against nuke stora
66 US: Spectrum: Southern Utahns to hear from Orrin Hatch
67 Pahrump Valley Times: Earth Day will be celebrated Saturday 
68 US: Asia Times: Japan's appetite for uranium is growing
69 Russia Journal: Russia aims for 25% of global nuclear fuel services 
70 Nevada Observer: Congress In Receipt Of New Yucca Mountain Legislati
71 Belfast Telegraph: Contamination in Irish Sea 'could last for decade
72 The Debate: The Toxic Waste Version of Shrinky Dinks
73 UPI: Russia aims to grow nuclear fuel business
74 UK: News & Star: Sellafield workers miss out on pay
 
                           PEACE
 
75 icWales: Nuclear-free Wales MPs take war to No.10
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
76 Knox News: Judge: TVA charged too much
77 Knox News: Munger: Spallation Neutron Source grand opening
78 Oakland Tribune: Union sues over lab's new pensions
79 DOE: Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of Amendment to an Existing System
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IPS-English POLITICS: Role of U.N. Nuke Agency Called 
 
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:34:11 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS EU WD EN HE IP NU=20
POLITICS: Role of U.N. Nuke Agency Called =94Schizophrenic=94
Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 19 (IPS) - Concerned about the enormous risks that nu=
clear technology poses to the environment and the questionable role it ha=
s played in heightening political conflicts, some leading European politi=
cians are suggesting that the time has come for the United Nations to sto=
p promoting nuclear technology as an effective tool to meet the world's g=
rowing energy demands.

Key European leaders who once served their countries as environment minis=
ters are urging U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to reform the mandate o=
f the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which they consider to b=
e =94outdated and conflicting=94.

=94The task of nuclear arms proliferation seems to be growing rapidly,=94=
  said Satu Sassi, a member of the European Parliament and former Finish e=
nvironment minister, in a statement. =94To be able to function effectivel=
y, the IAEA should end its schizophrenic role.=94

Established in 1957, the Vienna-based U.N. agency is tasked with inspecti=
ng nuclear facilities worldwide to make sure they are not used for milita=
ry purposes. But, paradoxically, its mandate allows it to promote =94secu=
re, safe and peaceful=94 nuclear power technology.

Hassi and others hold the view that the IAEA cannot effectively prevent n=
uclear arms proliferation when, at the same time, it also encourages nati=
ons to acquire nuclear power technology, which can also produce material =
for bombs.

=94By deliberately ignoring the interlink between civil and military nuke=
s, the IAEA contributes to the proliferation of fissile material,=94 note=
s Dominique Voynet, a former French environment minister, who also wants =
her own country to reform its nuclear policy.

Recently, Hassi and Voynet sent a letter to Annan telling him that the cu=
rrent crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which raises grave concerns w=
ithin the international community, is =94a timely reminder of the contrad=
ictory remit of the IAEA=94.

The IAEA is currently engaged in efforts to verify whether Iran is in com=
pliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as a result of internat=
ional pressure. The United States and some European nations accuse Iran o=
f trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran claims that its nuclear=
  programme is aimed solely at generating electricity.

The letter, which was also signed by eight other former European environm=
ent ministers, says the IAEA has proved =94impotent=94 in preventing the =
conversion of other =94peaceful=94 nuclear programmes into weapons manufa=
cturing in countries such as India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Describing the nuclear technology as =94dangerous and destabilising,=94 t=
he former environment ministers say they want the agency to abandon its =94=
dual role=94 of both =94nuclear salesman and referee of a commercial indu=
stry that creates the world's most expensive form of electricity with a r=
adioactive legacy that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years=94.

Aside from concern over proliferation of weapons, the letter also draws t=
he world body's attention to the health and environmental impacts of the =
radiation produced by the use of nuclear technology.

=94Nuclear power is no longer necessary,=94 they emphasise in the letter.=
  =94We have now numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee th=
e right to safe, clean and cheap energy.=94

The demand for changes in the IAEA's mandate comes at a time when the 20t=
h anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is approaching. The explosion at =
the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine on Apr. 26, 1986 was the world's w=
orst nuclear accident.

The IAEA estimates that 4,000 to 9,000 people are still expected to die f=
rom cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident. But independent scientists s=
ay the death toll is even higher.

A study released by the environmental group Greenpeace this week conclude=
s that over 250,000 cancers and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers are likely t=
o be caused by the accident that took place 20 years ago.

The study, entitled =94Chernobyl Catastrophe Consequences on Human Health=
=94, is the outcome of research by more than 52 scientists from around th=
e world. It shows that the Chernobyl radiation has not only caused cancer=
  but a variety of other diseases, including leukemia and heart problems.

The environmental group has accused the IAEA of trying to =94whitewash=94=
  the impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, considered to be the most=
  devastating of its kind in human history.

=94Denying the real implications is not only insulting to the thousands o=
f victims, but it also leads to dangerous recommendations and the relocat=
ion of people in contaminated areas,=94 said Ivan Blokov of Greenpeace in=
  a statement.

About seven million people are still living in areas contaminated by the =
Chernobyl accident, according to Greenpeace, which fully endorses the for=
mer ministers' demand for changes in the IAEA mandate to put an end to th=
e use of nuclear technology.

=94The IAEA cannot remain as the world's nuclear watchdog if it cannot at=
  least admit that nuclear power is responsible for the impact on those wh=
ose life it scarred forever,=94 Blokov added.

Meanwhile, in addition to being critical of the IAEA's role, the European=
  leaders who wrote the letter to Annan have also taken to task the countr=
ies involved in commercial trade deals involving nuclear technology.

=94France must end its sales policy of nuclear materials and technologies=
  to whomever is willing to pay,=94 said Voynet, the former French environ=
ment minister. =94This trade jeopardises world peace.=94

Other former environment ministers who endorsed the letter voicing concer=
n over the IAEA stance on nuclear technology include those from Russia, U=
kraine, Belaruse, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Britai=
n.
*****
+IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/)
+POLITICS-US: Amid Threats, Some Republicans Seek Talks on Iran (http://i=
psnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D32928)
+POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Takes Flak, No Eject Option (http://ipsne=
ws.net/news.asp?idnews=3D32787)

(END/IPS/WD/EU/HE/EN/NU/IP/HR/KS/06)

=20
=3D 04192357 ORP014
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] "New urgency" to curb Iran, Claims US
 
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:55:01 -0500 (CDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Reuters via Yahoo - Apr 19, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_32

"New urgency" to curb Iran: US

By Christian Lowe

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Wednesday it wanted no action against Iran
before an April 28 U.N. deadline set for it to halt uranium enrichment, but
a top U.S. official said other countries were inching toward sanctions.

Tensions remained high, with oil prices hitting a high above $73, partly
driven by fears the dispute could disrupt shipments from the world's
fourth-largest oil exporter.

"What I heard in the room last night was not agreement on the specifics but
to the general notion that Iran has to feel isolation and that there is a
cost to what they are doing," UnderSecretary of State Nicholas Burns told
reporters.

"Now we need to go beyond that and agree on the specifics of what measures
we need to put that into operation," he said.

He said Iran's shock announcement last week that it had enriched uranium to
a low level and planned to produce it on an industrial scale had focused the
minds of the international community.

The United States and its European allies say Tehran could divert highly
enriched uranium to make bombs.

"What is new is a greater sense of urgency given what the Iranians did last
week ... Nearly every country is considering some sort of sanctions and that
is a new development. We heard last night and again today that all of those
that spoke are looking at sanctions," Burns said.

In a surprise development, an Iranian delegation appeared later in the day
in Moscow for talks with officials from the so-called EU3 -- Britain, France
and Germany -- although a spokesman for the British Embassy in Moscow said
there were no major breakthroughs.

"The Iranians set out their position and we listened carefully but there
were no significant breakthroughs," the embassy spokesman said.

The U.N. Security Council on March 29 gave Iran a month to halt enrichment
and answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on
its nuclear program.

VETO POWER

Russia and China, which both have veto power in the council, say they are
not convinced sanctions would work. U.S. officials had hoped to use the
talks to persuade them to take a tougher line on Iran, which it suspects of
seeking nuclear weapons.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said some countries, including
Russia, wanted to wait until the U.N. nuclear watchdog reports on Iranian
compliance on April 28 before acting.

"We are convinced of the need to wait for the IAEA report due at the end of
the month," Lavrov told reporters.

An Iranian delegation headed to Moscow for talks on the dispute, Foreign
Minister Manoucher Mottaki told state radio.

He said officials from the Foreign Ministry and the Supreme National
Security Council would "discuss possible solutions which could pave the way
to reach a comprehensive understanding based on a recognition of Iran's
right to nuclear technology."

Iran says it only wants nuclear power for civilian use, but Russia said
Tehran was not responding to international demands.

Several diplomats said that when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was in Iran
last week he had hoped to persuade Iran to accept at least a brief
"technical pause" of its enrichment program, which could have provided the
basis for a renewal of negotiations between the EU3 and Iran.

One diplomat close to the IAEA said such a pause "could open the door,
provide a new space for negotiations," but a senior EU3 diplomat said the
Iranians had given no indication they were would accept that.

Burns said Washington was opposed to allowing Iran any kind of pause,
calling some of Iran's negotiating positions "a ruse."

"One of the core points that I made, supported by a great number of people
in the room is, we are not going to agree to any pause by Iran," Burns said.

Speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice said the international community agreed Iran could
not have a nuclear weapon and was mobilized to respond.

"In order to turn the Iranians back from what has been behavior that is
contrary to all the wishes of the international community, we are prepared
to use measures at our disposal -- political, economic, others, to dissuade
Iran," Rice said.

Tuesday's meeting of deputy foreign ministers from Russia, China, the United
States, Germany, France and Britain underlined international differences
over punitive action against Iran.

All the powers have said they are determined to solve the problem through
diplomatic means, but the United States is alone among them in not ruling
out military action.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Tuesday's meeting
had been "totally fruitless."

President Bush was planning to raise the issue with his visiting Chinese
counterpart, Hu Jintao.

(Additional reporting by Simon Webb and Madeline Chambers in London, Anna
Willard in Paris, Louis Charbonneau in Berlin, Meg Clothier in Moscow and
Edmund Blair in Tehran)
       
                                *
================================================================
.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 [southnews] Greece condemns threat to use force on  Iran
 
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:40:07 -0500 (CDT)


The Greek government condemned on Wednesday the threat to use force in 
Iran's nuclear issue, urging for a peaceful solution to the problem.
Greece is currently one of the non-permanent members of the UN Security 
Council.

Greece condemns threat to use force in Iran's nuclear issue

Xinhua  April 20, 2006

The Greek government condemned on Wednesday the threat to use force in 
Iran's nuclear issue, urging for a peaceful solution to the problem.

Greek foreign ministry spokesman George Koumoutsakos said that the 
threat of the use of force is "an unacceptable practice."

He underlined that the decisions of the United Nations had to be upheld 
so that any action on the part of the international community had the 
required legitimacy.

Athens believes that all the possibilities for a peaceful resolution of 
the problem must first be exhausted, the spokesman added.

He pointed out that the five permanent UN Security Council members had 
agreed during a recent exchange of views on the issue that Iran should 
be given until April 28 to suspend its nuclear program.

Greece is currently one of the non-permanent members of the UN Security 
Council.

_____________________________________________

U.S. to conduct crisis exercise targeting Iran: report

Xinhua  April 20, 2006

The Pentagon will conduct a tactical exercise targeting a possible 
crisis involving Iran in July, The USA Today reported Wednesday.

The exercise, to be staged at the National Defense University, aims to 
help senior U.S. policymakers, military leaders and lawmakers to explore 
various options in the scenario of an Iranian crisis, according to the 
report.

Pentagon officials said the July 18 exercise will develop scenarios 
based on things that are "fairly current in the real world, but the 
schedule is set way in advance," and it is designed to "teach and 
educate people about the complexity of decisions in formulating policy."

The exercise comes amid growing tensions between Iran and the United 
States over the Iranian nuclear program and recent media reports of 
increased U.S. military planning against Iran.

Source: Xinhua

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. May Ask IAEA to Pressure Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday April 20, 2006 12:01 AM

AP Photo XMM102 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States may turn to the U.N.
nuclear watchdog agency to exert more pressure on Iran out of
frustration with Russian and Chinese opposition to firm Security
Council action, diplomats said Wednesday. 

The diplomats told The Associated Press that the U.S. delegation
to the International Atomic Energy Agency has contacted other
nations over the past few days to gauge support for a special
IAEA board meeting on Iran's nuclear program. 

But the envoys - who were familiar with talks on Iran's nuclear
dossier but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were
not authorized to reveal the American initiative - emphasized
that no decisions had been made on the idea. 

And Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said the U.S. was
waiting for a report later this month by IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei about Iran's nuclear program. 

``We will study that report carefully and decide on next steps
at that time,'' Ereli said. 

Still, diplomats' statements that Washington might consider such
action were significant. 

U.S. officials have for weeks been publicly in favor of shifting
international attention over Iran's nuclear program from the
Vienna-based agency - which has no enforcement authority - to
the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions
backed by the threat of military force. 

Years of U.S. lobbying paid off in February, when the IAEA's
35-nation board agreed to refer Iran's nuclear file to the more
powerful U.N. body. But since then, the council's five
veto-packing members have been divided, with Moscow and Beijing
opposing efforts by the U.S., France and Britain to move from
requesting Iranian compliance to demanding it. 

The split appeared to persist Wednesday. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged Iran to halt all
uranium enrichment after a meeting in Moscow among senior
officials of the five permanent council members plus Germany,
but he acknowledged the talks produced no decision on how to
proceed if Tehran fails to comply. 

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the AP in
Moscow that the possibility of sanctions had been discussed but
indicated more talks were needed. 

``What is new is a greater sense of urgency given what the
Iranians did last week,'' Burns said later to reporters,
alluding to Iran's announcement that it had succeeded in
enriching uranium. 

Burns, echoing a statement Tuesday by President Bush, did not
reject the possibility of a military response. 

``Obviously, the United States always keeps all options on the
table ... but we're focused on diplomacy,'' he said. 

In Paris, French President Jacques Chirac and Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak said they were opposed to military intervention in
Iran. 

``We have to explore all the possibilities offered by a
diplomatic option in order to avoid a destabilization of the
Middle East, and probably of the rest of the world,'' Chirac
said at their joint news conference. 

Military strikes against Iran ``would have very grave effects''
on the region, Mubarak said. 

Lavrov said no decisions had been expected at Tuesday's meeting
because the nations were waiting for the report from ElBaradei.
He said Russia wants the report to be reviewed by the IAEA board
before it goes to the Security Council, which has set an April
28 deadline for Tehran to suspend enrichment, which can be used
to generate power or make the fissile core of nuclear weapons. 

Iran says its program is peaceful, but the Americans and dozens
of other countries fear it wants the technology to make the core
of nuclear warheads. 

Russia, which has close economic ties to Iran and is not eager
for a discussion of sanctions in the Security Council,
repeatedly has stressed that the IAEA is the best forum for
discussions on the Iranian program. 

That stance has been opposed by the Americans, French and
British. But one of the Vienna-based diplomats said Washington
appeared to be ready to ``fill the gap'' by seeking a special
board session to bridge over anticipated future weeks of council
inactivity. 

He said members of the U.S. mission to the IAEA have worked out
different scenarios for what such a board meeting could
accomplish but refused to go into details. He said the British
were opposed because it would complicate the process, ``but if
the Americans want it, it's going to happen.'' 

U.S. officials in Vienna declined to comment. 

The enrichment issue has gained urgency because of recent claims
by Iran that - if true - would bring it closer to bomb-making
capacity. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a week ago that the
Islamic republic was testing a sophisticated centrifuge to
enrich uranium - something Tehran has denied for years. A day
earlier, he had trumpeted Iran's success in enriching a small
amount of uranium using a 164 less-sophisticated centrifuges. 

Neither claim has been publicly confirmed by the IAEA. Iran
would need at least 1,000 of the less advanced P-1 centrifuges
working for over a year to produce enough nuclear material for a
bomb. Two diplomats, speaking separately, said the IAEA planned
to send in two teams of investigators this week to follow up on
both claims ahead of ElBaradei's report. 

--- 

Associated Press Writer Judith Ingram contributed to this report
from Moscow.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia: Iran Must Halt Uranium Enrichment
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday April 19, 2006 9:46 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia called on Iran Wednesday to halt all
uranium enrichment activities, saying the international
community is demanding ``urgent and constructive steps'' from
Tehran to ease concerns about its nuclear program. 

``Iran must heed the call to stop work linked to uranium
enrichment,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov as saying. He spoke a day after a meeting in
Moscow of diplomats from the five permanent U.N. Security
Council members plus Germany. 

The envoys discussed imposing sanctions against Iran over its
nuclear program, but failed to reach agreement, a U.S. diplomat
said. 

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns gave no specifics as
to the type or timing of sanctions and he refused to say whether
Russia had softened its opposition to sanctions against Iran. 

But he reiterated that the United States expected action in the
Security Council after an April 28 deadline for Iran to stop
uranium enrichment. 

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran's nuclear
program is meant to produce weapons, but Tehran insists the
program is for peaceful purposes. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy: Iran Sanctions Discussed
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday April 19, 2006 9:31 AM

AP Photo VAH111 

By HENRY MEYER 

Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - A U.S. diplomat said Tuesday that envoys from the
five permanent Security Council members plus Germany discussed
sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, but failed to
reach agreement on how to proceed further. 

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called on
Iran to halt all uranium enrichment activities, saying the
international community is demanding ``urgent and constructive
steps'' from Tehran to ease concerns about its nuclear program,
the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. 

Meanwhile, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told The
Associated Press following nearly three hours of talks that
diplomats recognized the ``need for a stiff response to Iran's
flagrant violations of its international responsibilities.'' 

President Bush said ``all options are on the table'' to prevent
Iran from developing atomic weapons but that he will continue to
focus on diplomacy. 

Burns, speaking in Moscow, said sanctions had been discussed
during the meeting hosted by Russia but indicated that further
talks would be needed. 

``Iran's actions last week have deepened concern in the
international community and all of us agreed that the actions
last week were fundamentally negative and a step backward,'' he
told AP. ``So now the task for us is to agree on a way
forward.'' 

He was referring to the announcement last week by Iran's
hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that the country had
successfully enriched uranium for the first time. 

Burns gave no specifics as to the type or timing of sanctions
and he refused to say whether Russia had softened its opposition
to sanctions against Iran. But he reiterated that the United
States expected action in the Security Council after an April 28
deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment. 

Ahmadinejad remained defiant, warning Tuesday that Iran will
``cut off the hand of any aggressor'' that threatens it and
insisting that its military has to be equipped with the most
modern technology. 

``The land of Iran has created a powerful army that can
powerfully defend the political borders,'' he told a parade
commemorating Iran's Army Day. 

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran's nuclear
program is meant to produce weapons, but Tehran insists the
program is for peaceful purposes. 

Ahmadinejad further complicated the debate last week by claiming
his country is testing an advanced P-2 centrifuge, which could
be used to more speedily create fuel for power plants or atomic
weapons. 

Some analysts familiar with the country's technology said he
could be exaggerating Iran's capabilities, either to boost his
own political support or to persuade the International Atomic
Energy Agency to back off. 

In Vienna, Austria, diplomats accredited to or associated with
the U.N. nuclear watchdog said the claim about the centrifuges
was not a surprise. 

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the confidential Iran file, said past IAEA
reports on Iran documented evidence of purchases of components
for the centrifuges. But the diplomats noted that Ahmadinejad's
comments appeared at odds with Tehran's assertions that no such
work had been conducted for years. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called his Iranian
counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday to urge Tehran to
quickly answer questions related to its nuclear bid and halt
uranium enrichment, the ministry said Tuesday. 

Earlier Tuesday in Washington, Bush also said there should be a
unified effort involving countries ``who recognize the danger of
Iran having a nuclear weapon.'' 

Before the meeting in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman
Mikhail Kamynin reaffirmed Russia's insistence on more
diplomatic efforts. ``We are convinced that neither sanctions
nor the use of force will lead to the solution of the problem,''
he said in televised comments. 

Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tianka, China's top
nonproliferation official, who also attended Tuesday's meeting
in Moscow, has appealed to Iranian leaders to reach a negotiated
settlement, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. 

Russia and China, which have strong economic ties to Iran, have
opposed punitive measures. Bush said he intends to ask Chinese
President Hu Jintao to pressure Iran when the two leaders meet
Thursday at the White House. 

Britain also urged a peaceful solution to the crisis. ``We hope
that we'll get behind a diplomatic avenue, a system of
increasing but reversible pressure which Iran will listen to,''
said Julian Reilly of the British Embassy in Moscow. 

--- 

Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran,
Jennifer Loven in Washington and George Jahn in Vienna, Austria,
contributed to this story.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf Nations Urged to Stay Neutral on Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday April 19, 2006 11:31 AM

AP Photo KUW101 

By DIANA ELIAS 

Associated Press Writer 

KUWAIT CITY (AP) - A top Iranian leader said that if the United
States ever attacked his country, he was certain that Kuwait - a
key U.S. ally in the Gulf that hosts thousands of American
soldiers - would not take sides. 

The comments by former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani drew
no immediate public response from Kuwaiti officials, who have
reacted to his visit with caution. 

Rafsanjani has said he is in Kuwait to allay Gulf nations' fears
about Iran's intentions. Instead, Rafsanjani seemed to be
signaling Gulf nations that they should not take sides in the
U.S.-Iran standoff. 

He said any concerns in the region about the aftermath of a
military confrontation were the work of ``Zionists and
imperialists.'' 

Gulf nations have privately expressed grave fears that the
standoff over Iran's nuclear program could result in U.S.
airstrikes on Iran, or that Iran's effort to devleop a nuclear
program could lead to a Mideast arms race. 

Any U.S. attack on Shiite-majority Iran could cause widespread
unrest in a region that is largely governed by U.S.-friendly
Sunni Arab governments, but which has restive Shiite minorities
and whose overall populations are often strongly anti-American. 

Publicly, however, the countries have been much more discreet in
their comments. The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates
said last month that Iran's nuclear program posed ``a big
worry.'' 

Kuwait - just across the Gulf from Iran's main nuclear site -
has seemed particularly worried about how the current crisis may
unfold. The United States has thousands of troops in Kuwait,
which is a major staging area for the continuing war in Iraq. 

In addition, the United States runs its regional air operations
out of another Gulf country, Qatar, and the U.S. Navy's Fifth
Fleet is based in yet another Gulf country - Bahrain, also just
across the Gulf from Iran. 

It would be almost impossible for the United States to launch
airstrikes against Iran without using the military assets based
in those three Gulf countries. 

Rafsanjani said Tuesday that any talk about a strike by the U.S.
military is ``premature,'' but ``if it happens, our friends
(Kuwait) will not take the side of our enemies.'' 

On Monday, Rafsanjani was even more pointed, saying Iran was
certain the ``Persian Gulf countries will not help the United
States to attack Iran.'' He called on Iran's neighbors, such as
Kuwait, and all Muslims to ``defend Iran and support it.'' 

Kuwaiti officials have met his visit with public caution. On
Monday, after Rafsanjani met with Kuwait's emir, Sheik Sabah Al
Ahmed Al Sabah, the state-owned news agency quoted Sheik Sabah
as saying Kuwait was ``cautious about nuclear matters'' and
hoped ``what is happening in Iran was for peaceful not military
purposes.'' 

Rafsanjani, who was president from 1989-1997, now runs Iran's
Expediency Council, a powerful body that arbitrates between the
parliament and clerical hierarchy. He is believed to be a rival
to the current hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but also
remains a key member of Iran's government. 

His visit has highlighted the tricky position the Gulf nations
are in. 

U.S. news reports have said the United States was developing
contingency plans to use military force against Iran if it
continued to challenge attempts by the West and the U.N.
nuclearent program. 

President Bush said Tuesday that ``all options are on the
table'' to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons, but said
he will continue to focus on the international diplomatic
option. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful uses, not for
weapons as the West suspects. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 SF Chronicle: Calling Iran's bluff

Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc. 

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

THERE IS ONE clear standard by which President Bush has asked,
over and over, to be judged: his ability to keep us safe from
rogue nations or terrorists armed with weapons of mass
destruction. Unfortunately, by any rational definition of that
standard, his 5-year administration has been an abysmal failure. 

The quandary in which Bush finds himself regarding Iran's
apparent quest for nuclear weapons is only the latest example in
an astonishing series of national security blunders. 

First, he vacationed while a crescendo of intelligence warnings
of imminent terrorist attack blossomed into the spectacle of
Sept. 11, 2001. Then, he allowed the mastermind of those
attacks, Osama bin Laden, to escape while diverting U.S.
resources into Iraq to save the world from Saddam Hussein's
nonexistent WMDs. Now, tied down in Iraq's civil strife, Bush
holds no high cards in a dangerous poker match with Iran. 

A once swaggering president, who so convincingly wielded a
bullhorn and modeled a flight suit, now has assumed the pretzel
pose of a supplicant attempting to cajole our old enemy in
Tehran into dropping its nuclear-arms ambitions while
simultaneously initiating talks with Iran aimed at bailing us
out in Iraq. After the fiasco of using the blunt instrument of
military force to "democratize" Iraq, Bush now resorts to mild
talk of U.N. sanctions on Iran, the very weapon he had derided
in relation to quarantining Hussein. Bush's nutty nuclear
braggadocio on Tuesday -- "all options are on the table" -- was
a sign of weakness, not strength, hobbled as he is by various
self-created impediments. 

One, he has lost the trust of Americans, foreign leaders and
even many Republicans by lying about Iraq -- crying wolf, in
essence -- and then fumbling the occupation. Another invasion
would be a tough sell, both here and abroad. 

Two, Iran is, as Republican Sen. Richard Lugar put it subtly,
"part of the energy picture." In other words, it exports gobs of
oil. U.S.-Iran tension already has sent crude prices above $70 a
barrel. "I believe, for the moment, we ought to cool this one,"
Lugar warned the White House. "We need to make more headway
diplomatically to be effective." 

Three, the United States is highly dependent upon Iran-trained
Shiite religious factions in Iraq for what is left of the
tattered welcome mat Bush &Co. told us to expect when we came to
overthrew Hussein. Key Iraqi Shiite leaders have stated they
would support Iran, in the event of a U.S. attack. 

Cozying up to the Shiite fundamentalists in Iraq is a bargain
with the devil, born of weakness, the pattern for this
president. To find another example, look no further than the
source of Iran's latest claimed breakthrough in the pursuit of
weapons-grade uranium. Last week, Iran's confrontational
president disclosed that his regime is "presently conducting
research" on P-2 centrifuge technology that would allow quicker
uranium enrichment. Nuclear experts, according to the New York
Times, fear this is a serious indication that Tehran, as long
suspected, has obtained P-2 technology from Pakistan, thanks to
the global black-market nukes operation run for years by Abdul
Qadeer Khan, "the father" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.
U.N. inspectors in Iran also found instructional bomb-making
sketches thought to have been supplied by Khan, who is now under
"a loose form of house arrest," according to the Times. 

The grim irony in all this is that Pakistan never has been held
accountable by the United States for Khan's black-market nuclear
proliferation racket, even though such a bold scheme could not
have thrived without significant support from Pakistan's
powerful military leaders. Of course, Khan, who was pardoned by
Pakistan's military dictator, doesn't have to worry that Bush is
going to order the CIA to spirit him to Guantanamo Bay for some
rough Dick Cheney-approved interrogations. Pakistan, like Saudi
Arabia, is a tight ally of the White House, despite having
previously supported bin Laden's old Afghan friends, the
Taliban. Indeed, the Bush administration was so eager to secure
the friendship of Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, it
perversely ended the boycott imposed on that country in response
to its development of a nuclear weapon. 

There you have it -- Hussein, who did not have a nuclear-weapons
program and was fundamentally at odds with Bin Laden, now sits
in prison, while the dictator of nukes-'R'-us Pakistan and the
theocrats of Iran have had their power immeasurably strengthened
by Bush's policies. Go figure. Actually, it would appear the
public already has, which explains why our fearless leader has
fallen so far in the polls. 

E-mail Robert Scheer at 				
Page B - 9 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: OIC reiterates strong support for Iran's nuclear program 

Tehran, April 19, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-OIC-Nuclear issue 

Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu Tuesday evening reiterated the
organization's strong support for Iran's legitimate right to
pursue peaceful nuclear energy.

 "The world of Islam is on the side of Iran and supports its
right to peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy," Ihsanoglu
said in a meeting with Iranian Ambassador and Permanent
Representative to the OIC Mohammad Kazem Khansari.

 He lauded Tehran authorities for their "courageous" and
"peaceful" stance on the nuclear issue.

 "The exploitation of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in
various fields such as in medicine, science and research as well
as in the production of nuclear fuel is the legitimate and
indisputable right of Iran," stressed the official.

 "No one has the right to impose limitations on Iran for the
exercise of this right," he added.

 The official also criticized the West for its use of double
standards with regard to the issue of nuclear energy.

 "Western countries are putting pressure on Iran for its
peaceful use of nuclear energy and uranium enrichment activities
while ignoring Israel's nuclear arsenal which threatens the
security of the entire region," the OIC chief pointed out.

 He believed the "intelligent" and "logical" stances taken by
Iranian officials in its standoff with the West on its nuclear
activities would promote its national security and interests.

*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: No united stance in Moscow over Iran nuclear issue 

Moscow, April 19, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Nuclear-Moscow talks 

Deputy foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council (5+1) plus Germany ended their meeting in
Moscow Tuesday evening on the Iran nuclear issue without
reaching a common stand, it was reported Wednesday.

 Officials of foreign ministries of the UK, China, France,
Germany, Russia and the United States held three-hour
discussions Tuesday behind closed doors ahead of the April 28
deadline set for Iran to comply with a UN Security Council
demand for it to suspend uranium enrichment.

 The UN Security Council, in a non-binding resolution passed on
March 29, gave Iran 30 days to comply with its demand.

 According to a US embassy spokesman in Moscow, the meeting was
expected to deal with Iran's continuing uranium enrichment
activities after which the UNSC was expected to make a final
decision on the issue.

 Russia and China have declared their opposition to the
imposition of sanctions against Iran and have stressed the need
to settle the issue through diplomatic means.

 US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Kisliak, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister
Cui Tiankai, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs John
Savers, German Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Scheffer and
French Foreign Ministry Political Director Stansilas de
Laboulaye took part in the Moscow meeting.

 Political circles pointed to disagreements between the US and
its western allies and the Russian and Chinese opposition to
imposition of sanctions as the main reasons for the failure of
the parties to the talks to obtain a unified position on the
nuclear standoff.

*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Iran fails to split international community, Straw says 

 Wed Apr 19, 5:33 AM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's efforts to split the United
States and its allies in their bid to halt Tehran's disputed
nuclear program have had the opposite effect, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw has said. 

 "At each stage they (the Iranians) have calculated they can
split the international community," Straw told BBC Radio on
Wednesday during a visit to Saudi Arabia. 

"At each stage, although it has taken a lot of work (by
diplomats), they have simply ended up with an international
community more united in its concern to ensure full compliance
by the Iranians," Straw said. 

The top British diplomat rejected suggestions that Iran had
succeeded in causing a rift between the United States and
Europe, which has left Washington alone in refusing to rule out
the use of force to make Iran comply with international
obligations. 

"I obviously understand there is a difference of use of words
there," Straw said. "But in practice both the Americans and the
Europeans and Russia and China are committed to finding a
diplomatic solution to this issue." 

The influential Russian newspaper Kommersant said Tuesday that
talks under way in Moscow over the nuclear crisis have
underlined a growing international split, with Russia opposing
future sanctions against Iran. 

The UN Security Council is awaiting a report due by April 28
from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, on whether
Iran has complied with its demands to freeze uranium enrichment. 

Iran insists its program is peaceful, but enrichment can be
extended from making reactor fuel to the production of warheads. 

Straw said the international community was "working on the
basis" that Iran will fail to meet the deadline and it is "most
likely" the matter will go back to the Security Council, without
saying what the next steps would be. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Britain does not believe US will strike Iran 

 Wed Apr 19, 12:13 PM ET 		 	 

RIYADH (AFP) - Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he did not
believe the United States would take military action against
Iran" /> Irandespite mounting tensions over Tehran's nuclear
program. 

 "I am not going to discuss hypotheses which I do not believe
are going to arise," Straw said on Wednesday when asked what
Britain's position would be if close ally Washington were to
take military action against Tehran. 

The United States has "not taken any option off the table, but
in practice, as both President George Bush" /> George Bushand
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesay they
are pursuing the diplomatic option as vigorously as the
Europeans and Russia and China," he told reporters in Riyadh. 

Straw was speaking at a press conference with his Saudi
counterpart, Prince Saud al-Faisal, after they opened a
Saudi-British conference in the kingdom's capital. 

Bush said on Tuesday that Washington wanted a diplomatic
solution but refused to rule out force to keep Iran's nuclear
program in check. 

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairsaid
it was time for the world to "send a clear and united message"
to Iran about its nuclear work and support for terrorism, but
also played down the prospect of military action. 

His comments came as the West and Russia were seeking to present
a united front over how to deal with Iran despite signs of
division over how toughly to act in forcing Tehran to halt its
nuclear activity. 

Saud, whose country has been lobbying for a diplomatic solution
to Iran's standoff with the West and privately voiced concerns
about a possible US strike against Iran, said he would "hate" to
have to make a choice between military action and the prospect
of the Islamic republic turning into a nuclear power. 

"We are hoping, and I think not without reason, that this issue
can be resolved through negotiations," he said. 

The Saudi foreign minister appealed to Iran, with which Riyadh
improved ties in recent years after a long estrangement
following Tehran's 1979 Islamic revolution, not to pursue
nuclear weapons. 

Saudi Arabia believes that "atomic weapons don't add to your
security," he said. 

"Iran is a great and old nation with huge responsibilities to
the stability of the region. We hope they will see the wisdom
that the best safeguard to the stability of the region is the
absence of nuclear weapons." 

In an opening speech to the conference, Prince Saud reiterated
that Israel" /> Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear
warheads, should not be exempted from attempts to turn the
Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. 

"I am always surprised that when the Israeli stockpile of
nuclear weapons is mentioned, the international community opts
to remain silent and seeks to shroud the fact with a ...
blackout," he said. 

Straw said Britain shares the objective "that the whole Middle
East region, including Israel, should be free of weapons of mass
destruction," though he did not elaborate. 

Straw had told BBC radio earlier that Iran's efforts to split
the United States and its allies in their bid to halt Iran's
disputed nuclear program have had the opposite effect. 

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned that
Tehran's army was like a "meteorite" that would destroy any
attacking force. 

"It will cut off the hand of any aggressor and leave the enemy
covered in shame," he said. 

Washington accuses Iran of working secretly to build nuclear
weapons under cover of a nuclear energy program it is developing
with Russian assistance. 

Iran denies this charge and says the program is strictly for
producing nuclear energy. It is refusing to comply with a UN
Security Council demand to freeze sensitive enrichment work. 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: US demands end to Russia-Iran nuclear cooperation 

 Wed Apr 19, 12:38 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - The United States demanded an end to Russia's
cooperation with Iran" /> in building the Islamic republic's
first civilian nuclear power station. 

 "We also think it is important for countries to stop
cooperation with Iran on nuclear issues, even on civilian
nuclear issues like the Bushehr facility," US Under Secretary of
State Nicholas Burns told journalists in Moscow. 

Burns made clear that he was talking about various countries'
work with Iran's nuclear industry. However, Russia is Iran's
biggest nuclear partner and is building the country's first
atomic power station at Bushehr. 

"A number of countries are continuing to permit the export of
dual-use materials that could be used, and we think in some
cases are being used, to help the growth of Iran's nuclear
industry," Burns said. 

"It is the view of my government that it would be appropriate
now for those individual governments to stop that practice and
no longer permit it." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: US 'will do what we have to do' against Iran 

 Wed Apr 19, 2:07 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - A top US diplomat refused to rule out unilateral
action by the United States to curb Iran" /> 's nuclear program
but said it would be "best" to work with other countries in
doing so. 

 "We are going to act to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability,"
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns
told reporters here after two days of talks with other world
powers on how to resolve the Iran nuclear impasse. 

"We think that the best way forward is to work with other
countries and we've invested a lot of time in that," he said. 

But he added: "I think we've made our view clear in Washington,
our administration, and that is that it is absolutely not in our
interest or anyone else's to have Iran with nuclear weapons. 

"And so we're going to do what we have to do to prevent that
from occurring." 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: World powers seek unity on Iran crisis

 Wed Apr 19, 12:26 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - World powers struggled to show a united front
over Iran" /> Iran's nuclear drive, fearing Tehran will exploit
any split to forge ahead with uranium enrichment. 

"I would have thought that this is the time for the world to
send a clear and united message to the Iranian regime," British
Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairsaid Wednesday in London
as diplomats gathered in Moscow. 

Tehran must recieve a clear message to stop uranium enrichment
and "desist from financing terrorist activities around the world
and get back to their international obligations," Blair told
parliament. 

"Nobody is talking about military invasion of Iran or military
action against Iran," he added. 

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy warned, too, that
the world powers must be together if they were to dissuade Iran. 

"If the international community is united -- China and Russia
with us -- the Iranians... will answer: 'We can not be
isolated'," Douste-Blazy told French radio RMC. 

"If, on the contrary, the Chinese and the Russians, if the
international community is not united it makes it easy for the
Iranians to continue" to defy international demands to halt the
program, he said. 

French President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques Chirac,
who departed Friday for a visit to Egypt, said the possibility
that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons was "unacceptable." 

Meanwhile, senior diplomats from the Group of Eight powers
gathered for Moscow talks, ostensibly preparing for a July
summit but clearly overshadowed by the Iran standoff. 

The Moscow meeting of G8 political directors would be "another
opportunity in a different forum to talk about what are the
diplomatic means to increase pressure on the Iranian regime," a
US State Department spokesman said in Washington on Tuesday. 

Iran sent a high-ranking delegation to Moscow to hold
discussions with European diplomats "aimed at finding a
solution" to the crisis, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
told state radio in Tehran. 

But the foreign ministry gave no indication of whether the
envoys were bearing any concessions from the hardline
leadership, with just over a week to go before the expiry of a
UN Security Council deadline to freeze uranium enrichment. 

The UN Security Council is awaiting a report due by April 28
from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN watchdogy, the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency, on whether Iran has complied with its demands to
freeze uranium enrichment. 

Iran insists its program is peaceful, but enrichment can be
extended from making reactor fuel to the production of warheads. 

On Tuesday, a meeting of senior officials from the permanent
members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States -- along with Germany met in Moscow
but failed to agree on concrete action over Iran. 

"There was no decision and no concluding document, but we were
not aiming for that," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
said of the talks. 

The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that the
parties to the talks had agreed that the Iranian program was a
"worry". 

"The government of Iran has so far failed to take the steps
required of Iran" that were spelled out in resolutions of the UN
nuclear watchdog agency on February 4 and the UN Security
Council on March 29, it said. 

Russia and China have shown extreme reluctance to threaten the
use of force or even sanctions against Iran. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush, in
contrast, warned Tuesday that "all options are on the table" in
dealing with Iran's nuclear program, which Washington fears is a
covert grab for the atomic bomb. Bush said the United States
preferred a diplomatic resolution. 

Visiting Riyadh, however, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
refused even to discuss the threat of military action. "I am not
going to discuss hypotheses which I do not believe are going to
arise," he said. 

The top US representative at the meetings in Moscow over the
past two days, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, said
that participants discussed the possibility of moving towards UN
sanctions on Iran but reached no agreement. 

"You know, the Iranians are not 10 feet tall," Burns told the US
television network CBS Tuesday. 

"And they have dug quite a hole for themselves, and they're
isolated. And so our tactic is to keep pressure on them and see
if we can get them to back down," he said. 

The row and Iran's defiant stand have helped drive oil prices to
all-time highs and gold values to within sight of a 25-year
high. 

On Wednesday, New York's main contract, light sweet crude for
delivery in May, dropped 35 cents to 71.00 dollars per barrel in
electronic dealing, after notching up a record close of 71.35
dollars on Tuesday. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 IRNA: Iran hopes to settle nuclear issue through negotiation 

April 19, IRNA                                                                                                                 

-- talks 

/Xinhua -- Iran hopes to settle the nuclear problem through
negotiation and prevent it from escalating into a crisis,
Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Ansari to Russia stated
hereon Tuesday, following the opening of the six-party
consultations over the delicate issue.

 "We must do everything possible to settle the Iranian nuclear
problem in a tranquil atmosphere of negotiations. The region
does not want a crisis and all the nations are against it,"
Ansari was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.

 "The Iranian leaders had stated that they were ready for a
dialogue with the different sides in order to explain their
program," Ansari was further quoted saying.

 Deputy foreign ministers of Russia, the United States, China
and the European trio, including Britain, Germany and France,
are meeting in Moscow for a second day today to discuss Iran's
nuclear program.

 Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak heads the
Russian delegation.

 Ansari stressed that the Iranian side has no problems with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 "Iran is ready to conduct its activity only under IAEA
resolutions and in line with the laws effective in the IAEA,"
Ansari was further quoted.

 Speaking live on Russia's Ekho Moskvy Radio, he said that IAEA
inspections are being conducted in Iran.

 "We want this cooperation to continue," Ansari remarked on
radio.

 "We are prepared to accept the proposals of other countries in
order to prove that the Iranian nuclear program is of a purely
peaceful nature. Nobody in Iran wishes to deviate from the
peaceful uses of the atom," he said.

 "We insist that doors should be open for the sake of greater
transparency...Iran is prepared to host any foreign companies on
its territory," Ansari added.

 In a telephone conversation between Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov,
on Monday, Russia strongly urged Iran to halt its uranium
enrichment activities.

*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: Iran to step up uranium enrichment work, asks Europe to join -
     
 Wed Apr 19, 3:34 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranplans to step up uranium enrichment
work soon and has asked European countries to help in the
effort, a senior French official told AFP. 

 Speaking after a meeting here between Iranian officials and
senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany he said the
Iranian officials had "indicated that Iran is preparing soon to
launch two new centrifuge cascades" for enriching uranium. 

The French official, who took part in a surprise meeting with
the Iranian delegation in Moscow, spoke on condition that he not
be named. 

"They asked the political directors to take note of this
situation and invited them to negotiate in taking part in this
enrichment program," the official said, after the meeting
between the Iranian officials and the diplomats from the "EU-3." 

A cascade of basic "P1" centrifuges for uranium enrichment
consists of 164 devices. Iran is believed to have one such
cascade in operation at a nuclear facility in Natanz at present. 

The French official said the European participants in the
meeting responded to the invitation by saying there was "no
question" of accepting any situation in Iran that ran contrary
to resolutions of the United Nations" /> United NationsSecurity
Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). 

Those resolutions have called on Iran to suspend all uranium
enrichment activity. 

The European political directors warned the Iranian officials
that Tehran should freeze its sensitive nuclear work in line
with UN requests. 

"If it does not, then far from creating a situation allowing the
resumption of discussions, Iran will face measures that will
isolate it further," the official said. 

The Iranian delegation was headed by Deputy Foreign Minister
Abbas Araghchi and Javad Waidi, the deputy head of Iran's
national security council and aide to Tehran's top nuclear
negotiator, Ali Larijani. 

The meeting between the Iranian officials and the EU-3 diplomats
came at the end of two days of intensive discussions in Moscow
among senior diplomats from the UN Security Council's five
permanent members and the Group of Eight (G8) states on how to
deal with the Iran nuclear impasse. 

The EU-Iranian meeting in Moscow had not been expected but was
agreed to quickly because "it seemed useful to listen to the
Iranian side in order to evaluate the situation and hear its
intentions with regard to the IAEA," the French official said. 

He said Iran requested the meeting, which was hosted by Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: No decisions reached in Moscow Iran talks: Lavrov 

 Wed Apr 19, 5:42 AM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - No decision was reached during Tuesday's
international talks on resolving the standoff over Iran" /> 's
nuclear programme, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said,
adding that no concrete outcome had been expected. 

"There was no decision and no concluding document, but we were
not aiming for that," Lavrov told journalists on Wednesday. 

The talks were between the permanent five members of the UN
Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States -- plus Germany. 

Lavrov said that "all participants of yesterday's meeting agreed
that we must demand urgent, constructive measures from Iran." 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AFP News report may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the
prior written authority of Agence France Presse. 
*****************************************************************
 19 IRNA: Iran, Europe to discuss nuclear issue in Moscow

Tehran, April 19, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Nuclear-Moscow talks 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here Wednesday declared that
an Iranian delegation, including his deputies and deputy
secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), is
currently on a visit to Moscow.

 Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of Majlis open session,
he said that during its stay in Moscow, the delegation would
assess the latest status of the country's nuclear dossier and
the possible solutions to the issue.

 Mottaki said that the Iranian officials are scheduled to hold
talks with the European delegations, who are visiting Moscow.

 Concerning the meeting of deputy foreign ministers of the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (5+1)
in Moscow on Tuesday, the minister said that the outcome of the
talks held behind closed doors, possibly focusing on Iran's
nuclear activities, was not disclosed.

*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: Rice expresses confidence in diplomatic solution to Iran nuclear crisis - 

 Wed Apr 19, 5:31 PM ET 		 	 

CHICAGO (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice expressed
confidence that a diplomatic solution will be found to the
Iranian nuclear crisis, but warned that military options remain
on the table and that Washington will not necessarily wait for
an international consensus. 

 "I believe we can make the diplomacy work," Rice said. "And
long before we get to the point that we have to contemplate
diplomacy failing I believe we have options at our disposal." 

Rice said the United States is working to unify the
international community in its goal of persuade the Iranians to
cease enriching uranium which could be used in a nuclear bomb. 

She said the UN Security Council had a number of diplomatic
options at its disposal, but warned that the United States could
chose to act alone or with a coalition if the crisis is not
resolved through the United Nations" /> . 

"The right to self-defense does not necessarily require a UN
Security Council resolution," Rice said, noting that the United
States went to war in the Balkans without one. 

"It is important to note that the president doesn't take any
options off the table," Rice said. "We are prepared to use
measures at our disposal- political, economic or others to
persuade Iran" /> ." 

Rice said that Iran is not Iraq" /> , and that "the remedies
before us are quite robust." 

The UN Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to halt
uranium enrichment or face unspecified consequences. Washington
is pushing for sanctions but meeting resistance, notably from
Russia and China. 

Speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said
that the situation in Iran is also "very different" from that in
North Korea" /> because the Iranian people are connected to the
international community. 

Rice also expressed concern with the political situation in
Russia, which has butted heads with the United States on a
number of diplomatic issues including the best solution to the
Iranian crisis. 

"It's not gone in a very good direction in the past couple of
years," she said noting the absence of a "truly free press", "a
legislature that is truly able to check the president" and "the
seeming absence of a truly independent judiciary." 

While the Russian state is no longer dangerously weak, it has
begun to swing too far towards authoritarianism, Rice warned. 

But Rice said it would be wrong to isolate Russia because of
concerns over human rights. Instead the United States is working
with Russia to help the government build strong, democratic
institutions and has warned that the current situation is
"troubling." 

"A truly deep relationship with the United States rests on
common values and Russia's adherence to those values is not
great at this time," Rice said. 

"I do not see any good outcome for Russian democracy that comes
from excluding Russia from institutions that have democratic
values at their core." 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 Deseret News: Diversify energy sources
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, April 19, 2006                                

editorial
                                              
In the face of supply threats worldwide, oil prices peaked at $71 
a barrel Tuesday, stirring speculation that average gasoline 
prices could rise as high as $3.50 a gallon in some parts of the 
country.

       The ripple effect of a spike in gasoline prices is well 
understood by Americans, who may shorten summer vacations, opt 
not to travel and be forced to pay more for goods shipped by 
transporters also coping with higher fuel prices.

       This latest hike in oil prices also reminds us of the 
nation's seemingly unquenchable thirst for petroleum and its 
resulting vulnerability to world market and political forces. The 
West's nuclear standoff with Iran and supply disruptions in 
Nigeria are key factors in the recent surge in oil prices. Add 
that uncertainty to ongoing refinery disruptions in the aftermath 
of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as temporary shortages 
that can occur when refineries conduct routine maintenance jobs 
or handle unforeseen problems such as blackouts and broken 
pipelines.

       One would think that high motor fuel prices would 
encourage Americans to conserve or make better use of mass 
transit systems. Despite paying substantially more for gasoline — 
U.S. motorists are shelling out $212 million per day more than a 
year ago — the U.S. demand for gasoline continues to rise, 
although slightly, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. 
Somehow, to use President Bush's words, the nation must rid 
itself from its oil addiction.

       But that will require innovation from the private 
sector—automobiles that do not require petroleum fuels and 
well-designed mass transit systems that offer sufficient 
frequency and convenience so that mass numbers of riders will 
abandon their cars. That's easier said than done. America's love 
affair with the car is considered by many to be a birthright. It 
would take generations to give up that way of thinking.

       But record oil prices and, in turn, record gasoline 
prices, must be viewed as incentive to change. Paying more at the 
pump is not a viable long-term energy plan. It simply renders the 
United States more vulnerable to geopolitical forces.
 			  		 		   
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 22 National Review Online: Cant You Hear the Whistle Blowin?

Of whistleblower and leakers.
 
 Jonah Goldberg on Beltway &the Movies on 

April 19, 2006, 5:57 a.m.
 
Journalism, like politics, depends on a slew of useful fictions. 
They're too numerous to list here (besides, they make for so many 
useful column topics, I'd hate to preempt myself). But it is 
worth pausing to watch as a new myth is sculpted before our very 
eyes. 

Over the last decade or so the media has carefully cultivated an
ingenious distinction. Call it: whistleblowers versus leakers.
You've surely seen both of these mesmerizing creatures on
display in the carnival menagerie that is your nightly news.
"Whistleblowers" reveal things "America needs to hear."
"Leakers" have grubby agendas. 

Interestingly, whistleblowers, despite the media's love for
them, are rarely famous for long. The year 2002 was "The Year of
the Whistleblower." Time magazine lamely named "whistleblowers"
as their "Person of the Year," putting three female
whistleblowers on the cover. I doubt one in a thousand readers
remember who all three of those women were (answer: Colleen
Rowley of the FBI, Sherron Watkins of Enron, and Cynthia Cooper
of Worldcom). This makes sense because most of these people are
props, disposable icons used to make a desired point. 

Now don't get me wrong: I have no problem with "whistleblowing"
per se. Exposing wrongdoing at great personal risk can be a sign
of great courage as well as a moral obligation. The problem is
that "whistleblower," with its positive, even heroic
connotations, is an honorific the press confers only on those
whose whistleblowing is music to their ears. (Nothing but
guffaws greeted Linda Tripp's supporters when they called her a
whistleblower.) Everybody else is a mere "leaker" — or worse.
And the truth of the matter is that the press is simply not a
reliable arbiter of who is Thomas More and who is Ratso Rizzo. 

Indeed, it often seems the case that the morality of the
messenger is determined by the juiciness of the tidbit they
deliver. The most famous example is Mark Felt, a.k.a. Deep
Throat. Unlike most "whistleblowers," he stayed famous largely
because he stayed a mystery for so long. A whole gauzy veil of
romance enshrouded the former No. 2 man at the FBI who gave Bob
Woodward the goods on President Nixon. In 2005, Molly Ivins
described a "Deep Throat" as a "noble whistleblower who dared to
go to the press because his sense of integrity had been outraged
by official misconduct and he had no other option." The fact
that Felt — who was convicted of ordering illegal break-ins —
snitched on Nixon not because he wanted to save the Republic but
because he was bitter at being passed over for J. Edgar Hoover's
job proved to be a small inconvenience amidst all the adulation. 

A more recent case is former Ambassador Joe Wilson. Wilson burst
into the limelight when he accused President Bush of lying in
his 2003 State of the Union by saying that, according to British
intelligence, Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Whatever
Wilson's initial motives for attacking Bush's "16 words" may
have been, two truths are now obvious. 

The first is that Wilson was wrong and Bush was right (and the
White House was foolish for saying otherwise). Britain's Butler
Commission famously reinvestigated that allegation and found
that it was "well-founded." France — no fan of the war or Bush —
stood by the allegation as well. Journalist Christopher Hitchens
and others have cataloged how Iraq had dispatched an envoy to
Africa to inquire about acquiring uranium "yellowcake." Indeed,
Wilson's own verbal report to the CIA confirmed to his
debriefers that Iraq sought the stuff. But the press continues
to call Wilson a "whistleblower," no doubt largely because
Wilson's message is damaging to Bush and undercuts the rationale
for the war. 

The second truth is that there is nothing noble about Wilson's
"whistleblower" schtick. These days, he slumps further and
further into asininity, hurling insults at his critics. In one
recent speech, detailed on the blog Daily Kos, Wilson said that
the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is a "drunk" and that he
wants to punch America's ambassador to Iraq in the face. He even
snidely insinuated that some prominent Republicans are closeted
homosexuals. Even The New Republic's Jason Zengerle felt
compelled to declare recently "Experts agree: Wilson's a pig." 

Meanwhile, led by the New York Times, the press has created a
perverse double standard. When Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had
her identity as a CIA employee leaked to the press, media
Brahmins demanded that a special prosecutor force journalists to
divulge their sources in order to punish the leakers. But when
other, vastly more sensitive, classified information was leaked
— the existence of secret prisons in Europe, the NSA's
wiretapping program, etc. — the press gasped with outrage at the
suggestion that such leaks should be investigated. When
President Bush declassifies information and gives it to the
press — as he has the unique authority to do — press
chin-strokers are gobsmacked by Bush's "hypocritical" leaking. 

So, if you want to decode what the press means when they salute
a whistleblower for delivering news "America needs to hear,"
just remember that what they're really saying is, "This is news
the press wants you to hear." 

— (c) 2006 Tribune Media Services 
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC NEWS: Scotland: Renewable energy 'won't plug gap'
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 18 April 2006, 23:58 GMT 00:58 UK [

[Wind farms behind a power station]                             

The UK is examining choices to power its future                                                           

Renewable energy is unlikely to plug the gap left when Scotland's 
ageing nuclear stations cease production, the first minister has 
warned. 

But Jack McConnell told a conference in Edinburgh that the 
Scottish Executive would block new atomic plants until the issue 
of nuclear waste was resolved. 

Delegates also heard a union's calls for new nuclear, to stop 
rising energy costs from crippling the industry. 

The Scottish Greens hit out, insisting nuclear was not 
economically viable. 

Mr McConnell said the government wanted to be confident it could 
protect future generations from "even the current legacy of 
nuclear waste." 

But he explained that the government also had to consider options 
for when nuclear power ran out. 

He said: "I do not believe it is beyond our abilities to be able 
to find a sustainable long-term solution to our future energy 
needs. 

British industry needs certainty. Thousands of jobs depend on it               

 Derek Simpson Amicus [ src=] UK generation - you choose                                                                                                              

"The only way in which that solution can be developed is if we 
have a genuine debate and discussion that deals with facts and 
realities and considers all the options on their merits." 

Derek Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, claimed the industry 
and the environment would suffer without moves towards a mix of 
nuclear power and clean coal technology. 

He said rising energy costs were threatening thousands of jobs 
and he urged the UK Government to come up with a clear energy 
policy and urgent action to resolve the nuclear waste problem. 

"British industry needs certainty. Thousands of jobs depend on 
it," he said. 

However, Green MSP Mark Ballard said calls for more nuclear power 
stations were based on "misleading claims". 

He said: "Nuclear power is only made to look economic because of 
the assumption that the taxpayers will bail out the companies and 
foot the bill for managing the waste and other liabilities. 

"Rather than weep at the funeral of unsustainable, uneconomic and 
risky nuclear power, unions should be protesting about the 
failure of government to properly support the marine energy 
sector." 

Energy review 

The issue of new nuclear power threatens to split Scotland's 
governing Labour/Lib Dem coalition. 

There has been widespread speculation that Prime Minister Tony 
Blair will back new nuclear power stations as a solution to 
energy shortages, after a comprehensive UK review of energy 
policy reports later this year. 

However, the coalition executive, particularly driven by its 
Liberal Democrat members, has said that it will not sanction a 
new generation of nuclear plants unless and until there is an 
acceptable solution to the issue of disposing of nuclear waste.
		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 24 Irish Examiner: Forum urges Blair to scrap nuclear proposals

[A group representing councils in the Republic and the North
today urged Tony Blair to bin proposals to build a new
generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.] 

19/04/2006 - 1:32:16 PM

A group representing councils in the Republic and the North
today urged Tony Blair to bin proposals to build a new
generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.

In its response to the UK government’s energy review, the
All-Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum (AINFLAF) also
called on the British government to give a specific commitment
that no power plant will be built in the North.

Michael O’Dowd, a Fine Gael county councillor in Louth and the
chairman of AINFLAF, said: “The British government does not need
to build new nuclear power stations to meet its future energy
needs. 

“Radiation does not respect international boundaries and a new
nuclear programme in the UK would pose unnecessary risks to
people and the environment in the Republic of Ireland.”

Mr Blair is believed to favour a combination of new nuclear
power stations and renewable energy to make up the predicted
energy shortfall in the UK which could result in major
electricity blackouts over the next decade.

Last November a panel of 150 experts attending a two-day
conference under the auspices of the Geological Society of
London warned within a decade the UK could be generating only
about 80% of the electricity it needs.

With one third of the UK’s generating capacity needing
replacement by 2020, the Confederation of British Industry has
pressed the government for a firm decision on a new generation
of nuclear stations.

Former Labour energy minister, Brian Wilson has urged the
government to give a clear steer in favour of nuclear power
stations.

However former Environment Secretary Michael Meacher has said
while the government needs to act quickly, he has also argued:
“I think we need nuclear like a hole in the head.”['']  

AINFLAF warned today more nuclear power stations in the UK would
heighten the risks the North and the Republic of Ireland would
face from a potential disaster.

The group expressed particular concerns that new power stations
could be built on the UK’s west coast at Wylfa in Anglesey,
Heysham in Lancashire, Sellafield in Cumbria and Hunterston in
Ayrshire.

They also highlighted the fact that Wylfa is 60 miles from
Dublin.

The councils also argued more could be done to create
opportunities for the use of renewables and the local generation
of energy, particularly through investment in Ireland’s
electricity grid.

AINFLAF claimed the liberalisation of the electricity market
could potentially allow the sale of electricity generated from
renewable sources in the Republic of Ireland and the North to be
exported to customers in England, Scotland, and Wales.

The SDLP's Down District Councillor Margaret Ritchie, a member
of the forum, said: “Our response is not just about making the
case against nuclear power but also about stressing the positive
contributions that renewable energy and energy conservation can
make towards filling any energy gap. 

“Our island has been blessed with the renewable resources of
wind energy and tidal energy, and by harnessing these we have
the potential to become an exporter of green electricity.”

The councils who take part in the All-Ireland Nuclear Free Local
Authorities Forum are Louth County Council, South Dublin County
Council, the Dublin Regional Authority, Monaghan County Council
and Bray Town Council, Down District Council and Newry and
Mourne District Council. 

© Thomas Crosbie Media 2006.       
*****************************************************************
 25 [NukeNet] Chernobyl: Greenpeace Says 200, 000 May Have Died In
 
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:02:04 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



 >The Greenpeace report further extrapolates that
in total some 200,000 people in Russia, Ukraine
and >Belarus could have already died as a result
of medical conditions -- such as cardiovascular
diseases -- >attributable to the disaster.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-nuclear-chernobyl.html
  Chernobyl Death Toll Underestimated Says
Greenpeace
   a..                E-Mail
   b.. Print
   c.. Save



By REUTERS
Published: April 18, 2006
Filed at 9:10 a.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
LONDON (Reuters) - The death toll from the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago could be
far higher than official estimates, with up to
93,000 extra cancer deaths worldwide,
environmental group Greenpeace said on Tuesday.

Based on research by the Balarus National Academy
of Sciences, the report said that of the two
billion people globally who got touched by the
Chernobyl fallout, 270,000 will develop cancers as
a result, of which 93,000 will prove fatal.

The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)
estimates that 4,000 people died as a result of
the explosion in reactor number four at the power
plant in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl on April
26, 1986.

The explosion sent a plume of radioactive dust
across northern and western Europe and as far as
the eastern United States.

``It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing
the impacts of the most serious nuclear accident
in human history,'' said Greenpeace anti-nuclear
campaigner Ivan Blokov.

The Greenpeace report further extrapolates that in
total some 200,000 people in Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus could have already died as a result of
medical conditions -- such as cardiovascular
diseases -- attributable to the disaster.

``Our problem is that there is no accepted
methodology to calculate the numbers of people who
might have died from such diseases,'' Greenpeace
campaigner Jan van de Putte told Reuters.

``The only methodology that is accepted is for
calculating fatal cancers,'' he said.

The report said the incidence of cancer in Belarus
jumped 40 percent between 1990 and 2000, with
children not even born at the time now showing a
massive 88.5-fold increase in thyroid cancers.

Leukemia is also reported to be on the increase,
as are cases of intestinal, rectal, breast,
bladder, kidney and lung cancers.

Dislocation due to relocation of hundreds of
thousands of people as a result of the explosion
has put further strains on the population, the
report said.

``The Chernobyl accident disrupted whole societies
in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia,'' Greenpeace
concluded.

``A complex interaction between factors such as
poor health, increased costs of health systems,
relocation of people, loss of agricultural
territories and contamination of foodstuffs,
economic crisis, the costs of remediation to the
states, political problems, a weakened workforce
... creates a general crisis.''


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 26 UN Says Iodine Could Have Prevented Cancer Among Chernobyl Victims
 
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:01:01 -0400


 
UNICEF SAYS IODINE COULD HAVE PREVENTED CANCER AMONG CHERNOBYL VICTIMS
New York, Apr 19 2006  1:00PM
Ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, 
the United Nations Children’s Fund (<"http://www.unicef.org/media/media_33470.html">UNICEF) 
said today that iodized salt could have 
significantly lowered the numbers of exposed children who developed 
thyroid cancer and called for the supplement to be widely used 
throughout the affected region. 

“For the 4,000 children in question, iodized salt could have made 
all the difference,” said, Maria Calivis, UNICEF Regional Director 
for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent 
States. “Many would have been spared from thyroid cancer,” she 
said, calling for universal salt iodization.

“And amid all the other vast numbers - 400,000 people uprooted from 
their homes; 5 million still living in contaminated areas; 100,000 
still dependent on humanitarian aid - it is too easy to overlook 
what is small: a drop of iodine costing just a few cents.”

The explosion in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor on 26 April 1986 spread 
radiation over a wide swathe of land, mainly in Belarus, Ukraine, 
and the Russian Federation. The areas affected by Chernobyl 
were iodine deficient before the disaster, and are still iodine 
deficient today, according to UNICEF. Despite many efforts to get 
legislation passed on universal salt iodization in Belarus, the 
Russian Federation and Ukraine, the issue is still being debated. 


“After twenty years, there can be no excuse for further delay,” said 
UNICEF Regional Ambassador chess Grand Master Anatoly Karpov. 
“Universal salt iodization is the most effective way to ensure that 
every child gets enough iodine. It is also the cheapest way – 
costing only 4 cents per person, per year.”

Iodine deficiency disorders are the world’s leading cause of mental 
retardation and can lower the average IQ of a population by as 
much as 15 points. Even mild iodine deficiency during pregnancy 
can affect foetal brain development and, as a result, up to 2.4 million 
babies are born each year in Central and Eastern Europe and 
the Commonwealth of Independent States with mental impairment.

Meanwhile, in Minsk today, the Associate Administrator for the UN 
Development Programme (UNDP), Ad Melkert, conveyed a message of 
remembrance of the human casualties and vast damage caused by Chernobyl 
twenty years ago, but also said there is cause for hope in 
the region for the future.
“We are confident that Chernobyl has entered the right development 
path,” he told an international conference marking the 20 year 
anniversary of the accident.  “It is already delivering practical 
solutions that, applied consistently, hold the prospect of restoring 
to millions the ‘normal life’ that Chernobyl so brutally curtailed 
20 years ago.”
 2006-04-19 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/
*****************************************************************
 27 NEWS.com.au: Chernobyl opened our eyes to the truth 

From: By Mikhail Gorbachev

 April 19, 2006   		 		 		 

THE nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, 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 a 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 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.

 Interactive: The Chernobyl fire 

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 it 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 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 effect 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 the main impact of the 
explosion would be in Ukraine, but Belarus, to the northwest, was 
hit even worse, and Poland and Sweden suffered the consequences. 

Of course, the world first learned of the Chernobyl disaster
from Swedish scientists, creating the impression 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
learned that what happened was not a simple accident, but a
genuine nuclear catastrophe, an explosion in 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 in helping people within 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 river banks. Therefore, we started 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 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 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 world peace. 

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe reminds us 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 alternative sources of energy. The
fact that world leaders increasingly talk about this imperative
suggests the lesson of Chernobyl is finally being understood. 

Project Syndicate, 2006

 
  + Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union,
is chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation in Moscow and head of
the International Green Cross. 		  		 		 		 			Search for more

Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). 
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: Number of Chernobyl-Related Deaths Debated
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday April 19, 2006 12:31 AM

AP Photo XOB109 

By MARA D. BELLABY 

Associated Press Writer 

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - The United Nations health agency said
Tuesday that about 9,300 people are likely to die of cancers
caused by radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, while a
report from Greenpeace put the potential toll 10 times higher. 

The radically differing conclusions underline the contentious
uncertainties that remain about the health effects of the
world's worst nuclear accident as its 20th anniversary
approaches. 

A reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine
exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive clouds over much
of Europe. The fallout was particularly severe in the northern
reaches of Ukraine, western Russia and Belarus. 

Areas immediately around the now-inoperative plant remain
off-limits, but people in other areas that received significant
fallout are anxious about their health. 

The World Health Organization issued a study Tuesday estimating
the affected areas would suffer approximately 9,335 deaths over
the decades attributable to contamination from the disaster. It
said 405 of those deaths took place in the first decade after
the explosion. 

The report stressed the numbers were not precise predictions,
because ``considerable uncertainty surrounds such estimates, as
the radiation doses are mostly inadequately quantified.'' 

But WHO added that the study's findings ``do not substantiate
earlier claims that tens or evens hundreds of thousands of
deaths will be caused by radiation exposures from the Chernobyl
accident.'' 

Another U.N. study last year - done by the International Atomic
Energy Agency and several other U.N. groups - came to a similar
conclusion, predicting that the disaster would cause about 9,000
deaths. 

Before WHO's study was released, Greenpeace harshly disagreed
with last year's report, suggesting it was deliberately
misleading. Citing data from the former Soviet republics of
Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, the environmental group predicted
93,000 excess deaths. 

``It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing the impacts of
the most serious nuclear accident in human history,'' Ivan
Blokov of Greenpeace's Russia office said in a statement.
``Denying the real implications is not only insulting to the
thousands of victims but it also leads to dangerous
recommendations and the relocation of people in contaminated
areas.'' 

The Chernobyl Forum report suggested many of the health problems
and complaints in the regions around Chernobyl were connected
with unhealthy lifestyles, including heavy drinking and smoking,
and with a culture of victimization. The WHO report also noted
the region has a higher mortality rate than most Western
nations. 

Volodymyr Bebeshko, a professor at the Ukrainian Center for
Radiation Medicine, said he participated in the Chernobyl Forum
study but refused to endorse the findings. 

``They are very clearly trying to minimize the consequences,''
he told The Associated Press. 

Bebeshko said studies have found increases in not only thyroid
cancer, but also breast cancer in the wives of men who cleaned
up after the explosion and big increases in leukemia and other
blood disorders. 

Greenpeace cited a report by the Center for Independent
Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences that
found a sharply increased mortality in western Russia over the
past 15 years, suggesting the rise was due to Chernobyl
radiation. 

``On the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years,
60,000 people have died additionally in Russia because of the
Chernobyl accident and estimates of the total death toll for
Ukraine and Belarus could be another 140,000,'' Greenpeace said
in a statement. 

--- 

On the Net: 

World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/ionizing-radiation/chernobyl/who-chernobyl-rep
ort -2006.pd 

f 

Greenpeace International:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international 

Chernobyl Forum:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/consequences.html 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 29 ForUm: Ukravtodor delegation to visit Chernobyl zone
 
  News / 19 April 2006 | 11:25   

April 21, Ukravtodor President Vadym Hurzhos will visit 30-km
dead zone in Chernobyl. In the course of the meeting, the
consultation will be held in Slavutich. 

The main attention will be focused at the issue of the local
roads handover to Ukravtodor. 

The handover of the local roads is caused by the absolute
necessity of roads renewal. Ukravtodor intends to repair the
access expressways to the nuclear plant and to maintain them
properly, Ukravtodor press office reports. 

Ukravtodor President Hurzhos is to visit Shelter and to award
Ivanovsky Avtodor workers providing the exploitation of the
roads within the zone.   

   Comments Ru (04:53 | 20 April,2006) Chernobil reactor was
built by Ukrainians and was under Ukrainian control. All energy
went to Ukraine. Ukraine must pay to Russia for radioactive
pollution from Cheronobyl (Ukraine). Ukraine must pay
compensation to Russia not only for radioactive pollution from
Ukraine but even for polluted meat and milk, that went during
last 15 years to Russia. Add new comment Name:
 
Comment:    characters left
 

       News 19 April 2006 17:32 Victor Chernomyrdin: Ukraine
needs CEA 17:11 The oil patch has been found in Black Sea 16:50
Naftogaz owes nothing to RosUkrEnergo 16:37 President convened
Chornobyl meeting 16:22 Bush congratulated Yanukovich with
victory 15:55 Ukraine's Environmental Ministry initiates the
fine increase for the pollution 15:38 Western Ukraine wants PM
Tymoshenko 15:18 Ukraine's raw sugar import quata to be 260,000
tons 14:57 Yushchenko to have talks with G-7 about Chernobyl
14:33 The Interior Ministers of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia
hold a meeting 14:09 The tender winner to exploit Kerch section
of Black Sea shelf 13:40 The World Bank to help Ukrainian
education system 13:26 Turkish and Ukrainian businessmen hold
meeting 13:03 Emma Udwin: The EU expects the new government of
Ukraine will focus on reforms 12:02 Our Ukraine: There is no
alternative to the orange coalition 

  Editorial staff:english@for-ua.com
 All rights are reserved by © LTD. Inter-Media,
 ForUm 2001-2006       
*****************************************************************
 30 Australian Financial Review: Nuclear boost to government power

  April 20 2006

OPINION »  LETTERS 

If anyone is wondering why a consensus seems to be emerging that
nuclear power is OK, there is another reason besides our
insatiable addiction to economic growth. 

The generation of nuclear energy brings with it a very special
need to expand and amplify the power of the state in the name of
security. 

Clearly the fear of terrorism is not enough to ensure the
increased social discipline, conformity and obedience on which
our governing elites have become so dependent. 

Everybody knows nuclear power and its progeny of everlasting
toxic waste are dangerous, so the arguments for yet more curbs
on our liberties do not even have to be made. Scary. 

Tony Barrell, Balmain, NSW. 



*****************************************************************
 31 RIA Novosti: Russian academic sees first nuclear fusion power plant by 2030

Science &Technologies - 

19/ 04/ 2006                                  

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, April 18 (RIA Novosti) - The world's first
thermonuclear power plant could be built by 2030, the head of
Russia's Kurchatov Nuclear Research Center said Wednesday. 

Yevgeny Velikhov told a press conference after receiving the
2006 Global Energy prize along with Japanese researcher Masaji
Yoshikawa and French scientist Robert Aymar that the experience
of building an international thermonuclear reactor in France
would be used to design a thermonuclear power plant. 

Velikhov and his colleagues were given the award for developing
the fundamentals underpinning the international thermonuclear
power reactor known as the ITER project in the southern French
town of Cadarache. It was devised to prove that a thermonuclear
power plant was possible. 

The concept emerged when the Soviet Union suggested that the
four most advanced parties in the study of thermonuclear
reactions - the U.S.S.R., the U.S., Europe and Japan - create a
so-called "tokamak" reactor, a doughnut-shaped chamber to
confine incandescent plasma that no material can withstand in a
magnetic field. The thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes,
deuterium and tritium, proceeds in the plasma.

 The world's first tokamak was produced in Moscow in 1955, and
research was carried out in the Soviet Union alone for the next
15 years. 

The more than $12 billion ITER project, which involves Russia,
the United States, Japan, China, South Korea and the European
Union, was ready for implementation long ago, but the parties
could not reach a compromise on the site for the construction.
The EU had the support of Russia and China to build the reactor.
Japan had the backing of the U.S. and South Korea to construct
it in Rokkasho in the north of the country.

 France finally beat out Japan in its bid to host an
experimental nuclear fusion reactor expected to produce clean
and safe energy.
 
© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 32 RIA Novosti: New Chernobyl casing to be built by 2010 - Yushchenko
 
19/ 04/ 2006                                  

KIEV, April 19 (RIA Novosti, Olga Bernatskaya) - The construction 
of a new sarcophagus above the Chernobyl reactor that blew up in 
1986 will be completed in 2010, the Ukrainian president said 
Wednesday. 

"Construction of a new sarcophagus as part of international aid 
will be fully completed in 2010 if the results of an open tender 
to implement this project are summed up in time," Viktor 
Yushchenko said at a conference. 

He also said national and global health and rehabilitation
programs should be drafted. 

Yushchenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the
condition of the nuclear power plant and rehabilitation
possibilities for disaster survivors in a telephone
conversation, the Ukrainian presidential press service said. 

The explosion at the Chernobyl NPP in April 1986 spewed
radioactive clouds not only across Western parts of the Soviet
Union, but also some countries in northern and Western Europe. 

About 135,000 people were evacuated from within an 18-mile zone,
which has left the surrounding area looking like a ghost town to
this day. Many people, however, stayed or have returned to live
there, although radiation is still leaking from the site. 

The catastrophe caused enormous economic damage to the former
Soviet Union, and claimed the lives of many local people and
clean-up workers. 

Chernobyl 20 years on                                 
     
© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 33 BBC NEWS: Health | 'Too little known on Chernobyl'
 
19 April 2006, 17:00 GMT 18:00 UK

The damaged reactor at Chernobyl                                                            

Not enough is yet known to fully evaluate the long-term health 
effect of the Chernobyl disaster, experts argue. 

Twenty years after the nuclear incident, it is still not clear
what the full effect on people exposed to radioactive materials
will be. 

Estimates of the number of people who will die as a result have
ranged from 9,000 to 93,000 deaths. 

But writing in Nature, experts said it was simply too soon to
say what the final toll would be. 

Sixty-two deaths have so far been attributed directly to
Chernobyl. 

There have been 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in
children and adults, resulting in 15 deaths. 

'Counter estimates' 

A draft version of the UN's Chernobyl Forum last year suggested
up to 4,000 deaths could be linked to the incident. 

If a full independent study of the consequences of the world's 
worst nuclear accident is not established ... wildly differing 
claims will continue           [ src=] Dr Dillwyn Williams and Dr 
Keith Baverstock     

But this figure was based on the 600,000 people exposed to high 
levels of radiation. 

The full report suggested another 5,000 of the 6.8 million
people exposed to lower levels would also die - but this figure
did not appear in the 50-page executive summary. 

All of this data was from a 1996 study. 

Explaining why the 4,000 figure was given prominence in the
report, Melissa Fleming, a press officer for the International
Atomic Energy Agency told Nature that it was to counter the much
higher estimates which had previously been seen. 

"It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less
than conventional wisdom." 

However, the figure has been removed from the final version of
the forum's report. 

It is much lower than the 93,000 figure given by Greenpeace in
its evaluation of the Chernobyl impact published this week. 

Japanese models 

Writing in the journal, Dr Dillwyn Williams a thyroid cancer
expert from Strangeways Research Laboratories, Cambridge, UK,
and Dr Keith Baverstock, an environmental specialist from the
University of Kuopio in Finland, said lessons could be learnt
from history. 

They said the aftermath of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki
and Hiroshima by the US was that 20 years is too soon to be able
to predict all the consequences of fallout. 

The radiation exposure was different in Japan - where the bombs
led to whole body radiation. 

After Chernobyl, exposure was largely from radioactive particles
inhaled or ingested by people living nearby - except for those
working near the reactor. 

But the scientists say the Japanese Radiation Effects Research
Foundation, which was set up to study the bombs' legacy, is a
good model for monitoring the effect of Chernobyl. 

The thyroid cancers seen have been linked to high levels of
radioactive isotopes of iodine. 

But radioactive iodine can also concentrate in the salivary
glands, the stomach and the breast tissue. 

There are already indications that the breast cancer rate in
Gomel, Belarus, and other heavily contaminated areas, is double
that which would be expected. 

Drs Williams and Baverstock add: "If a full, independent study
of the consequences of the world's worst nuclear accident is not
established, and its results not widely published for all to
assess, wildly differing claims will continue, and public
mistrust of the nuclear industry will grow further." 

'Paralysing fatalism' 

Other experts say wrangling over numbers is hampering survivors'
recovery. 

Louisa Vinton, who manages Chernobyl projects for the UN
Development Programme, said myths about radiation had created a
"paralysing fatalism". 

The mental health of people in the area had suffered, with seven
million being labelled as victims of the accident, and aid to
the area had created a culture of dependency, which might have
encouraged exaggerated fears of ill health among residents, she
said. 

The worst-hit areas will be radioactive for centuries; but much
of the abandoned area will be habitable within decades. 

The Chernobyl Forum says the 30-km exclusion zone around the
plant is likely to remain in place. 

But it suggested that, in other areas, roads should be rebuilt
and people encouraged to start up farms and hospitals. 

		 		 	 	 	 	 		 	 		 			 			 			 			Leaders 'not ready' for
Chernobyl 'likely to kill 4,000'                                                                          
*****************************************************************
 34 TheNewsTribune.com: Beautiful reactor, but still shut down | 

Tacoma, WA
 
The Associated Press 

Published: April 19th, 2006 01:00 AM 

RICHLAND, Benton County  Supporters of saving a research reactor 
at the Hanford nuclear reservation held a bittersweet 
commemoration for the Fast Flux Test Facility to celebrate it 
being named a National Nuclear Historic Landmark. 

The Fast Flux Test Facility is the last remaining sodium-cooled
reactor in the United States. 

Built to test advanced nuclear fuels, from 1982 to 1992 the
reactor was used for research, to produce medical and industrial
isotopes and to make tritium. 

The federal government ordered the reactor closed in 1993 after
determining it had no profitable mission. 

But business interests in the area have argued for years that it
should be preserved until an investor can be found to use it to
make medical isotopes or for some other purpose. 

The reactor remains shut down because of work in the area. 

Those who led efforts to pay for, design, build and operate the
reactor gathered Monday to celebrate the reactors landmark
designation by the American Nuclear Society. 

Ive frequently said it is a beautiful reactor, said former
Rep. Mike McCormack, D-Richland., who fought to get money for
it. And its mission was spectacularly successful. 

Mike Lawrence, a former Department of Energy Hanford manager,
said the reactor seemed to be one of the few things that didnt
cause problems at the nuclear reservation during its years of
operations. 

The Energy Department manages cleanup at the 586-square-mile
Hanford site, which was created in the 1940s as part of the
top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. 

According to the American Nuclear Society, radiation exposure to
operators at the reactor was just 1 percent of the exposure to
operators of commercial power reactors. The FFTF had the best
operations record of any reactor at Hanford. 

The reactor produced rare radioactive isotopes for medicine and
industry. It also helped develop fuels for nuclear power for
space missions, and advanced knowledge about nuclear reactor
components, materials and fuels. Copyright 2005 Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.   

 1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742 
© Copyright 2006 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy
Company   

*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Power Plant

News Release - Region I - 2006-026 - 

  NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of 
Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov   

  No. I-06-026                          April 19, 2006 CONTACT:     
Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     
E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  
  
  Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, on
Wednesday, April 26, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of
safety performance at the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant.
The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31,
2005. 

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, operates the twin-reactor
plant, located in Scriba, N.Y. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the plants Joint News Center,
located at the Oswego County Airport, on County Route 176 in
Fulton, N.Y. The NRC staff will present the results of the
assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments
from the public before the close of the meeting. 

As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety
performance of the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant during
the previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J.
Collins said. The meeting on April 26th will afford the public a
chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and to
pose any questions they might have regarding plant performance
or our oversight activities. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/nmp_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . The meeting notice, with the meeting agenda
attached, is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number
ML060860265. The NRC slides for the meeting are available in
ADAMS under accession number ML060950037. ADAMS is accessible
via the agencys web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. 

Overall, the Nine Mile Point plant operated safely during the
period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and
performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings
and performance indicators for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2
during 2005 were determined to be green, the plant will receive
a baseline (or routine) level of inspections during the upcoming
assessment period. 

Routine inspections are performed by three NRC Resident
Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists
from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas
of plant operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC
specialists are radiological safety, fire protection and
emergency planning. 

Current performance information for Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NMP1/nmp1_chart.html. 

Current performance information for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NMP2/nmp2_chart.html.   

Last revised Wednesday, April 19, 2006     
*****************************************************************
 36 Platts: Greenpeace disputes official estimates of Chernobyl health impact
 
Washington (Platts)--18Apr2006
 
Official estimates of the health impact from the Chernobyl 
accident have been "hugely under-estimated," Greenpeace said 
today in releasing a new report. 

The report predicts that 270,000 cancers will be caused by 
Chernobyl fallout, and 93,000 of those will be fatal. 

In a report released in September 2005, the Chernobyl Forum, 
established at the request of the IAEA, estimated 
accident-related deaths at about 4,000. 

The 138-page Greenpeace report, "Chernobyl Catastrophe: 
Consequences on Human Health," is on the web at: 
www.greenpeace.org/chernobylhealthconsequncesreport.
 
														Terms & Conditions 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

  
*****************************************************************
 37 REGNUM: “Ukraine should develop nuclear power industry”

Hartron-Arkos Chief Designer: 

10:38:13  ¤  April 20, 2006 Subscribe 

General Manager, Chief Designer of Hartron-Arkos Corporation
Yuriy Zlatkin believes that Ukraine has to develop a new program
of nuclear power development, as he commented to REGNUMreporter
at a news conference in Kharkov on April 18. 

“Even despite of Chernobyl tragedy, I personally support nuclear
power development’, stressed Zlatkin. ‘Look at Japan’s nuclear
industry with its dozens of nuclear power plants. I have
personally visited an NPP in France, which convinced me that
nuclear power industry has many perspectives. I do not see any
alternatives to this energy source. The only problem here is the
human factor, since personal responsibility is not quite
intrinsic to our mentality. This was one of the main factors of
disaster at Chernobyl NPP. Nuclear energy requires high level of
personnel proficiency and discipline, and I am sure we will be
able to achieve it”. 

Hartron enterprise was founded in Kharkov in 1959 as a research
and manufacturing association for the development, manufacturing
and maintenance of automated control systems for space-rocket
complexes. It was one of three leading firms in the former USSR
which developed automated control systems for space rocket
equipment. Now it is a holding company with factories in Kharkov
and Zaporozhye. At present, it takes part in Ukrainian, Russian,
and international space projects. Hartron is a leader in the
sphere of reconstruction of automated control systems for
Ukrainian NPPs, in particular, Rovno NPP. It is building
cooperation with Ukrainian and Russian oil and gas and chemical
recovery enterprises. 

. Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/626070.html

“Chernobyl catastrophe” - Latest Headlines:

  RIAN.RU     

© 1999-2006 REGNUM News Agency 
*****************************************************************
 38 Platts: ANALYSIS: UK lawmakers say nukes won't fill energy gap, gas
could 

London (Platts)--18Apr2006 

New nuclear power plants cannot help the UK fill its generation 
gap over the next 10 years or help the UK reduce its carbon 
dioxide over that period, "as it simply could not be built in 
time," members of parliament from the House of Commons 
Environmental Audit Committee said in a report released Easter 
Sunday. 

However, the MPs said that a second "dash-for-gas" similar to the 
expansion of gas-fired power plants in the 1990s could be the 
answer. "The potential generating gap during this period will 
need to be filled--largely by an extensive program of new 
gas-fired power stations," the lawmakers said. Another 
"dash-for-gas" would result in "significant carbon savings," 
contrary to popular opinion, they said. 

By 2016 between 15 GW and 20 GW of electricity plant is set to be 
decommissioned, nearly a quarter of total UK generating capacity. 
About half of this capacity is existing nuclear and half is coal. 

Many commentators have questioned the wisdom of building new 
gas-fired power plants on security of supply grounds, especially 
after flows for gas from Russia to western Europe were 
interrupted during a dispute with Ukraine early in 2006. But the 
MPs' report said that security of gas supplies was probably a 
problem the UK would have to get over whether or not it had new 
gas-fired power plants. "We will in any case become highly 
dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels for our total energy 
requirements--including over twice as much natural gas for 
industrial and domestic uses as we use for electricity 
generation," the MPs said. 

Senior industry figures have expressed similar views to the 
committee. Centrica Energy's MD Jake Ulrich said in March that 
nuclear "doesn't really hit the short-term or mid-term issues." 
Ulrich said gas-fired generation was still attractive and would 
be "favored" by the long-term trend for saving carbon dioxide 
emissions. Centrica is developing a new 1,000-MW gas-fired plant 
at Langage in Devon. Other major UK energy companies including 
Eon UK and RWE-Npower are also planning new gas-fired power 
plants. But no one yet has firm plans for nuclear power plants in 
the UK. 

The MPs in their report cast doubt over the future of nuclear. 
Before new nuclear could be built, long-term waste disposal, 
public acceptability, the availability of uranium and the threat 
of terrorism needs to be addressed, they said. "It is by no means 
clear whether investors will wish to commit themselves to 70 
years of nuclear generation," the committee said. 

The report argues that renewables and carbon capture and storage 
technologies deserve a lot more support than they are getting. It 
also said more action was needed to reduce demand. 

The Environmental Audit Committee called the government's energy 
review into question. "It does not appear to have resulted from a 
due process of monitoring and accountability," the MPs said. Some 
critics have called the review little more than a smokescreen for 
the government to launch a program of new nuclear, which Prime 
Minister Tony Blair is said to favor.

The government has said that the energy review would decide 
whether to go ahead with new nuclear. The committee was puzzled. 
The government has declared itself in favor of a market-based 
approach in which industry decides the forms of generation it 
wants to support. The MPs questioned what sort of decision the 
government could therefore make on nuclear. The report says the 
nature of the decision is "unclear." The suspicion is that the 
government--in making a decision on nuclear-- could break with 
its past declarations that it will not prescribe the UK fuel mix. 
Some commentators have said a "nuclear obligation" could be 
introduced, forcing companies to buy a set percentage of nuclear 
power. That would be "a major U-turn in energy policy," the MPs 
said. If government is going to make decisions on nuclear, they 
said it was unclear why the government should not make similar 
"decisions" on many other technologies, suggesting a much more 
interventionist role. 

Long-term the committee backs the White Paper of 2003. "We remain 
convinced that the vision contained in the White Paper--with its 
focus on energy efficiency and renewables as cornerstones of a 
future sustainable energy policy--remains correct." David Porter, 
CEO of the UK Association of Electricity Producers, said Sunday 
the UK faced a huge generation gap. Electricity companies "want 
to invest" he said but "they cannot invest in any new project, 
without taking account of the politics." He said government must 
complete its energy review on time, by summer 2006, and make sure 
it produces a framework for energy policy that lets the market 
make decisions. It has to be clear and long-lasting, he said. 
Long-term certainty is particularly needed over carbon emissions. 
A plant may have a life of 30 years or more, but today's carbon 
framework only runs until 2012. For more information, take a 
trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ 

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved 

[The McGraw-Hill Companies] 
*****************************************************************
 39 APP.COM: Debate continues over Oyster Creek nuclear plant
         
| Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
 April 19, 2006
  	 	 
Lacey plant isn't unique

 Oyster Creek's opponents argue that it is the oldest operating
nuclear power plant in the country. This is true. However, if
intended to place Oyster Creek in a negative light, there needs
to be some perspective.

Although Oyster Creek was the first large-scale commercial
nuclear plant in the United States to begin operation, it is
certainly not alone. Just a couple months younger are Dresden
Unit 2, Ginna and Nine Mile Point Unit 1. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has approved license renewals for Dresden and Ginna.
Both plants will now operate for an additional 20 years, making
their full length of operation 60 years. Nine Mile Point's
license renewal process is under way.

If you look at just another two years from 1969 through 1971,
there are another five plants that began operations (Dresden
Unit 3, Monticello, Palisades, Point Beach Unit 1 and Robinson
Unit 2). Of these additional five plants, three license renewal
applications have been approved and two applications are pending.

Oyster Creek's opponents state that nuclear reactors were built
to last no more than 40 years. This is not true. The 40-year
operating term reflects the accounting amortization period
generally used by electric utility companies for large capital
investments. This 40-year period is not based on any safety or
technical issues.

Oyster Creek can operate safely for an additional 20 years. Let
the experts at the NRC make the determination about Oyster
Creek. After all, they have the operating experience information
and aging management data from all of the nation's nuclear
plants.

Tim Trettel

LACEY

SYSTEM MANAGER

OYSTER CREEK EMPLOYEE

FOR 21 YEARS

Aging plant is at issue

 Some may look at the Oyster Creek issue as a debate on the
merits of nuclear power. It is not. What is at issue here is
this one aging plant, the oldest nuclear power facility in the
country.

This plant's reactor is based on a design that is obsolete and
no longer in use. The former head of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Office of Nuclear Regulation has said there was a
90 percent probability that the type of containment used at
Oyster Creek would fail in an accident involving a core meltdown.

The quality of the plant's infrastructure is also in doubt.
Independent experts have warned there is possible corrosion in
the plant's drywell liner, which could cause the structure to
collapse in the event of a reactor accident.

Exelon, the owner of Oyster Creek, has refused to allow
independent ultrasonic testing of the drywell liner, the only
way to determine the severity of the corrosion. Until these
tests are conducted, the NRC should not proceed with the plant's
20-year relicensing request.

If Exelon were willing to build a new nuclear power plant, we
could have debate the pros and cons of nuclear power. But it's
not. It's all about Oyster Creek and the potential threat the
plant's antiquated reactor poses to tens of thousands of area
residents.

Tom Rapsas

ISLAND HEIGHTS

"Tooth Fairy" findings disputed

 The Asbury Park Press' article concerning a potential link
between the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey and
the occurrence of childhood cancers in the Toms River area left
out a few pertinent facts. (" "Tooth Fairy Project' follow-up
links radiation, childhood cancer," March 29.)

On Feb. 21, 2004, the Chicago Tribune published an article
questioning the suspect methods used by the Radiation and Public
Health Project to arrive at their questionable conclusions. The
state Department of Environmental Protection (certainly no
friend of Oyster Creek or plant owner Exelon) has recommended to
Gov. Corzine that New Jersey stop funding the project's
pseudo-scientific efforts.

The Press has decided to put its editorial muscle behind these
groups and work to close Oyster Creek. That is your right, but
you do your readers a great disservice by supporting groups that
confuse wishful thinking and facts. The Press' use of editorial
fear-mongering and Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) only helps to
obscure the real problems with fossil- and renewable energy
sources.

Continued use of coal to generate electricity not only poisons
our air and is a leading contributor to global warming, it also
destroys the landscape and lives of the people who live near
where it is mined.

In addition to contributing to global warming, the increasing
use of foreign oil-fired generation is a major threat to U.S.
security and increased gasoline and home heating costs.

Renewable energy has some promise to help alleviate our
increasing demand for electricity. Unfortunately, wind and solar
will never be able to replace base-load generation. There are a
lot of cold, dark, windless nights when the lights would simply
go out.

Nuclear power is no panacea. There are valid concerns regarding
waste storage and security. But in the near term, nuclear power
is the only viable generation alternative that does not
contribute to global warming or American dependence on unstable
foreign governments.

If Oyster Creek is closed, which source of replacement
electricity will the Press and these concerned groups be
prepared to support?

Tim Sexsmith

BRADLEY BEACH

Outside study stalled in House

 The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey is in everyone's
back yard because the range and consequences of a severe
incident caused by accident or design (terrorism) would affect
more than 3.5 million people living within a 50-mile radius of
the plant.

Oyster Creek is the oldest operating nuclear plant in the United
States. Exelon, which owns the plant, has applied for an
extension to the operating permit for another 20 years that
would allow it to be operational until 2029.

The protective drywell has been infiltrated with corrosion.
Inspection reports from the 1990s show that some areas of the
drywell liner thinned to within 0.064 inches of minimum design
tolerances. Corroded sections of the liner were "repaired" in
1994 by pressure-cleaning and painting the corroded areas with
an epoxy coating.

Forced with a shortage of storage in the pool for spent fuel
rods, the plant built above-ground fuel rod storage units that
are only hundreds of yards from Route 9. With the government's
failure to provide a permanent storage facility nationwide, the
plant will continue to produce this toxic byproduct, which will
have to be stored on site.

Because of these facts, along with post-9/11 concerns that
identify nuclear plants as highly possible targets for
terrorism, Rep. H. James Saxton, R-N.J., has introduced HR-966
that would require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
an independent assessment of safety and security issues at
Oyster Creek prior to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granting
relicensing approval. The bill would require the NRC to evaluate
the facility for health risks, vulnerability to terrorist
attack, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store
nuclear waste and the impact of a nuclear accident during the
relicensing process.

The bill is pending before the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Give your congressman a call. Urge that he vote yes
for this important legislation. If we don't take care of our
back yards, nobody else will do it for us.

Thomas J. Cervasio

BERKELEY

CHAIRMAN

ENVIROWATCH

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 Rutland Herald: Yankee phone test a success

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
April 19, 2006 

Southern Vermont Bureau   

BRATTLEBORO — The first test of Vermont Yankee's telephone
emergency notification system was a success Tuesday, according
to plant officials.

Rob Williams, spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear, said
the system rang 5,000 homes in the first few minutes and a total
of 11,000 homes in the first 30 minutes. He said some homes in
the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the plant may receive
messages on their answering machines about the test.

Plant officials still were reviewing some of the data at 5 p.m.
Tuesday, five hours after the test began, Williams said.

The next step will be building a database of local home and cell
phone numbers, he said.
   
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 41 NRC: NRC and Pennsylvania Company, GeoMechanics, to Discuss Apparent Violations Involving
Nuclear Gauge

News Release - Region I - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-027                          
April 19, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  
  

representatives of GeoMechanics, Inc., an Elizabeth (Allegheny
County), Pa.-based consulting company, on Wednesday, April 26,
to discuss two apparent violations of agency regulations
stemming from the temporary loss of a nuclear gauge. One deals
with a failure by a company employee to secure the gauge in
compliance with agency requirements; another involves a failure
to file a written report with the NRC following the theft of the
device. 

Known as a predecisional enforcement conference, the meeting is
scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the NRC Region I Office, 475
Allendale Road in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the
public and NRC staff will be available to answer questions
before the session is adjourned. 

The apparent violations were identified as the result of an NRC
inspection conducted in January and February 2006 at
GeoMechanics office in Elizabeth and at a temporary job site in
West Elizabeth, Pa. The inspection was conducted in response to
an event in September of last year. On Sept. 18, 2005, an
employee of the company authorized to use its nuclear gauges
parked a pickup truck holding a gauge in the parking lot of a
South Charleston, W.Va., motel. The gauge, which contains small
amounts of cesium-137 and americium-241 and is used for such
industrial purposes as measuring soil density, was in a locked
container in the open bed of the vehicle. The container was
secured to the truck using a single lock and chain. 

The following morning, the employee discovered the lock had been
cut and the container, including the gauge, had been removed.
Local police and the NRC were immediately notified. 

On Sept. 23, 2005, the gauge was found abandoned along a highway
in Danville, W.Va. It was still in its container and was
undamaged. 

Based on the results of an inspection, the NRC has identified
two apparent violations by GeoMechanics. The NRC, as of July
2005, requires that a minimum of two independent physical
controls be used to secure portable nuclear gauges from being
stolen or lost. In this case, a single chain and lock were used
to secure the gauge to the vehicle while it was parked
overnight. 

The second apparent violation is based on GeoMechanics failure
to submit a written report to the NRC within 30 days following a
theft of radioactive material requiring an immediate telephone
report. Specifically, the company notified the NRC of the theft
by telephone on Sept. 19, 2005. The required report was not
received until Feb. 9, 2006. 

The purpose of the April 26th meeting is to obtain information
to enable the NRC to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is warranted. For instance, there will be an effort to come to a
common understanding of the facts and a discussion of root
causes of the event and corrective actions undertaken by the
company. 

No decision will be made by the NRC staff at the session.
Rather, NRC management will render a decision in the near
future.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, April 19, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 42 JOURNAL NEWS: Riverkeeper to sue over leak at Indian Point

By GREG CLARY
 
Hudson River's 'keeper' 

Riverkeeper is a nonprofit organization founded in 1966. It's 
dedicated to protecting the ecology of the Hudson River and the 
watershed area that provides drinking water to New York City and 
parts of the northern suburbs.

• Indian Point 2 to shut down for refueling, 6A
   
(Original publication: April 19, 2006)
 

The crux of Riverkeeper's lawsuit against Indian Point is
whether leaking strontium 90 at the nuclear power station is
hazardous waste as defined by the Environmental Protection
Agency  or radioactive waste under the control of another
federal agency.

Riverkeeper says the EPA should have been notified in August,
when the radiated water was discovered at the Buchanan site.

"We're not talking about somebody's septic system," said Karl
Coplan, the director of the Pace Environmental Law Clinic, which
will pursue the case for Riverkeeper. "We're talking about
nuclear waste."

Indian Point officials say they met their obligation by quickly
reporting the leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
oversees the plants. A federal judge in White Plains may get a
chance to sort out the answers.

Riverkeeper filed papers yesterday that the organization's
officials vow will grow into a full-fledged lawsuit after
allowing the plant's owner, Entergy, the required 60 days to
either solve the problem by officially notifying the EPA or opt
to fight the challenge in court.

The environmental group, celebrating its 40th anniversary of
watching over the Hudson River, isn't seeking financial damages
but wants the EPA involved in the leak probe and the public
involved more in potential plans for cleaning up the
contamination.

Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets said the company is pushing
ahead with the investigation into the cause of the leak, and has
met and will continue to meet its federal, state and public
responsibilities.

"We're acting on very little information because they haven't
filed a lawsuit yet," Steets said of Riverkeeper. "They appear
to be referring to regulations for hazardous materials, not
radioactive materials. It simply boils down to the fact that
(the EPA) doesn't have jurisdiction."

EPA spokeswoman Bonnie Bellow said agency officials had not seen
a copy of Riverkeeper's intention to sue.

"It would be premature for us to comment," Bellow said. "The
primary regulatory agency is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

Bellow said that "in certain circumstances" the agency had the
responsibility to deal with radioactive material.

Philip Musegaas, Riverkeeper's policy analyst for Indian Point,
said the EPA was the proper agency to be involved in the
groundwater contamination because the leak comes from a holding
tank, and the agency's list of possible contaminants includes
radioactive isotopes like strontium 90.

The source of the leak of strontium  and the less dangerous
tritium  has not been determined, and Entergy drilled 23
monitoring wells on the property to gauge the extent of the
leak. The NRC and state health and environmental officials have
taken split samples from those wells in a months-long effort to
measure the extent of the contamination.

Lisa Rainwater Van Suntum, who is leading Riverkeeper's campaign
to close the nuclear plants, estimated the company makes $2
million a day from its Indian Point operation and can afford to
perform a "prompt and timely remediation."

Steets emphatically denied the $2 million figure. He declined to
give a more accurate accounting but said the company wasn't
pinching pennies on the leak.

"We have the money to do what's appropriate at Indian Point, and
we're doing it," Steets said. "We meet or surpass all the
regulations. We're not sparing any expense in dealing with this
groundwater issue."

Coplan said he didn't expect to the case to make it to court
until late this year or next.

Copyright 2006 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of
this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7,
2005. 
*****************************************************************
 43 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point to shut down for refueling

By GREG CLARY gclary@lohud.com

(Original publication: April 19, 2006)

BUCHANAN  Indian Point 2 will be shut down for the next month
or so for refueling, an event that takes place once every two
years for special maintenance and that officials say should not
affect the region's electricity supply.

"We rotate shutting down (the plants) from year to year," said
Indian Point spokesman Jim Steets. "We ran a shorter cycle for
Indian Point 2 this time so that both plants are now done in the
spring."

Steets said the shutdown was not connected to the leaking
radioactive water discovered in August. Officials at Entergy
Nuclear Northeast, which operates the plants, are still
determining the cause of the underground water contamination,
which has led to tritium and strontium 90 reaching the Hudson
River.

A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the
shutdown is going according to plan and the agency will have at
least three extra people on-site to oversee the work.

Entergy officials said they chose the spring for refueling
because energy demand is low and shutting down reduces the need
for Hudson River water during fish-spawning season.

"We would never do this during August," Steets said, noting the
increased electricity needs of the summer. "The grid should be
able to handle the demand now."

Attempts to reach the New York Independent System Operator, a
nonprofit organization created in 1998 to ensure the efficient
delivery of electricity across the state, were unsuccessful
yesterday, but NYISO officials in the past have said the market
adjusts quickly to such a loss and maintains an 1,800-megawatt
reserve.

Shutting down Indian Point 2 would take about 1,000 megawatts
off the state's power grid, about 5 percent of the total supply,
NYISO officials have said.

Indian Point 3, which also generates 1,000 megawatts, will
continue its operation, company officials said.

The last time Indian Point 2 was shut down for refueling was
November 2004. The company expects to have the nuclear reactor
back in operation by the end of May.

Steets said the company also would use the opportunity to
replace power transformers and inspect the reactor vessel.

Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 44 Mos News: Chernobyl After-Effects Emotional not Medical — Russian Scientists - 

MOSNEWS.COM
 
Photo: AP               
 	 	
Created: 19.04.2006 11:59 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:59 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	
Russian scientists have downplayed the medical impact of the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster. They said the victims had suffered
more emotional and social trauma than actual illness caused by
radiation.

The director of the Institute of Nuclear Problems, Igor Lingue,
quoted by AFP at a news conference marking the disaster’s 20th
anniversary, said that “most of those who took part in rescue
operations at the plant after the accident believe that the
impact of radiation on people’s health is open to debate.”

“Compared to the radiation caused by Chernobyl, the other
factors triggered by the accident such as psychological stress,
the disruption of their lives and financial losses proved to be
greater problems for the population,” he added.

Lingue said that of the 600,000 so-called liquidators —-
soldiers, firefighters and civilians who were deployed over the
following four years to clean up after the disaster —- “only
5,000 have died in the past 20 years”. Thus the death rate was
no higher than the average for Russia’s male population.

Lingue said major social problems had ensued, because of the
emergency evacuation of some 300,000 people after the fourth
reactor at Chernobyl blew up. “We put them up in makeshift
housing. Sometimes they were not accepted by the local people.”

Greenpeace said on Tuesday that the radiation caused by the
explosion was eventually likely to cause an additional 93,000
cancer deaths in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

In September, the World Health Organization issued a report that
estimated the overall death toll from the catastrophe in
Chernobyl at 4,000. The figure has been contested by
anti-nuclear lobbies. 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	     
    	 
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 45 Reuters: WHO must study Chernobyl's effect on Europe-report
         
Wed 19 Apr 2006 12:41 PM ET                                     

BRUSSELS, April 19 (Reuters) - The World Health Organisation 
(WHO) should study how the Chernobyl nuclear disaster affected 
nations other than Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, a report said on 
Wednesday, citing a lack of data especially for western Europe.

 "Although areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were heavily 
contaminated, most of Chernobyl's fallout was deposited outside 
these countries," said the report, which was carried out by 
independent researchers and commissioned by Rebecca Harms, a 
German member of the Greens party in the European Parliament.

 "Fallout from Chernobyl contaminated about 40 percent of 
Europe's surface area," the report said, adding that populations 
outside the three countries faced "twice as many predicted excess 
cancer deaths".

 The study predicted roughly 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths by 
the end of this century related to Chernobyl, which it said was 
significantly higher than estimates by the WHO and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 The report echoed findings by environmental group Greenpeace, 
which said on Tuesday the death toll from the disaster 20 years 
ago could be far higher than official estimates, with up to 
93,000 extra cancer deaths worldwide.

 The WHO predicts roughly 9,000 extra deaths in the hardest-hit 
and less-contaminated zones of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia as a 
result of the explosion in reactor number four at the power plant 
in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl on April 26, 1986.

 "Radiation is no respecter of national boundaries," Ian
Fairlie, one of the authors of the report, told a news
conference, adding the report was based on already-available
data.

 He called on the WHO to commission a new study separate from
the IAEA on the fallout from Chernobyl.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.                                              [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
 
                         FR Doc E6-5891 
[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)] 
[Notices] [Page 20142] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19ap06-139] [[Page 20142]]
 
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 25 
to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License 
Renewal for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice 
is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to 
the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437 
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'', regarding the renewal of 
operating licenses DPR-71 and DPR-62 for an additional 20 years 
of operation at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 
(BSEP). BSEP is operated by Carolina Power & Light Company (CP), 
now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). BSEP 
is located in Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina, 
near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Possible alternatives to 
the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and 
reasonable alternative energy sources. As discussed in Section 
9.3 of the final Supplement 25, based on (1) The analysis and 
findings in the GEIS, (2) the CP Environmental Report; (3) 
consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the 
staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration 
of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the 
Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of 
license renewal for BSEP are not so great that preserving the 
option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers 
would be unreasonable. The final Supplement 25 to the GEIS is 
publicly available at the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html; a link is provided to 
access documents through the Internet-Based component of ADAMS. 
The accession number for the final Supplement 25 to the GEIS is 
ML060900480.
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the 
William Madison Randall Library, located at 601 S. College Rd., 
Wilmington, NC 28403, has agreed to make the final Supplement 25 
to the GEIS available for public inspection.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Alicia R. Williamson, 
Environmental Branch B, Division of License Renewal, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Ms. Williamson may 
be contacted at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1878 or via e-mail at

 
ARW1@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of 
April, 2006.
 
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Frank P. Gillespie, Division Director, Division of License 
Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-5891 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 Baltic News: Chernobyl, looking back

Apr 19, 2006

By Elizabeth CelmsRIGA - On May 13, 1986, Andris Abramenkovs and 
hundreds of other Soviet Army reserves were loaded onto a train 
headed for Chernobyl. Two days earlier, while enjoying breakfast 
with his wife and two-year-old daughter, he received an order 
from the Soviet Unionâ€™s civil defense unit to lead a 
decontamination team in cleaning up what was already rumored to 
be the worldâ€™s worst nuclear disaster. Abramenkovs returned to 
his home in Riga three months later. But to say he returned to 
the life he left behind would be succumbing to the cloud of 
denial that surrounds Chernobyl.
 
TBT FEATURE
 
At 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, a series of explosions destroyed 
Reactor No 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet 
Republic of Ukraine. Witnesses described it as a horrific, yet 
ethereal sight - 130 tons of uranium and 900 tons of fatal 
graphite blasting into the atmosphere. A massive plume of 
contaminants, which included plutonium isotopes with a half-life 
of 24,360 years, hung in the sky for days, blocking out the sun 
like an omen of death. 

Within hours, the cloud had bellied its way across Ukraine, 
Belarus, and into Europe. It would be three days before the 
Soviet government announced the disaster, and only then because 
the toxic plume had set off radiation alarms in Sweden. The 
pollution would eventually travel across the world, depositing 
radioactive material in the far corners of Japan and Ireland. 
Chernobyl was, and still is, the greatest man-made disaster in 
history, and more than half a million men and women, 
â€œliquidatorsâ€ and â€œdecontaminators,â€ were called to clean 
the mess up. Hundreds of them died, while thousands more suffered 
from cancer, early heart attacks, paralysis, thyroid disorders 
and chronic illness. Their children were born deformed, sickly or 
with cancer, if even born at all. Today, 20 years after the 
Chernobyl disaster, the suffering continues.
 
Some peopleâ€™s voices say more than words. Abramenkovs is one of 
them. I wasnâ€™t able to meet the Latvian in person, as he was 
spending Easter weekend with his family, so I spoke with him over 
the phone. He told his story without emotion, but in his voice 
hung sadness. 

â€œI was very lucky,â€ Abramenkovs says slowly, letting the 
words sink in. â€œI only had health problems for three or four 
years. I went through intensive care. I got better.â€

 Two years after returning from Chernobyl, the nuclear chemist 
developed signs of cancer. Although he shied away from giving me 
medical details, the incongruous words he tossed out in a hasty 
attempt to change the subject revealed more than enough.

 â€œI discussed my condition with radiologists in Latvia. They 
said I had been affected by alpha radiation â€“ large amounts. I 
had many infections. Blood, bonesâ€¦ other things. My temperature 
was 39 degrees Celsius for many weeks. I was taken to the 
hospital. It stabilized.â€
 
Over the next several years, Abramenkovs underwent intensive 
chemo- and radiotherapy. Eventually, his symptoms subsided and 
the cancer went into remission. Today the 50-year-old says he 
feels fine. Abramenkovs attributes his â€œnot so seriousâ€ 
health problems to his profession.

 â€œYou see I was an expert in nuclear chemistry,â€ he says. 
â€œWhile I was working in Chernobyl, I could measure the toxins 
in my body and knew how to keep the level down. If I hadnâ€™t had 
this expert knowledge, my health conditions would have been far 
more serious.â€

 He pauses after saying this, and I wait for him to mention the 
possibility of death. He says nothing. A few seconds of dead 
silence linger over the phone Abramenkovsâ€™ health conditions 
are minor only when compared to the fate of others who helped 
â€œdecontaminateâ€ Chernobylâ€™s toxic wasteland. Those who knew 
the power plant best died first â€“ agonizing deaths in Kievâ€™s 
radiation ward. But for the majority, the consequences of 
radiation came later. 

â€œIt was a terrible situation [the decontamination mission]â€¦ 
so many young men in their twenties or even younger. They began 
to feel their life was close to its end,â€ the nuclear chemist 
says, reflecting on the time he spent in Ukraine. â€œThey gave up 
on the idea of a family, a future. They left it all in 
Chernobyl.â€
 
Several men in Abramenkovsâ€™ unit died at the site. They were 
brought home in body bags. 

â€œThese boys were young and naive,â€ he says. â€œThey werenâ€™t 
qualified to detoxify such a potent environment. They had no clue 
how to handle radioactive material. I had a taxi driver in my 
unit, sailors, fishermen, an 18-year-old student. They were all 
sent.â€

 While Abramenkovs would meticulously measure the toxins in his 
environment and monitor the radioactive levels in his system, 
most of his team was careless. They ignored instructions, he 
remembers, removing their protective masks to stay cool in the 
summerâ€™s sweltering heat and nonchalantly eating apples from 
trees. Whether it was from ignorance, apathy or youthâ€™s blind 
notion of immortality was hard to judge. â€œThey thought it was a 
joke. Just as they couldnâ€™t see the radiation, they couldnâ€™t 
see the consequences. But later, they came.â€

 Soviet regulations didnâ€™t help the situation. Only officers 
were given equipment to measure the areaâ€™s radiation. And the 
doses sent in for analysis were roughly calculated. 

It was little surprise that so many men developed terminal heath 
problems. The most tragic, Abramnekovs says, were the 
psychological consequences. 

â€œWe lost members.â€ His throat tightens on the words. â€œAfter 
we came home, my team started drinking. They told me their life 
seemed so close to its end.â€ He pauses. 

â€œTwo of my men - health servants, twenty-seven years old - 
killed themselves. Two others hung themselves. It was so 
tragic.â€
 
Denial 

It is nearly impossible to know just how many people have 
suffered because of Chernobyl. Accurate statistics are difficult 
enough to collect without a system that deliberately distorted 
the evidence. In the months that followed, the Soviet government 
kept the health reports of the liquidators who helped clean up 
confidential. 

Even today, when hundreds of Ukrainians and Belarusians, who all 
live within the explosionâ€™s toxic wake, are diagnosed each year 
with cancer, Russia fails to blame Chernobyl, just as the Soviet 
government refused to accept the disaster on day one. 

Janis Berzins was working at Latviaâ€™s Salaspils Nuclear 
Research Facility in April 1986. At the time it was the most 
reputed nuclear research center in the Soviet Union. From their 
science lab, Berzins and his team watched as a plume of toxins 
gradually infiltrated Latviaâ€™s skies. 

â€œAt first the sight wasnâ€™t too shocking,â€ the researcher 
says. â€œBut slowly we realized that the deposit was very big, 
and that the catastrophe was huge.â€

 The facilityâ€™s radiosensitive meters detected a growing amount 
of cesium and uranium in the air, along with several other 
radioactive elements. After two weeks the levels were alarming.

 â€œWe sent the results to Riga immediately, and asked them to 
pass the information on to Moscow,â€ Berzins recalls. â€œThey 
said Moscow didnâ€™t want our information. They threw all of our 
work out. They discarded all of our tests.â€

 It would be three months before Chernobylâ€™s environmental 
effects were made public. And the news was devastating. There 
were toxins in the ground, in the water, dappled on flowers in 
the form of dew, sprinkled over trees, gardens and homes, 
radiating from the earth, hanging in the air. Soviet and European 
society became paranoid. Mothers warned their children from 
playing outdoors and panicked if they came home wet from swimming 
in the local river. 

â€œWe were lucky it didnâ€™t rain,â€ Berzins says. â€œSince the 
weather in April and May was so dry, the cloud just floated by. 
If it had rained, all of those toxins would have poured down onto 
us.â€
 
Both Berzins and Abramenkovs were surprisingly phlegmatic when 
describing how the Soviet government dealt with the disaster. 
They spoke as if Moscowâ€™s incompetence in handling the mess and 
negligence for human life was expected. And perhaps, for them, it 
was. After all, these men had lived under the Soviet system - 
with all its shortcomings - for nearly their entire life. 

But when it came to the disaster itself, they spoke with 
frightening severity. 

â€œIn the case of Chernobyl, the price of nuclear power was too 
high,â€ says Abramenkovs, who now works as the director of 
Latviaâ€™s Hazardous Waste Management Agency. â€œThat tragedy - 
losing my team, transporting the dead bodies back to Riga - it 
was too much.â€

 Before ending our conversation, I asked the nuclear chemist what 
he felt, looking back at Chernobyl 20 years on. â€œI want to 
forget.â€
 
Developed by Julius Nalivaiko        (c) Copyright 2006 Baltic 
News Ltd.    [Hosted by DEAC]    
*****************************************************************
 48 Baltic News: Experts disagree on nuclear power project

Apr 19, 2006

 From wire reportsVILNIUS - Lithuaniaâ€™s Parliament may have to 
choose between two alternative national energy strategies since 
energy experts are divided on what time frame should be set for 
the construction of a new nuclear power plant. A draft national 
energy strategy worked out by the Lithuanian Energy Institute 
envisages that a new nuclear power plant should be built no later 
than 2020. 

  The article you requested can be accessed only by subscribing 
to the online version of The Baltic Times. If you are already 
subscribed to The Baltic Times, please log on using the form on 
the top of the page. If you don't have a membership yet - please 
subscribe.  

        Developed by Julius Nalivaiko        (c) Copyright 2006





Baltic News Ltd.    [Hosted by DEAC]    
*****************************************************************
 49 Scotsman: Inside the Dead Zone
 
Thu 20 Apr 2006 

A local resident walks in the Belarussian village of Novoselki,
just outside the 30km exclusion zone around the Chernobyl
nuclear reactor.

 Picture: AFP/Getty Images      

CHRIS STEPHEN 

Several hundred people have returned to their homes in the
irradiated Zone of Alienation, while many forms of wildlife,
including horses, are thriving in the mainly depopulated area 

NOTHING scares you in Chernobyl's Zone of Alienation as much as
leaving it. A snowbound police checkpoint guards the entrance to
this contaminated zone, which stretches 30km (18.64 miles) from
the stricken nuclear plant in all directions. If you enter this
zone, you can't leave it again without taking the test. 

A blue-uniformed officer shows you into a grey building, where a
tall machine, looking like a battered telephone kiosk, sits in
the middle of a bare floor. This is the radiation detector. 

There are pads here for your feet, thighs, arms and hands. If a
green light shows on the side of the machine, you are clean. But
a red light will mean something very different. The machine
takes an age to make up its mind, time enough to remember all
the beeps and boops of the Geiger counter you had with you
during your tour through the zone. 

That morning these same police waved us through the checkpoint
with hardly a care. Few sane people want to break into a zone
that will stay contaminated for tens of thousands of years.
Beyond the checkpoint, a potholed road leads the way through the
contaminated forests. 

Out here in the snow there is a surprisingly positive legacy of
Chernobyl: a herd of wild Przewalski horses, around a dozen of
them, eating from a haystack. Contrary to all expectations,
wildlife has thrived in the Zone of Alienation, the irradiated
soil evidently having had little effect on the wolves, deer,
lynx, boar, bears - and these rare horses. 

"The radiation does not hurt the horses like people hurt
horses," says Mary Mycio, the Ukrainian-American author of
Wormwood Forest, a book which charts the zone's flourishing
wildlife. This is the Chernobyl paradox. By getting rid of the
people, the accident has made the area safe for wildlife." 

Possibly, the animals are sicker than they look and, possibly,
the radiation cuts short their original lifespan. Yet the fact
remains that the zone has become one of Europe's key wildlife
refuges. 

Mycio is calling for a study of the wildlife and, in particular,
the strange instinct that stops them migrating, despite the
crumbling boundary fences. "They are intelligent animals; they
seem to realise that in the zone they are pretty much
undisturbed." 

Progressing through the abandoned villages along the road,
however, it is clear that people as well as animals are still
living in the shadow of Chernobyl. Several hundred of the
145,000 evacuees have returned to their homes, among them
pensioners Maria and Mikhail, both 70. 

"When it happened we were evacuated, but later that year we came
back. This is our home," explains Maria, as she feeds chickens
and a turkey in their farmyard. 

Mikhail worked for a while on the nuclear clean-up as a barge
captain, bringing material for the concrete sarcophagus built
over the smashed reactor. 

He remembers a taste, "like salty metal on my tongue", in the
air near the plant, but neither he nor his wife has noticed any
specific health problems. 

"The climate here is healthy, lots of open air," Maria says.
"Not many people to bother you." 

Ten kilometres (6.2 miles) from Chernobyl is another police
checkpoint, and here things start to get serious. We face
instant arrest if we stray from the path. 

"This zone is frozen in a Soviet time warp," says my guide, Max,
a mathematician working with staff monitoring the plant. 

Here villages are not just abandoned; they are bulldozed.
Houses, barns and churches sit under hillocks dotted with yellow
radiation-warning signs. Stunted trees with weird branches dot
the Red Forest, so named because the trees turned red and died
soon after the disaster. 

And then comes Pripyat, the town purpose-built for the nuclear
power plant. This town's 35,000 inhabitants were given four
hours to evacuate and they were never allowed back - leaving in
their wake an urban Mary Celeste. 

Books lie abandoned on schoolroom desks; a diary's entries stop
suddenly at 26 April. In the props department of the local
theatre, a giant painting of the former General Secretary,
Mikhail Gorbachev, sits ready for a May Day parade that was
never held. 

Walking around here is eerie: like finding yourself in of one of
those science fiction films where the hero wakes to find his
city mysteriously deserted. 

Yet visitors do occasionally show up. A few years ago police
arrested a man who had moved here to hide and avoid paying
alimony. 

Looters have stripped windows, door frames and marble steps from
the crumbling buildings. All that material is presumably now
outside the zone, slowly irradiating its new owners. 

We move on to the power plant itself. Chernobyl is vast, not one
reactor but four. Standing in the shadow of the great grey
sarcophagus that now covers the smashed reactor hall, the Geiger
counter that is mandatory on such trips starts to flip. Up to
300, then, simply by crossing the street, to 600. This, Max
assures me, is the same dose of radiation you'd get from flying
over the Atlantic for eight hours. 

The first that the outside world knew of the accident here on 26
April 1986 was when a power worker arrived for the night shift
at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden, and set off
alarms. At first they thought it was a mistake - those alarms
were for people leaving the plant, not arriving. 

But a check showed that the plant, like much of southern Sweden
and, later, much of northern Europe, was being bathed in an
atomic cloud that eventually ranged as far as Scotland and the
Welsh hills. 

It happened as a result of a test to see what would happen when
power to the water pumps was turned off. The result that most of
us would expect duly occurred. The core - a mix of uranium and
graphite rods - started to heat up without enough coolant
flowing over it. 

Control rods, long rods of boron to soak up neutrons and slow
the reaction, were lowered into the core. But the core was by
then so hot that the control rods warped and got stuck halfway
in the core, and increased the temperature still further. 

At 1:23 and 58 seconds the inevitable happened: the remaining
water turned to steam and exploded through the roof, spewing
graphite, smoke and 5 percent of the radioactive core out into
the night sky. 

This being the Soviet Union, where nuclear accidents "could not
happen", the fire brigade was unprepared. They went into action
wearing only the coats they wore for fire work. It is a decision
that Ivan Gladish has lived with ever since: As the local
minister for domestic affairs, he faced an agonising decision.
"Of course I felt bad about doing it, but it had to be done," he
tells me back in Kiev, at the museum he runs, which is dedicated
to the memory of the disaster. 

Within four months, 28 firemen were dead, out of a total of 52
deaths directly attributed to the Chernobyl accident, including
nine of 4,000 children who contracted thyroid cancer. 

Just how bad the overall damage has been is hard to assess. The
Soviets played it down at the time, while some Chernobyl aid
groups, keen to raise cash in the West, have claimed that
numbers of up to 600,000 were affected. 

The good news is that mothers do not appear to pass on
radioactivity to their young. As with Hiroshima, studies
indicate no significant genetic legacy. The level of cancers and
deformities of those born afterwards appears no higher than
normal. But it was only luck that stopped the toll being much
worse. 

Then there was the negligence of the authorities, for whom
preserving a crumbling Soviet empire came above preserving the
people. 

Nobody told local residents about the dangers of radiation, so
when the fire broke out, they spent hours watching it, unaware
that their faces were being bombarded by gamma rays. Five days
later the Soviet authorities went ahead with a May Day parade in
nearby Kiev, despite warnings that children were at risk from
the contamination cloud. 

An hour after visiting the reactor, we stand in the green
radiation machine, which takes an age to decide whether we can
be readmitted to the world. 

It is time enough to worry about those warnings we heard about
the way radiation travels in dust: dust from the soil, dust from
decaying buildings. Then, at last, the dim green light appears,
a steel bar unlocks and we are declared clean. 

This article:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=593872006 

Last updated: 19-Apr-06 00:07 BST

*****************************************************************
 50 Reuters: Nuclear's rise 20 yrs after Chernobyl

19 Apr 2006 11:24:17 GMT

Source: Reuters

     TIPSHEET: Aid experts debunk post-disaster myths 

-- Reuters will issue a series of features this week on the rise 
of atomic energy two decades after the world's worst nuclear 
accident, and the related standing of alternative energy sources 
in a power-hungry world grappling with global warming.

 Nuclear power appears to have defied those who predicted the 
1986 Chernobyl disaster would sound the industry's death knell.

 Although attitudes vary widely across the world, several nations 
are looking to increase capacity or build their first nuclear 
plants as governments seek "clean" energy to cut reliance on 
costly oil and fight global warming. 

The nuclear industry boasts it has zero carbon emissions but
opponents say it is costly and dangerous, arguing that renewable
energy sources are safer and more efficient.

 In this series of in depth reports from correspondents across
the world, we look at why nuclear power's star is rising, why
this worries some people, what the most popular alternative
energy sources are, and where they are being used.

 The first stories will run at 0100 GMT on Thursday, April 20.
Further reports -- including stories from Sweden, China and the
United States -- will run at the same time Friday, April 21. 

*****************************************************************
 51 Belfast Telegraph: Cameron considers abandoning Tory support for nuclear power

By Andrew Grice Political 19 April 2006 	

The Tories may drop their long-standing support for nuclear
power despite claims by some experts that it could help to
combat climate change. 

David Cameron, who yesterday put the environment at the heart of
the Tory campaign for next months local elections, accused Tony
Blair of prejudging the Governments energy review in favour of a
new generation of nuclear power stations. Mr Blair is expected
to back giving nuclear power a new lease of life on the ground
that it would help tackle global warming  in line with the views
of Sir David King, the Governments chief scientist. The Tories
are conducting a wholesale review of their energy policy, which
will reach conclusions this summer. Officials say the party
leadership has a completely open mind and its traditional
support for nuclear power will count for nothing. If the Tories
oppose more nuclear plants,Mr Blair would look isolated, with
Liberal Democrats and many Labour MPs hostile. 

Alan Duncan, the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, who is
heading the Tories energy review, said he was starting with a
clean piece of paper. He added: We will go in any direction in
which the facts take us. It will be the most thorough and
evidence-based review that it is possible for an opposition to
have. 

Today, the Tories will back an expansion of renewable energy
such as wind, wave and solar power by endorsing a sustainable
energy manifesto produced by an alliance of 35 pressure groups,
including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. 

Mr Duncan said: Climate change is a real threat and the party is
committed to providing realistic policies to reduce carbon
emissions. Mr Cameron, who begins a trip to Norway today, where
he will see a glacier that has lost up to half its mass in the
past century, said the Tories dispassionate review would not
favour any one technology. 

He said: We should be asking ourselves: how can we guarantee a
security of supply, have a challenging target for reducing
carbon, make sure we have a balanced and sensible approach to
energy in this country and ask ourselves whether nuclear is
going to be part of that mix. Lets do the work first, and not
have pre-conceived notions. 

Under the slogan vote blue to go green, Mr Cameron said Tory-run
councils were leading the way on green issues, such as
recycling, litter, carbon emissions, noise pollution and
transport. 

The Tory leader said: Solutions to big global problems are often
found at the local level. Local government is in the frontline
of the fight for a better quality of life. 

Labour claimed the Tories vote blue to go green reinforced their
decision to portray Mr Cameron as Dave the Chameleon in a
computer-generated party election broadcast last night. The
reptile changes his colours according to which audience he a
d-dresses  going green when he speaks about the environment  but
remains Tory blue underneath. 

Labour denied resorting to personal attacks, but Mr Cameron
said: Labour is clearly showing that it has run out of steam,
run out of ideas, run out of positive things to contribute. 

Tonight the Tories will screen a personal political broadcast,
including i n-terviews with the public and computer animation
showing how Tory councillors are improving the environment. The
Green Party accused Mr Cameron of giving even tokenism a bad
name. Keith Taylor, the partys principal speaker, said: Camerons
attempts to manufacture an image of environmental concern
convince no one. There is neither understanding nor consensus
within the Tories about climate change. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) 
*****************************************************************
 52 CP: Nuclear power top option for Ontario compared to alternatives, premier says
 	 	
canada.com

Steve Erwin, Canadian Press

Published: Wednesday, April 19, 2006                                                                    

TORONTO (CP) - Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil
Ontario's future electricity needs, despite its obvious
downsides - including Chornobyl-type accidents and radioactive
waste, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday. 

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal
plants pollute the air and Ontario's hydroelectric potential has
largely been maxed out - leaving nuclear power expansions "on
the table" for the province, McGuinty said. 

"There is nothing that is neat and tidy by way of a solution to
our energy challenges," McGuinty said when asked about the risks
associated with nuclear power, including the devastating
Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths. 

"But I think we should look at our particular history in this
country," McGuinty added, noting that there have been no major
nuclear accidents in Ontario. 

McGuinty later said it's "irresponsible" to compare Chornobyl
with Canada's Candu nuclear technology anyway. 

"We've had (nuclear) technology in place here for some 30 years.
There has been nothing like, nothing even approaching like, what
happened unfortunately in Chornobyl," he said inside the Ontario
legislature. 

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear
meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in
Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus. 

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield is about to issue a formal
response to recommendations in December that called for $40
billion to construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of
nuclear power in Ontario - requiring 12 or more new nuclear
reactor units in the province. 

The premier denied New Democrat accusations that the Liberals
are waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond. 

Critics say there have been close calls at Ontario's nuclear
stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station - a
coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that
operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked
in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents. 

But industry expert Tom Adams called those occurrences "near
misses" that should have deterred governments from ever
considering nuclear again. 

"To use an air traffic control analogy.Â .Â .when a Cessna
sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few
hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don't say, 'Oh well,
that was nothing.' They say, 'We're never going to let that
happen again.'Â " 

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in
recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely
shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of
Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that
country's reliance on Russian gas. 

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted that 270,000 cancers
will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them
fatal. 		 		  		
 		  		  		 
© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of . All rights
*****************************************************************
 53 UPI: India: 50k MW nuclear energy by 2030
     
   United Press International - Energy - 

4/19/2006 7:56:00 AM -0400                              

NEW DELHI, April 19 (UPI) -- Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
asked Indian scientists for plans to generate 50,000 MW of
nuclear power by 2030. 

"There is a need to plan right from now to increase this
capacity to 50,000 MW by 2030," he said after he inaugurated the
South Asian Conference on Renewable Energy. 

The comments were reported by the semi-official Press Trust of
India. 

Under India's current plans, nuclear generating capacity should
be 24,000 MW by 2020. 

He said to meet increased needs, India should accelerate work on
thorium-based nuclear reactors. Thorium is abundantly available
in India. 

India is looking to diversify its sources of energy to feed its
rapidly growing economy. It plans to increase power generating
capacity to 400,000 MW by 2030, from 130,000 MW now. 

He said power generation from renewable sources had to be
increased to 25 percent of total energy needs from 5 percent now.

© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 54 NEWS.com.au: Chernobyl deaths 'underestimated' 

From: Reuters                   

By Jeremy Lovell
 April 19, 2006   		 		 		 

ENVIRONMENTAL group Greenpeace says the eventual death toll from 
the Chernobyl nuclear disaster could be far higher than official 
estimates, with up to 93,000 cancer deaths attributable to the 
accident. [Interactive src=] Chernobyl interactive: 20th 
anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident 

Based on research by the National Academy of Sciences of
Belarus, the report said that of the 2 billion people globally
affected by the Chernobyl fallout, 270,000 would develop cancers
as a result, of which 93,000 would prove fatal.

 The Chernobyl Forum, a group of eight U.N. agencies, and
governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, has estimated an
eventual death toll of only a few thousand as a result of the
April 26, 1986 explosion at the power plant in the Ukrainian
town of Chernobyl.

 The blast sent a plume of radioactive dust across northern and
western Europe and as far as the eastern United States.

 Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigner Ivan Blokov accused the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, of "whitewashing the impacts of the most serious
nuclear accident in human history".

In Vienna, an IAEA official rejected the accusation, saying it 
was responsible in the Forum only for an environmental impact 
study while the casualty figures were drawn up by the World 
Health Organisation (WHO).

 WHO stands by deaths estimate

 Gregory Haertl, a spokesman for Geneva-based WHO, said it stood
by its figures. He said the predicted eventual number of extra
deaths in the hardest-hit areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia
was estimated to be 4000.

 Another 5000 deaths were predicted among those who had been
living in less-contaminated zones of the three countries at the
time of the disaster, he said.

 Mr Haertl also noted that WHO had not done a European-wide
study and said Greenpeace's figures appeared to assume one.

 The Greenpeace report said that a further 200,000 people in
Russia, Ukraine and Belarus could have died as a result of
medical conditions – such as cardiovascular diseases –
attributable to the disaster, but that there was no accepted
methodology to calculate deaths from such diseases.

 The report said the incidence of cancer in Belarus had jumped
40 per cent between 1990 and 2000, with children not yet born at
the time of the disaster showing an 88.5-fold increase in
thyroid cancers.

 Mr Haertl questioned Greenpeace's estimated 10 per cent death
rate for thyroid cancers among children and adolescents. "We
actually know the death rate is one percent. They are
overstating the figures," he said.

 Leukaemia is also reported to be on the increase in the
Chernobyl region, as are cases of intestinal, rectal, breast,
bladder, kidney and lung cancers, the Greenpeace report said.

 The relocation of hundreds of thousands of people has put
further strains on the population.

 "The Chernobyl accident disrupted whole societies in Belarus,
Ukraine and Russia," Greenpeace concluded.

 "A complex interaction between factors such as poor health,
increased costs of health systems, relocation of people, loss of
agricultural territories, contamination of foodstuffs, economic
crisis, the costs of remediation to the states, political
problems, a weakened workforce ... creates a general crisis." 		


*****************************************************************
 55 Uranium's Effect On DNA Established
 
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:00:17 -0500 (CDT)


7 April 2006
Uraniums Effect On DNA Established

 The use of depleted uranium in munitions and weaponry is likely to come
under intense scrutiny now that new research that found that uranium can
bind to human DNA. The finding will likely have far-reaching implications
for returned soldiers, civilians living in what were once war-zones and
people who might live near uranium mines or processing facilities.

Uranium - when manifested as a radioactive metal - has profound and
debilitating effects on human DNA. These radioactive effects have been well
understood for decades, but there has been considerable debate and little
agreement concerning the possible health risks associated with low-grade
uranium ore (yellowcake) and depleted uranium.

Now however, Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns has
established that when cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA
and the cells acquire mutations, triggering a whole slew of protein
replication errors, some of which can lead to various cancers. Stearns'
research, published in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular
Carcinogenesis, confirms what many have suspected for some time - that
uranium can damage DNA as a heavy metal, independently of its radioactive
properties. "Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get
a mutation," Stearns explained. While other heavy metals are known to bind
to DNA, Stearns and her team were the first to identify this characteristic
with uranium.

Depleted uranium - what is left over when the highly radioactive isotopes of
uranium are removed - is widely used by the military. Anti-tank weapons,
tank armor and ammunition rounds are just some of the applications. "The
health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the Manhattan
Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). But now
there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. People are
asking questions now," Stearns said.

Her research may shed light on the possible connection between exposure to
depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, or to increased cancers and birth
defects in the Middle East and Balkans. And closer to home, questions
continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine
tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the
uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns
said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in
Arizona at more than 1,100.

Source: Northern Arizona University

========

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060307010324data_trunc_sys.shtml

========
*****************************************************************
 56 Herald: Harmful side-effect in depleted uranium   

Web Issue 2510     April 19 2006      

  IAN BRUCE     April 19 2006   
    
  Scientists may have been looking in the wrong place for
evidence of long-term damage to humans from depleted uranium
(DU) cannon shells, according to a new study.

 Researchers from the University of Northern Arizona say that
while US and UK defence monitoring shows "very low" health risks
to soldiers exposed to the radioactive debris from the
munitions, they have discovered a potentially harmful
biochemical side-effect.

 Thousands of veterans of the 1991 Gulf War have blamed exposure
to dust from exploded DU rounds including kidney failure and
cancer. Civilians in war zones have made similar allegations DU,
a by-product of nuclear power stations, is almost twice as dense
as lead and can penetrate any known tank armour.

 Diane Stearns, the Arizona biochemist leading the research,
said yesterday: "We discovered that, separately from the issue
of radioactivity, human cells exposed to uranium can bond with
the heavy metal particles. The resultant biochemical reaction
can cause genetic mutations, which in turn can curtail cell
growth and potentially trigger cancer."

 Britain uses DU in shells for Challenger 2 tanks. The US uses
it in a range of munitions.
   

  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 57 CDC: Petition decision

FR Doc E6-5852 

[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Notices] [Page 20109] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19ap06-94]                         

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention
 
Decision To Evaluate a Petition to Designate a Class of Employees 
at the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC), Fernald, OH 
AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives 
notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a 
petition to designate a class of employees at the Feed Materials 
Production Center (FMPC), Fernald, Ohio, to be included in the 
Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed 
definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as 
warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

    Facility: Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC), Fernald, 
Ohio.

    Location: All locations.

    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees of the Department 
of Energy (DOE), DOE contractors and subcontractors.

    Period of Employment: January 1, 1951 through December 31, 
1989. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, 
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS 
C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by 
e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV.

    Dated: April 13, 2006. John Howard, Director, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-5852 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
 
*****************************************************************
 58 Las Vegas SUN: Former Nevada Test Site workers helped by agency action 

April 18, 2006 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A federal agency has recommended a
speed-up of government compensation to former workers at the
Nevada Test Site who contracted cancer because of exposure to
radiation from above-ground nuclear weapons tests. 

The move by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health was welcomed Tuesday by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -
who at the same time criticized the Bush administration for
excluding "many other deserving NTS workers." 

The federal agency recommended that Nevada Test Site employees
who worked for at least 250 days between 1951 and 1962 be
designated as "special exposure cohorts." The legal designation,
which already applies to workers at some other atomic sites, is
supposed to expedite the compensation process and ensure it's
fair and equitable. 

The federal government held 100 above-ground nuclear tests and
828 underground tests at the site between 1951 an 1993. In early
testing, Reid said many people at the Test Site worked with
significant amounts of radioactive materials without knowing the
risks involved. 

Reid added that some workers have been waiting for decades for
compensation while they suffer from life-threatening cancers,
and others already have died. 

"These workers are our Cold War veterans. They risked their
lives to keep us safe," Reid stated. "It's time that we honor
their service to our country, like we would with any war
heroes." 

"Unfortunately, the administration's recommendation leaves many
of our atomic veterans out in the cold, recommending
compensation for only a portion of those who became sick due to
their service," he said. "We can, and must, compensate all of
our workers who contracted cancer. The administration should
support my bill to do exactly that." 

Reid's bill would put most of the workers in a separate category
of applicant whose members don't have to go through a lengthy
process to qualify for compensation. 

The special status means former test site workers or their
survivors would have to show only that they worked at the site
for a certain period and were diagnosed with at least one of the
22 types of cancer covered by the labor program. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 59 Deseret News: Salt Lake-based firm touts recycling for nuclear
waste disposal 

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News 

EnergySolutions says it has a better plan to solve America's 
problems with high-level nuclear waste — and it's not to store it
in Utah. 

The company, formerly Envirocare, operates a low-level 
radioactive waste disposal facility in Tooele County. It 
recently acquired a variety of other operations elsewhere in the 
country, including technology to recycle high-level nuclear 
waste. 

On Tuesday, EnergySolutions announced it is supporting 
the Bush administration's proposals to develop a reprocessing 
capability for spent high-level nuclear fuel. The company also 
took a swipe at the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) proposal to house 
that type of material in Skull Valley, Tooele County. 

An EnergySolutions commercial airing for about the next 
10 days mentions PFS's attempts to store high-level nuclear 
waste in Utah. "But there's a better way," says the commercial, 
which was to have started broadcasting Tuesday. 

Steve Creamer, CEO of EnergySolutions, then announces the 
company has a proven technology to recycle such material. "It 
makes the PFS plan for Utah obsolete," he says in the commercial.

A spokeswoman for PFS was puzzled by the commercial. 

"PFS and its members are potential customers of 
EnergySolutions, so I think it's odd to oppose us so publicly," 
spokeswoman Sue Martin said. 

EnergySolutions mentions in a press release that on March 
17, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a request for parties 
to submit expressions of interest in a nuclear fuel reprocessing 
project. 

The project, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
Technical Demonstration Program, is to propose and evaluate 
sites that would be suitable for demonstrating advanced nuclear 
fuel reprocessing, according to the company. 

More than 40 responses came in from interested companies. 

"EnergySolutions is working with parties in several 
locations outside of Utah who have an interest in a recycling 
facility," adds the release. 

Creamer was quoted as saying people throughout the 
country are interested in a recycling facility. 

"Because EnergySolutions is the only American-owned 
company with proven recycling technology, we plan to be a major 
player in the recycling industry," he said in the release. 

"Our system has over a 30-year track record in England of 
successfully recycling spent nuclear fuel." 

More than 95 percent of spent fuel can be reprocessed and 
reused, EnergySolutions notes. 

"The utilities that comprise PFS are our friends in the 
nuclear energy industry. They have a legitimate need to close 
the fuel cycle by finding a permanent solution to dealing with 
spent fuel," Creamer's statement adds. 

"The Bush administration's recycling initiative is the 
solution." 

Martin said recycling could be part of the long-term 
solution, but it will take years to develop, and PFS's plan to 
store the waste on Goshute Indian land in Utah is the best 
short-term solution. 

"Clean, safe, temporary storage and recycling," she said, 
"could work hand in hand for short- and long-term solutions." 

Contributing: Wendy Leonard 
E-mail: bau@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 60 Las Vegas SUN: DOE plans $100 million in Yucca infrastructure improvements 

Today: April 19, 2006 at 15:32:47 PDT 

By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department is planning about $100
million in repairs, new buildings and roads, a fire station and
other improvements at the site of planned Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste dump, a department official said Wednesday. 

The planned upgrades - to facilities used by the 225 full-time
employees who work at the dump site 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas - are needed to repair equipment and buildings that have
fallen into disrepair or were never completed because of budget
shortages, said Scott Wade, director of DOE's office of
repository development in Las Vegas. 

As the opening date of the project has been delayed, structures
intended to be temporary have remained in use longer than
planned, he said. 

"We lack some of the basic emergency response capabilities, fire
and such," Wade told a meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's advisory committee on nuclear waste. 

"Decisions were made not to complete some of the original design
for those onsite structures," Wade said. "It was probably poor
decisions that were made." 

A fire in February burned down a trailer at the dump entrance -
one of about 120 temporary structures in place, Wade told
committee members. The fire, caused by a heating system
malfunction, occurred during a weekend and had burned out by the
time workers found it, but it underscored the need for better
emergency response. 

The closest fire engine is 45 minutes away, in Mercury. 

In a presentation to the advisory committee, Wade outlined plans
to: 

-improve underground systems in the eight miles of tunnels at
the dump site, including better fire detection and lighting
systems; 

-build a new guard house at the start of the road to Yucca
Mountain; 

-add a new or better access road; 

-construct permanent warehouses to replace temporary structures; 

-improve power generation, communications, and cement production
facilities; 

-build a fire station that can house a six-person crew, at a
cost of $4 million to $8 million. 

He said the underground plans already have been approved but
some of the aboveground work needs environmental reviews. Some
$45 million in the 2006 budget could go to the plans. 

If the Energy Department gets a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to build the dump, new facilities will be
required to support construction of the dump itself. 

DOE plans to apply for the NRC license in 2008 and hopes to open
the dump by 2020 - two decades late. Yucca Mountain is supposed
to hold 77,000 tons or more of nuclear waste. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 61 Deseret News: Salt Lake County joins foes of nuclear waste
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, April 19, 2006                                

Council opposes the shipment of fuel rods to Goshute site 	 	 	
                                 
By Leigh Dethman Deseret Morning News                                          

The Salt Lake County Council on Tuesday joined a long list of 
opponents to a proposal to transport spent nuclear waste over 
local roads or rails to a disposal site in Tooele County.

       Private Fuel Storage officials want to dump about 44,000
tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the Skull
Valley Band of the Goshute Indians, about 50 miles away from
Salt Lake County.

       The council passed a resolution opposing the shipments in
a 6-to-1 vote, with Republican Mark Crockett as the lone
dissenter. He praised nuclear energy as an environmentally
friendly and sustainable power source. All the hubbub is just
needless worry, he said, like fretting whether "the sky is
falling."

       "This is not a county issue," Crockett said.

       Councilman Joe Hatch quipped back, saying Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who have opposed the
shipments, shouldn't be characterized with the likes of "Chicken
Little."

       "It is important when we solve this problem," Hatch said,
so that Salt Lake County and Utah don't become a "dumping
ground."

       The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is urging government
and business leaders to tell 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. The permit would be
necessary to bring the nuclear waste onto the reservation site.

       Chamber officials believe the PFS plan would devastate
the economy and cripple Hill Air Force Base. F-16 pilots from
the base train in Utah's west desert, which is dangerously close
to the proposed waste site, said Natalie Gochnour, chamber
spokeswoman.

       The county's resolution also urges Salt Lake County
residents to send their opinions to the BLM on the proposed PFS
plan. The BLM is accepting comments through May 8.

       Comments can be directed to the BLM through Pam Schuller,
pam_schuller@blm.gov, or by fax to 801-977-4397, or by mail to
Pam Schuller, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office,
2370 S. 2300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84119.

E-mail: ldethman@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 62 Las Vegas SUN: New DOE strategy won't help Yucca situation 

April 18, 2006 

By Bob Loux

Whatever else one may say about the Energy Department's handling
of the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste dump,
you have to give DOE credit for being consistent. Consistently
wrong and incompetent, that is. 

The new group in charge of DOE's Yucca Mountain program is no
exception. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and his hand-picked
acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, Paul Golan, have managed in a few short months to
take an already teetering project and finally push it off the
scientific, political and fiscal abyss. 

For years, the Yucca project has been plagued by problems (or
more accurately, realities that DOE refuses to face) that have
brought the program to a screeching halt.

 These include Yucca Mountain's inability to meet health and
safety standards, failure to develop and submit a license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
corrosion-prone waste containers, the inability of the site to
meet hazardous waste regulations, a seriously inept radioactive
waste transportation program, conflicts with Western states'
water laws (i.e., the denial of water by Nevada for Yucca
Mountain), serious land use conflicts, risks posed by military
aircraft operations and a host of other factors that make Yucca
entirely unsuitable and unlicensable. 

Golan's and Bodman's solution is to ignore the central problem
with Yucca (the fact that site is inherently unsafe and
unsuitable) and attempt to get Congress to bail DOE out by
riding roughshod over federal and state health, safety,
transportation and environmental requirements. DOE submitted
legislation to Congress in early April that would do just that. 

But the Bodman-Golan debacle gets more bizarre. A few months
ago, Golan announced, with considerable fanfare, that DOE was
completely restructuring the Yucca program in an attempt to turn
the Yucca repository into a "clean" facility. 

Golan claimed his "Transportation, Aging and Disposal" system
would simplify the design and operations of a repository by
allowing deadly spent fuel and high-level waste to be
transported, stored and disposed of in the same canister,
without having to handle the waste again once it has been loaded
into the new transportation and disposal system at the reactor
location.

 Great idea, except for the fact it had already been rejected in
the 1990s as impractical and too costly.

 A significant percentage of existing nuclear plants are already
storing spent fuel in welded containers in an array of different
dry storage installations. The problem is those storage
containers are not compatible with Golan's new transportation
and disposal system. 

What's more, DOE is relying on the ability to control
temperatures underground at Yucca as a way of trying to deal
with the large amounts of water that will corrode the waste
packages and rapidly transport radioactive materials to the
accessible environment. The new transportation and disposal
concept does not lend itself to such thermal management and
sends DOE's already jerry-built performance models into a
tailspin. 

To make this problem go away, Golan and his team of new-thinkers
are proposing to simply invent a whole new geology for the site
by concocting very low water infiltration rates and slow water
movement. Never mind that the science doesn't support such
assumptions.

 What these initiatives have in common is a fundamental and
fraudulent denial of the simple fact that Yucca Mountain is a
wholly unacceptable place to dispose of deadly and long-lived
nuclear waste. 

Bodman's proposed legislation and Golan's restructuring of the
Yucca project are aimed at covering up this essential fact, and
they continue a long string of failed DOE initiatives over the
past two decades that have sought to fashion a silk purse out of
this Yucca Mountain pig's ear. Bob Loux is the executive
director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state
agency that directs Nevada's efforts to oversee and oppose the
federal government's plans to build a high-level nuclear waste
repository in Nevada at Yucca Mountain. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 63 LA Daily News: Firms due to bid on land

Santa Clarita

Article Launched: 04/19/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT  

Judge will choose Bermite buyer

  BY EUGENE TONG, Staff Writer  

SANTA CLARITA - Developers intent on purchasing the contaminated
Whittaker-Bermite property in the city's geographical center
were due to submit bids Tuesday to an Arizona bankruptcy court. 

At least three developers - Cherokee Investments of North
Carolina, SunCal Cos. of Irvine and newcomer Selvin Green, a New
York-based investment group - were expected to vie for the
996-acre property south of Soledad Canyon Road, where munitions
manufacturing occurred until some two decades ago, city of Santa
Clarita officials said. 

Development plans for the property, which is contaminated with
the rocket-fuel chemical perchlorate, has been stymied for about
two years after owner RFI Realty of Phoenix declared bankruptcy. 

Judge Charles G. Case II of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Phoenix
will review the bids in a hearing scheduled for May 2, Santa
Clarita City Attorney Carl Newton said. 

"The city's objective in all of this is to get a responsible
developer who has the ability to remediate the property at the
earliest possible time, and to pursue responsible development of
the property," he said. 

Rockets and explosives manufacturing and testing occurred on the
site for more than 50 years until Whittaker Corp. shuttered it
in 1987. But the operations left heavy metals and other
contaminants in the soil. This includes perchlorate, a chemical
that in large doses has been linked to thyroid problems and has
migrated to local groundwater. 

Any developer planning to build on the site also must finance 
decontamination, which is being overseen by the state Department 
of Toxic Substances Control. 

Asked whether the city had a preferred candidate, Newton said
that remains to be seen because past development proposals have
changed as the bankruptcy is resolved. 

"We don't know who that is now," he said. "We're hopeful that
it's going to be someone who is very responsible and can
objectively clean it up for the city." 

The city in 1995 approved an existing development plan - Porta
Bella - which called for Whittaker and, later, RFI to build a
business park and nearly 3,000 homes. But the property was a
money sinkhole for RFI, which bought the land in 1999 for $15
million. Officials said they spent more than $25 million to
clean the property before putting it back on the market in 2002. 

The company had said it was stymied by a City Council that
refused to amend the old Porta Bella plan to suit its needs. RFI
filed for bankruptcy in 2004. Meantime, the DTSC has continued
decontamination of the site, with financing from Whittaker. 

(661)257-5253   
                  
Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 64 Salt Lake Tribune: S.L. County Council opposes N-waste storage 

Article Last Updated: 04/19/2006 08:09:03 AM MDT 

By Derek P. Jensen The Salt Lake Tribune 

Salt Lake County leaders have joined Sen. Orrin Hatch on the 
protest wagon, hoping to derail the transfer of high-level 
nuclear waste to the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Tooele 
County. 

By a 7-to-1 vote Tuesday, the County Council adopted a 
resolution - also urged by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce - 
to oppose hauling the reactor rods over federal land. 

"Until Congress gets its act together, and the national 
leadership, it's clearly up to the states to defend themselves," 
argued Councilman Joe Hatch. "Keep those rods where they are." 

Along with Utah's senior senator, the council is urging 
residents to flood the Bureau of Land Management with feedback 
before the May 8 deadline. 

Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon also opposes the 
temporary storage of up to 44,000 tons of spent, but highly 
radioactive, reactor rods in Tooele County. 

Private Fuel Storage received a license to build the Skull 
Valley site last fall from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The utility-companies consortium needs approval from the BLM 
for a right of way to build a transfer station on the north side 
of Interstate 80 - a kind of parking lot for the nuclear fuel 
rods before they go to Nevada. 

Councilman Mark Crockett, Tuesday's lone dissenter, suggested 
nuclear energy may provide some economic benefit as an 
alternative energy source. If states in the region renew their 
nuclear-energy programs, he noted, the states would be 
beneficiaries "because we're all part of the same grid." 

"It's easy for all of us to say the sky is falling when, 
really, there are some [positive] attributes, too," Crockett 
said. 

Salt Lake Chamber spokeswoman Natalie Gochnour insisted the 
proximity of the nuclear waste to Hill Air Force Base and its 
training ranges would pose a problem. 

Before voting, some council members noted Utah's 
congressional delegation unanimously opposes the nuclear-waste 
transfer. 

Councilman Jim Bradley, who supported the nonbinding 
resolution, said a cohesive - not piecemeal - stand on the 
storage of nuclear waste must be forged. 

"Just to be knee-jerk against nuclear energy," he said, "is 
not going to solve the problem long term." 

djensen@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 65 Salt Lake Tribune: Ex-Envirocare joins battle against nuke storage
site 

Article Last Updated: 04/18/2006 11:07:58 PM MDT 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

EnergySolutions announced Tuesday it would fight fire with 
fire, marshaling its plans for nuclear-waste processing to fight 
another company's plans to store used nuclear-reactor fuel in 
Tooele County's Skull Valley. 

The Salt Lake City company, which owns the rights to 
reprocessing technology used in Britain, said it would begin 
broadcasting TV and radio advertisements this week that 
criticize the Skull Valley project while promoting recycling as 
a better answer for nuclear waste. 

"Recycling is the right thing to do for America and will make 
the [Private Fuel Storage] proposal for Utah obsolete," said 
EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer. 

EnergySolutions, known for most of its 18 years as Envirocare 
of Utah, owns and operates a mile-square disposal site for 
low-level radioactive and hazardous waste about 80 miles west of 
Salt Lake City. Last fall, it began buying other nuclear-service 
companies and now holds contracts to manage nuclear waste at 
power plants, minimize nuclear waste and clean up contaminated 
sites. 

Private Fuel Storage (PFS) is a consortium of utilities with 
nuclear reactors that won a license from the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission last fall to build and operate a kind of 
long-term parking lot for nuclear waste on the Skull Valley 
Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt 
Lake City. While some Goshutes see the project as a solid 
economic-development opportunity, other members of the tiny 
tribe have been joined in their opposition to the project by 
Utah state officials, environmental activists and a majority of 
Utahns. 

Through the campaign, EnergySolutions appears to be allying 
itself with many Utahns and the state's politicians against a 
common foe, the PFS project. More than two dozen current and 
former lawmakers attended a news conference announcing the 
anti-PFS campaign Tuesday, along with U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett and 
U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, both Utah Republicans. 

Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, noted that many companies 
that now have contracts with EnergySolutions are members of the 
storage-site consortium or are its likely clients. 

"Why they would wage a campaign against their own clients, I 
would not know," she said. 

"We're not at all opposed to recycling," she added. "But the 
fact is, we have the most viable interim solution [for 
high-level nuclear waste] at this stage." 

Congress plans to spend $20 million this year to study 
nuclear-waste recycling and a projected $20 billion in future 
years to build the nation's first new generation recycling 
plant. EnergySolutions is among 40 companies and communities 
that have expressed interest in the program. 

The Salt Lake City company said earlier this month it would 
not propose the recycling plant for its home state. 

Jason Groenewold, executive director of the Healthy 
Environment Alliance of Utah, called nuclear reprocessing 
"fool's gold" that has a long history of failing, even with the 
technology EnergySolutions bought from a British company in 
February. He noted that plutonium has been found in the teeth of 
children who live near the Sellafield plant in Britain and 
robots are being used to clean up the most recent operations 
accident there. 

"The only thing that is proven about reprocessing is that it 
doesn't work," he said. "It creates enormous risk to the public 
health. It costs an arm and a leg, and it does not solve the 
disposal problem." 

Creamer said the problem at Sellafield was due to improper 
operations and not poor design. He also said that while the 
Energy Department projects it will be at least 15 years before 
reprocessing is running, he hopes EnergySolutions can do it in 8 
to 10 years. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 66 Spectrum: Southern Utahns to hear from Orrin Hatch

St. George - www.thespectrum.com - 

Spectrum, St. George, UT

 By RACHEL TUELLER rtueller@thespectrum.com

ST. GEORGE - Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, will speak to Southern 
Utahns on Thursday evening on the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Act, legislation the senator wrote and sponsored.

The legislation, implemented first in 1990 and amended in 2000, 
was designed to provide benefits for thousands of Utah residents 
known as Downwinders who were exposed to radiation from atomic 
tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1992.

Amendments in 2000 extended eligibility to roughly 9,600 more
victims of exposure to uranium operations. So far, the claims of
more than 15,000 Downwinders, uranium miners and ore
transporters afflicted by radiation exposure have been approved.
RECA has resulted in more than $1 billion in payouts to
claimants.

From that, RECA has compensated 3,731 Utahns with payments
totaling approximately $214 million.

Originally published April 19, 2006


+ WHAT: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, speaks on the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act.



+ WHEN: 4:30 p.m. Thursday.



+ WHERE: Dixie Regional Medical Center, Zion Canyon Conference
Room, 1380 East Medical Center Drive.


+ For more information call 688-5990. 
  
*****************************************************************
 67 Pahrump Valley Times: Earth Day will be celebrated Saturday 

April 19, 2006

The Pahrump Nuclear Waste and Environmental Advisory Board, in
conjunction with the Town of Pahrump, UNLV and Southern Nye
County Conservation District will be presenting the fourth
annual earth day event from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday at
Honeysuckle Park. 

This informational activity is geared towards informing our
local citizens as to how we may sustain ourselves in our desert
environment. Naturally, this is ongoing education and it comes
to a head with the Earth Day celebration in April. 

Posters depicting types of alternative energy sources that have
been specifically created by UNLV for our Earth Day event. They
will explain the different technologies which are present that
can save the valuable natural resources we are quickly using up.

 Cost-saving tips on our ever-increasing electric bills will be
available. Tips on saving money through cheaper, more efficient
lighting costs and keeping cool with passive solar screens and
better insulation will be available for all to see.

 Information on septic tank maintenance from federal, state and
local sources explains how they work and more importantly, how
to ensure they do not infiltrate and pollute groundwater, from
which we draw our sole source of drinking water. 

Information from the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection, Air Quality division is being presented once again
to local residents because of our ongoing problems with dust and
haze in the valley. Information is also available as to the
adverse effects of leveling entire properties (clear cutting)
when building new homes. 

The new homebuilder should have the knowledge and the ability to
keep as much natural vegetation on the property before making
the decision as to what type of landscaping is needed to
properly accent the home. We also encourage landscaping that
uses as little water as possible.

 In conjunction with the event, Albertson's is once again
cosponsoring an Earth Day grocery bag poster contest for the
kids. Posters with an environmental message will be drawn or
painted on paper grocery bags. 

Heather Gang, the board's co-organizer of the event, will once
again coordinate the event through Nye County schools in the
Pahrump Valley. 

Participants can also expect information from the University of
Nevada Reno, Cooperative Extension, its Master Gardeners and
Garden Club as well as participation by the local 4-H. 

The Environmental Management folks from the Federal Energy
Department have been invited to participate as well as the U. S.
Forest Service and the Ash Meadow's Fish and Wildlife. 

We even have a local auto retailer showing off a hybrid vehicle.

 We're having two bands for the event this year, from 10 a.m. to
1 p.m. and then again from 2-5 p.m. 

We hope to meet the musical tastes of all the visitors at the
fair. Yes - De-Nile (now called Cross-winds) will be there again.

 Keeping in the vein of Earth Day, we are highlighting some
local earth-friendly merchants who will promote renewable and
non-polluting items for our valley.

 There'll be food and drink (non-alcoholic) available for all,
so come on down for a relaxing fun-filled, Earth-Friendly
afternoon at Honeysuckle Park.

 		 		     
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 68 Asia Times: Japan's appetite for uranium is growing

By Hisane Masaki 

TOKYO - Energy-hungry Japan is revving up its drive to secure
uranium abroad as global demand for nuclear power rises amid
stubbornly high oil and gas prices and growing environmental
concerns. 

Major Japanese trading and energy firms are looking at
multibillion yen investments in uranium mine projects, with
electronics conglomerate Toshiba in February purchasing
Westinghouse, the US power plant arm of British Nuclear Fuels,
for about US$5.4 billion. 

Meanwhile, the government, which attaches great importance to
nuclear power as a key to ensuring national energy security, is 
also considering assistance to help domestic firms in the 
increasingly intensifying global competition for fuel at nuclear 
power plants. Among those measures are financial aid and more 
investment-insurance coverage by government-affiliated 
organizations. Japan is already the world's third-largest nuclear 
power nation in terms of the number of civilian nuclear plants in 
operation. 

Uranium prices are climbing as energy-hungry China and India are
stepping up construction of nuclear power plants to fuel their
high-flying economies, while some industrialized countries,
including the US and Britain, are moving to build new nuclear
power plants after many years of suspension following nuclear
accidents at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl
in Ukraine in 1986. 

Nuclear power generation has begun to come under the spotlight
again due to growing environmental concerns as well as the high
prices for oil and gas. Nuclear power plants generate much less
carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas widely blamed for
global warming, than coal-fired facilities. Renewable energy
sources such as wind and solar power generation are not
available in sufficient amounts - and at affordable prices. 

Japan's investment spree
Private investment in foreign uranium mines has been sluggish
since the 1990s, largely reflecting slumping prices for the
fuel. Currently, only two overseas uranium mines in which
Japanese firms have invested are on stream. One is the Akouta
mine in Niger - in which Overseas Uranium Resource Development
(OURD) has a 25% stake - the other McClean Lake mine in Canada,
in which OURD has a 7.5% interest. Japan-Australia Uranium
Resources Development had a 10.64% interest in the Ranger mine
in Australia until it sold off the stake in December. 

However, Japanese firms have begun to refocus on uranium.
Itochu, a major Japanese trading firm, announced this month that
it and Dallas-based Uranium Resources will conduct a joint
assessment of production potential at the Churchrock, New Mexico
uranium mine. Itochu will spend as much as 4 billion yen ($34
million) for a 50% stake in the project being developed by
Uranium Resources. The mine may produce 400 tons a year, or 4%
of Japan's uranium demand, from as early as 2009. It may operate
for 10 years and supply reactors in the US and Japan. Itochu
currently sells 4,000 tons of uranium produced in Australia,
Canada and Kazakhstan to Japanese customers annually. Last year,
Itochu concluded a long-term uranium concentrate purchase deal
with Kazakhstan's state-run nuclear power company, Kazatomprom,
under which the Japanese firm will buy 3,000 tons over 10 years. 

Another major Japanese trading firm, Sumitomo, has acquired an
interest in a foreign uranium project for the first time in
anticipation of further growing demand for the fuel. In January,
Sumitomo and Kansai Electric Power, Japan's second-largest power
company, invested in APPAK LLP, a subsidiary of Kazatomprom, for
the development of the West Mynkuduk mine. Sumitomo and Kansai
Electric Power acquired stakes in APPAK LLP of 25% and 10%,
respectively. The necessary initial funding will be
approximately $100 million. APPAK LLP plans to start pilot
production of uranium products after the completion of the
necessary construction stage in 2007 and commence its full scale
commercial production of 1,000 tons of uranium per year as early
as 2010. The mine life is expected to be about 22 years, and the
total production of uranium from this mine will be about 18,000
tons. The joint venture is part of Kazatomprom's target of
producing 7,000 tons more annually by 2010 through partnerships
with foreign companies. 

Meanwhile, Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO), Japan's largest power
company, and Idemitsu Kosan, a major Japanese oil refiner, have
interests in the Cigar Lake uranium mine being developed in
Saskatchewan, Canada. The mine is under development by a joint
venture among four partners: TEPCO's and Idemitsu's local
subsidiaries, Canada's Cameco and France's AREVA/COGEMA.
Commercial production is expected to start in 2007. TEPCO and
Idemitsu have stakes in the joint venture of 5% and 8%,
respectively. Mitsui & Co, also a major Japanese trading firm,
has supplied uranium to Japanese electric power companies,
acting as an agent for Japan on behalf of Australia's WMC and
other leading overseas suppliers of the fuel. OURD also has a
5.67% stake in the Midwest mine, also in Canada. This mine is to
begin production in 2010. 

Emphasis on nuclear power

The Japanese government is now in the final stages of drawing up
its "New National Energy Strategy", which will call for, among
other things, promotion of nuclear energy, as well as reduction
in the nation's oil dependency rate to 40% or less by 2030 from
the current 50% and securing energy resources abroad through the
fostering of more powerful energy companies. Japan imports
almost all of its oil. 

The new strategy will specifically call for raising the
percentage of nuclear power in the total national electricity
supply from the current 30% to up to 40% or more by 2030 and
also establishing a nuclear fuel cycle. In October the Atomic
Energy Commission of Japan, the highest nuclear decision-making
body affiliated with the cabinet, adopted a long-term nuclear
plan maintaining the nation's nuclear fuel cycle program, which
reprocesses all the spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for
future use as nuclear fuel. 

Japan's nuclear fuel cycle program entered a new phase in March
when a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant run by Japan Nuclear Fuel
in the Aomori prefecture village of Rokkasho in northern Japan
started test operations to extract plutonium for the so-called
pluthermal power-generation project. Under the project,
plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) will be burned at
light-water reactors. The Rokkasho plant is scheduled to come
into commercial operation in the summer of 2007. Government
officials say the recycling of uranium resources via the nuclear
fuel cycle program will contribute to the stability of energy
supplies. 

According to plans by 11 Japanese power companies, as much as
6.5 tons of plutonium will be burned annually at nuclear plants
after the pluthermal power-generation project gets under way.
The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan plans to get
pluthermal power generation under way at 16 to 18 power plants
by the end of fiscal 2010. The companies said they plan to first
use plutonium produced overseas such as in Britain and France at
the pluthermal plants and start burning domestically produced
plutonium in 2012 or later. 

Lingering safety concerns

But it remains to be seen whether Japanese power companies,
facing a serious loss of public confidence in nuclear plant
safety in the wake of a spate of accidents, will be able to
carry out their pluthermal plans. 

According to a recent newspaper survey, a majority of Japanese
people support the promotion of nuclear power generation while
remaining concerned about safety at nuclear power plants.
Opposition to nuclear power plants is particularly strong in
host communities. 

A local court in March handed down an unprecedented ruling
upholding the plaintiffs' argument that a new nuclear reactor
should be shut down because of inadequate strength against
earthquakes. The court ruled that a large earthquake could
damage the number two reactor at Hokuriku Electric Power's Shika
nuclear plant in Ishikawa prefecture in central Japan, leading
to dire consequences. In August 2004, Japan suffered its worst
nuclear accident when hot water and steam leaked from a broken
pipe at the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui prefecture, also
in central Japan, killing five workers. 

Also, the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho got off to
a rocky start. Only days after it started test operations, up to
40 liters of water containing plutonium leaked. The leak was
contained within its compound and there were no injuries. The
accident happened only a day after thousands of people held a
street demonstration in protest against the plant's operation. 

Meanwhile, Shikoku Electric Power won government approval last
month to generate electricity using MOX fuel at the number three
reactor of its Ikata nuclear plant in Ehime prefecture in
western Japan. It was the sixth to get central government
approval for pluthermal power generation. 

However, only Kyushu Electric Power has so far successfully
received local government approval for pluthermal projects, in
its case for the Genkai nuclear power plant's number three
reactor in Saga prefecture in western Japan. 

Scandals, including fuel data falsifications and accident
cover-ups, also have rocked the confidence of local governments
in such projects. 

Another key to the future of the nation's nuclear fuel cycle
program is the fate of the fast-breeder reactor (FBR), which
produces more fissile material than it consumes. The prototype
FBR Monju in the Fukui prefecture city of Tsuruga in central
Japan has remained shut since a sodium leak and subsequent fire
in December 1995. The operator, then Power Reactor and Nuclear
Fuel Development (Donen), tried to cover up the extent of the
accident. 

It remains uncertain when the Monju will resume full operations,
although its current operator, the semi-governmental Japan
Atomic Energy Agency, has been preparing Monju with an eye
toward resuming full operations. 

Even if the industry plan to get pluthermal power generation at
16 to 18 power plants goes smoothly, only 10% of uranium needs
at domestic power plants would be replaced by MOX fuel.
Therefore, stable uranium supplies are vital for Japan to keep
nuclear power plants operating smoothly, according to officials
at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. 

Rising uranium prices
Currently, global demand for uranium as fuel at nuclear power
plants is estimated at 65,000 tons a year. But annual production
is stuck at about 40,000 tons. Uranium retrieved from dismantled
Russian nuclear weapons and stockpiles are used to make up the
gap. However, commercial stockpiles dropped 50% between 1985 and
2003 because mine output could not keep up with demand. Japan
uses about 8,000 to 8,500 tons of uranium a year to generate
electricity. 

Concern about supply shortages helped increase spot prices of
uranium. Prices jumped after the two oil crises of the 1970s,
rising to a record of more than $40 a pound in the late 1970s,
but plummeted sharply after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
accidents. Uranium prices remained below the $10-per-pound level
on the spot market in 2002. But they have been on the rise in
recent years, and the pace of increase has accelerated. Prices
have risen 13% so far this year to the $40-per-pound level and
may go higher because of investor demand and purchases by
nuclear power generators to ensure future supplies for their
reactors. Some analysts say uranium prices may go up to $54 per
pound this year. The spot market, which makes up about 12% of
uranium sales, sets a price reference for long-term contracts
between miners and utilities. 

Natural uranium deposits are estimated at about 4 million tons
worldwide. Australia has the world's largest deposits, with
930,000 tons, followed by Kazakhstan, with 850,000 tons, and
Canada, with 440,000 tons. The US has the world's fifth-largest
deposits, with 350,000 tons. 

The global uranium mining industry has seen a wave of
consolidation amid slumping prices for the fuel since the 1990s.
Many companies were merged or absorbed. Currently, eight major
producers of natural uranium churn out about 80% of global
supply. 

Hisane Masaki is a Tokyo-based journalist, commentator and
scholar on international politics and economy. Masaki's e-mail
address is yiu45535@nifty.com ) 

																	   															 														
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, 
Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:                                                                                                                
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110                                                                                          
*****************************************************************
 69 Russia Journal: Russia aims for 25% of global nuclear fuel services market 

- The Russia Journal - http://www.russiajournal.com - 
                          	 										
    Posted By editor trj On 19th April 2006 @ 13:16 In Home,
                              					
MOSCOW - Russia aims to garner a quarter of the global market for 
the supply of nuclear fuel cycle services, a Russian nuclear 
services export company said Wednesday. 
                                
Alexei Grigoryev, a first deputy director general of 
Techsnabexport, Russias state-controlled uranium supplier and 
provider of uranium enrichment services, said the country 
intended in particular to expand in the Asia-Pacific region. 
                                
Grigoryev said: We are continuing to develop our relations with 
Japan. We held recently a number of working meetings, from which 
we hope that in 2006-2007 the portfolio of Russian orders in 
Japan receive a boost, both in terms of the quality of nuclear 
fuel cycle services, and in terms of their quantity. We now have 
10% of the Japanese market, and our future goal, by the end of 
the decade, is to take 20-30% of Japans nuclear energy market. 
In monetary terms this implies tens of millions of dollars per 
year. 
                                
Source: RIAN                                             
                              						
http://www.russiajournal.com                    
*****************************************************************
 70 Nevada Observer: Congress In Receipt Of New Yucca Mountain Legislation
 
Vol. 3,  No. 12          April 15, 2006                 

 Nevada's Online State News Journal             
   
Questions And Criticisms Not Answered -- Energy Officials Plan 
Nevada Visit    

by Johnny Gunn 	

The Department of Energy (DOE) has sent new legislation to 
Capitol Hill regarding the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste 
Depository, and Nevada officials ask why the serious questions 
aren't addressed. The government sponsored legislation suggests 
the total amount of high level nuclear waste be increased well 
beyond what has been considered capacity, and yet none of the 
safety questions regarding casks, water mitigation, 
transportation, even length of time the casks might be safe 
before being subject to failure are in the proposal.

In addition says Bob Loux of the Nevada Nuclear Projects agency, 
the questions of fraudulent reports being used to prove safety 
have not been answered. Loux said the plans as outlined in the 
legislation are designed to take away all arguments that the 
state may have regarding Yucca Mountain, and on top of that to 
almost double the amount of hazardous waste to be stored. Present 
plans have about 70,000 metric tons scheduled for the depository 
if it is ever licensed and opened. Secretary of Energy Samuel 
Bodman in testimony before Congress is asking that 120,000 metric 
tons should be the capacity.

"Among other things," a report from the Nevada Nuclear Projects 
Agency says, "the bill removes any capacity restriction on waste 
that can be buried at Yucca." The report states that this will 
"allow waste from future reactors and from all over the world to 
traverse the nation's transport corridors to Nevada."

In remarks prepared by the agency, Loux said, "DOE appears to 
have followed the old adage, when you can't get a grip on the 
current problem, enlarge it." The bill is referred to as the "fix 
Yucca" bill by the administration, and according to Nevada 
officials the project is dead and can't be fixed. Loux said, 
"This project will never open. It is scientifically doomed, and 
no longer makes any policy sense."

Bodman announced during the week of April 10 that he would be 
coming to Nevada to inspect the Yucca Mountain project. On his 
arrival he had nothing new to offer according to state officials. 
"Bodman simply reiterated all the old arguments, the ones that 
have been shown to be more of the problem than the answer." The 
legislation introduced by DOE is designed to speed up the 
licensing procedure at Yucca, according to DOE but it has raised 
far more questions than it has answered. One major argument with 
the legislation is how DOE plans to get and use water for the 
facility.

Water rights in Nevada are handled by State Engineer Hugh Ricci 
and there are set procedures for acquiring those rights. DOE in 
their federal legislation says in Section 8 of the bill, that 
water use for Yucca is to be beneficial to interstate commerce in 
quantities sufficient to accomplish the purposes of the Act. They 
further state the legislation would prohibit Nevada from enacting 
or applying a law that discriminates against that use. According 
to Loux, DOE plans to simply take whatever it wants and the state 
be damned. "This is unconstitutional," Loux said. Water rights 
have always been considered part of a state's rights to regulate. 
"This bill preempts Nevada's ability to regulate the state's 
water resources."

DOE has been denied water rights in the past and now it looks 
like they will just take the water. The aquifer sits primarily in 
Nye County but may also be under parts of Clark and Esmeralda 
Counties. There has always been a fear that water mitigation 
would corrode or otherwise invade the casks holding the nuclear 
waste releasing high levels of radiation, not just into the 
atmosphere but also by way of water from the surface feeding into 
that aquifer. That would contaminate millions of gallons of 
otherwise clean drinking water for much of southern Nevada.

None of the questions dealing with safety and health issues were 
part of the new legislation. Congressman Jon Porter (R-NV) has 
been conducting hearings to determine just how much alleged fraud 
has been involved in quality assurance work at Yucca Mountain. At 
least three hydrologists have been found to have said they used 
two different forms when seeking quality assurance. One form with 
the actual figures, one form manipulated so as to meet quality 
assurance standards.

Porter has gone so far as to issue Congressional Subpoenas to 
acquire as many as 14,000 other e-mails and DOE has refused to 
respond. Following introduction of the new DOE legislation, 
Porter said, "Since evidence of possible falsified science at 
Yucca Mountain surfaced last year, plans to turn the site into a 
nuclear dump have been stalled due to mounting safety concerns. 
How does the Department of Energy React? Instead of doing the 
responsible thing and rethinking their priorities, they push 
forward with legislation to expedite the Yucca Mountain Project." 
Porter, a Republican represents Congressional District 3 and is 
up for reelection this year. He continued in his press release, 
"This, weeks after energy Secretary Samuel Bodman himself deemed 
the project 'broken.' This legislation is a desperate attempt by 
DOE officials to move the project forward before more problems 
can be uncovered."

The safety of transporting thousands of tons of high level 
nuclear waste from all over the country is not addressed in the 
legislation either. Instead, Section 4 would authorize the DOE to 
construct that 317-mile rail line from the Utah-Nevada border to 
Yucca Mountain without anyone being able to argue the safety 
issue. The state, Indian tribes, political subdivisions would be 
preempted from the argument.

Energy Secretary Bodman in his rush to create this nuclear waste 
repository is walking all over state's rights, evading questions 
of safety, and in some minds attempting to create a single 
nuclear waste fiefdom for the department according to state 
officials. The legislation softens or changes the concept of 
"normal environmental reviews," to the point that they would be 
irrelevant. Any environmental problems that might exist, 
according to parts of Section 4 would "not provide grounds for 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject construction 
authorization," that is, the license DOE needs to get Yucca 
Mountain operating.

There is a major push from the nuclear energy industry to create 
and open new nuclear power plants in the country, and of course 
this would immediately add to the amount of waste being 
generated. While the current administration has asked for funding 
to study the possibility of reprocessing the waste into useable 
fuel, that might be years down the line. However there is an 
equal push to leave the waste where it is, at the power plants 
around the county until reprocessing or some other means of 
reducing the waste is found.

Nevada Senators Harry Reid (D) and John Ensign (R) have been 
adamant in their opposition to the new legislation. Reid said 
this bill has no future while Ensign said this bill will go 
nowhere. Bodman believes the bill will make the licensing 
procedure much easier, and in testimony said the legislation will 
provide clarity to the Yucca project.

The Energy Department is about 20-years behind schedule in 
getting Yucca Mountain licensed. According to Nevada's 
congressional delegation this current legislation is not going to 
help them at all. They predict the attempt to take away state's 
rights dealing with water rights allocations will take at least a 
decade to make its way through the nation's court system. Until 
quality assurance standards are brought out in public, until the 
public understands that fraud may have been the case, this 
legislation is going to have a difficult journey through Congress 
according to Porter. The DOE has not been forthcoming in trying 
to prove that their quality assurance standards are safe and 
within industry standards.

Loux said in a prepared news release, "Nuclear fuel and waste can 
be managed safely at reactor sites for hundreds of years." He 
further noted that neither the EPA nor the NRC has yet issued a 
licensing standard for Yucca after their old standards were 
overturned by a federal appeals court three years ago. 
*****************************************************************
 71 Belfast Telegraph: Contamination in Irish Sea 'could last for decades'

 Sellafield discharge fears
 
By Michael McHugh 19 April 2006 	 

Levels of radioactive discharge in the Irish Sea which have been
linked to Sellafield could take decades to disappear completely,
the Belfast Telegraph learned today. 



A by-product known as Technetium 99 is contaminating the sea
water and it could be many years before it is completely clear
of the toxin. 

The admission by the Food Standards Agency was made in a reply
to a query from the Celtic League group which is campaigning on
pollution issues. 

Levels of Tc-99 discharged from Sellafield have fallen in recent
years, but the complexities of the dispersal process mean the
benefits may not be seen for some time. 

Resultant residues of chemical poisoning in lobsters and crabs
will also take time to drop. 

The letter from the FSA said: "The Agency commissioned a
research study... this work indicated that, dependent on the
chemical nature of technetium, there would be slow but steady
release of technetium over several tens of years. 

"There will be reductions in Irish Sea Tc-99 concentrations but
due to the complex nature of the Irish Sea environment it's
impossible to say exactly when." 

Data indicates some reduction in contamination levels in 2005. 

"It seems likely that it will be a few years yet before
technetium concentrations in lobsters reduce to pre-1995
levels," the letter added. 

"Again, I cannot give you an exact figure due to the
complexities of the marine environment." 

The Celtic League has members in six Celtic countries and
investigates political, cultural and environmental matters. 

It initially raised the matter with Environment Secretary
Margaret Beckett. 

South Down MP Eddie McGrady is another long-time environmental
campaigner and he said the release of Tc-99 was a bad step by
Sellafield's management. 

"It is a very powerful isotope with quite a long isotopic life.
To initially discharge it was, I think, a gross neglect of
public duty," he said. 

"This is an ongoing area of grave, grave concern. 

"We have unfortunately to live with that terrible bad judgment,"
he added. 

A spokeswoman for Sellafield said: "All Tc-99 discharges are in
accordance with the current discharge authorisations granted by
the UK's Environment Agency."     

© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) 
*****************************************************************
 72 The Debate: The Toxic Waste Version of Shrinky Dinks
            
 AP Photo/Kyodo News, Yumi Ozaki 

At this nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in northern Japan, more
than 10 gallons of water containing plutonium and other
radioactive material leaked inside the compound on March 12. The
plant's operator announced that no radioactivity was released
into the atmosphere. 

One of the dominant themes in the comments yesterday was the
safety of nuclear energy. Today's nuclear plant designs are much
safer than in the past, notes . Point well taken. But for many
debaters, the plants are -- it's what to do with the highly
radioactive waste they produce. for disposal? Can we reduce the
waste's ? How about its toxicity? 

says reprocessing reduces radioactivity, but he doesn't say by
how much. Reprocessing separates the unused uranium and
plutonium from the waste left behind. So it extracts the useful
bits to reuse for electricity or whatever else, but we're still
left with some seriously toxic waste. 

No problem, writes . When reprocessed, Chris Ford says, the
waste quite literally shrinks, losing 95 percent of its volume.
"Nuclear waste is amazingly compact," so it wouldn't take too
large an area to hold all the waste generated over many years of
providing electricity. 

Possible uses of spent fuel (nuclear waste that has not had the
uranium and plutonium extracted from it) are by Australia's
Uranium Information Centre. But even that very pro-nuclear
organization -- it's funded by uranium mining companies --
classifies the leftovers from reprocessing as "unequivocally
waste" having "no conceivable future use." 

Reprocessing also raises , as the materials extracted can be
used to make nuclear weapons, and there's a bunch of this stuff
in storage around the world. Some opponents of nuclear energy
say releases , and are higher around these reprocessing plants. 

The United States currently does not reprocess spent fuel -- at
least, . But it still produces a fair bit of spent fuel that
needs a home. A very, very, very secure home, where nothing will
be able to get in or out for at least a thousand or so years. 

Some of you believe increasing reliance on nuclear energy . But
how do you address the toxic waste problem? 	
 		By Emily Messner | April 18, 2006; 04:52 PM ET 					 |
Category: 												 					 				 			 		 		


 I would suggest considering alternative energy producing
arrangements that help the environment as well as provide us
with energy. 

There is a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, being
generated at farms and more to come when the permafrost melts,
so we could collect as it is released and prevent further global
warming and provide a source of energy for farms and communities
on the melting tundra. 


Also how about genetically engineering yeast to produce hydrogen
so you can brew beer and produce hydrogen at the same time.
 Just a thought. 

There is also that recent experiment that shows that you can
create gravity using a spinning superconductor ring just like
Faraday used electricity to create magnetism. 

Then there are those guys a Sandia who create temperatures
higher than that found in the sun, but aren't quite sure how.
They worry me a bit. 

So there are alternatives, but in the short run, IMHO the money
should be spent on improving efficiency, reducing demand and
being friendly to our very hurt and damaged environment. 

We could grow a lot more plants in our barren concrete living
and working environ, on all our buildings and roof tops, to grow
food and extract carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and reduce
global warming. 

I wonder what hurricane season is going to be like this year?
			 			
Posted by: Richard Katz | Apr 18, 2006 7:45:46 PM |                     

A much more interesting problem than how do we deal with nuclear
waste is how do we deal with waste? Generally, liquid waste is a
more difficult problem than solid waste, and gaseous waste is
even more difficult. Not only do fossil fuels require 100,000 -
1 million times as much fuel (seen in the much higher numbers of
coal miners dying and greater damage to the Earth, and the
greater dangers and expense in shipping natural gas, compared to
uranium), but fossil fuels produce 100,000 - 1 million times as
much waste. mostly gases. 

Increased cancers around reprocessing plants? It is doubtful
that there is much of a health risk to workers and the public in
reprocessing (excepting the Japanese accident), but the health
effects of not using nuclear power -- with or without
reprocessing -- are well known. Coal pollution kills tens of
thousands in the US, and many more worldwide, every year from
heart and respiratory diseases, including cancer. 

(A side comment to say that it looks like we need all of the
solutions on the table, rapidly and radically increased
efficiency, a shift to non-carbon energy supplies, living with
less, and some not yet found, to get to the kinds of greenhouse
gas cuts people in policy say are necessary, 65 - 85% or even
more in the next few decades, even as population will increase
by 40% and per capita consumption continues to rise.) 

How safe would Yucca Mountain be? 

From National Academies Press, written by the National Research
Council Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel:
The Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges (2001) ( 

Principal Findings and Conclusions 

â€¢ Today's growing inventory of HLW (high level waste) requires
attention by national decision-makers.
 â€¢ The feasible options are monitored storage on or near the
earth's surface and geological disposition.
 â€¢ Geological disposal remains the only long-term solution
available.
 â€¢ Today the biggest challenges to waste disposal are societal
(perceived problems rather than actual problems).
 â€¢ Whether, when, and how to move toward geological disposal
are societal problems for each country.
 â€¢ A stepwise process is appropriate for decision making under
technological and social uncertainty.
 â€¢ Successful decision making is open, transparent, and
broadly participatory.
 â€¢ International cooperation can help achieve national
solutions. 

Principal recommendations 

1. National organizations with responsibility for the management
of HLW, together with the scientific and engineering communities
(including social scientists), should provide the leadership and
support for solving the problems posed by HLW. 

2. National HLW programs should expand their efforts beyond
technical project development and implement processes that
involve the public in decisions to assure safety and security. 

3. For both scientific and societal reasons, national programs
should proceed in a phased and stepwise manner, supported by
dialogue and analysis. 

4. National programs should increase international cooperation
by sharing information, coordinating policies, supporting
international organizations, developing a consensus on
international standards, and seeking other ways to assure that
all countries achieve safe disposition of their nuclear waste. 

5. National programs should take an integrated, comprehensive,
and risk-based systems view to assure safety and security for
storage facilities and repositories, both in the implementation
of the waste management program and in its regulatory oversight. 

Safety and security assessment experts must communicate their
belief that their calculated results, although imperfect,
provide sufficiently reliable input for decision makers. As long
as one can be accurate in assuring that the levels of
radioactive release are low, precise estimates are not needed.
Even with some orders of magnitude of residual uncertainty, the
calculated release may be clearly within defined safety goals or
limits. All parties involved in the decision-making process
should have a consistent and accurate perception of what
model-based analysis can and cannot do, so they do not make
erroneous decisions based on incorrect or biased expectations. 


The biggest problem with nuclear waste is that the public is
devoting too much time to worrying about it, and too little time
worrying about fossil fuel waste. 

Re geological disposition, there is new thinking favoring
reprocessing the fuel, mixing in a contaminant to preclude any
weapons making. 
			 			
Posted by: Karen Street | Apr 18, 2006 11:26:47 PM |                    
					 			 				
Ms. Messner, "shrinky dink" is actually quite elequant of you. 
Something that gets smaller but denser while retaining it's 
essential characteristics and nature. A pity in the general 
public it will be associated more with George Costanza, cold 
water, and Seinfeld than toxic waste that gets smaller all on 
it's own vs. stable for eternity toxic waste like PCBs, or 
lead-acid, NI-CAD batteries... 

But it does work as a nuke waste metaphor...a glob of spent
nuclear fuel does get smaller as a hazard with every passing
moment in time. 

I would say that society does manage to recycle other toxic
waste. Waste that is toxic for all eternity. Evironweenie
hysteria about their rectal plucking "facts" like plutonium
being the most deadly substance known to man is laughable to
anyone knowing the lethality of botulin, VX, dimethyl mercury
and other truly top of the pyramid toxic substances. Plutonium?
Nasty stuff. But super deadly? Pure crap. Back in the day -
Soviet disregard for worker safety led hundreds of Russians to
be exposed, then expecting to die from have carried grams of the
stuff in their bodies after sloppy Soviet nuke work. A few did
indeed die, but in nowhere near the numbers expected. 

The fear mongering is counterproductive. Yes, a single
microspeck of asbestos could cause a fatal cancer, same with
selenium or benzene molecules in gasoline that could stay
hazardous for hundreds of billions of years...so why are we
concerned so much about self-neutralizing rad waste that is less
radioactive in 10,000 years time than the ore it was mined
from?? 

Your attribution of reprocessing nuke waste leftovers as having
"no working value" according to the superb Australian Working
Paper #9: 

on policy - is not quite true, though I would recommend the
Aussie paper to any layperson as making the nuke power end
product issues crystal clear in just a few pages of issues and
facts policy discussion. 

Certain actinides like Techicium-99 and transuranics have
enormous value, and discussions continue about the value of easy
chemical separation of bioactive radioactive compounds like
strontium 90 for burnup in fast flux reactors and taking the
most prevalent isotopes like CS-137 out of the spent fuel in
reprocessing and using it in fixed substances humans will not
encounter like calcium binding it to artificial reefs in
concrete. 200 years and it's gone, and we know that the practice
is fine for the fishies because richest reef life on the planet
is now at Bikini Atoll and Einwetok - where fishing has been
banned for 60 years because of all the A-Bomb and H-bomb tests
there.... 

Now, a minor spill inside a contained area in Japan is no big
deal. It stays in a contained area and is cleaned up. On the
other hand, back in 1998, Japanese workers in Tokai accidentally
caused a criticality and 3 workers got nailed. But 5,000 to
8,000 workers a year die mining, using and processing coal. And
nuke workers as a measure of injuries and fatalities are far
safer in their jobs than truck drivers or construction workers -
and far, far safer than farmers, fishermen, or miners. 

From mankinds earliest origins, learning what is toxic and
avoiding and co-opting toxic things is deep in human evolution.
And we weed the stupid and ill-adapted that think picking up
vipers despite Mom's warnings, eating pretty mushrooms, or
stepping in front of cars at crosswalks is OK. On the other
hand, our evolution has meant dealing with killers like fire,
cassava root, castrol oil plants, automobiles, electricity, the
merciless deadly ocean that killed 1 out of 5 sailors daring to
venture on it until man mastered transoceanic journeys. 

Along the way, man has always been opposed by the fearful and
ignorant arguing the risk of putting boats out past the horizon,
of using electricity, of "deadly heavier than air flight" was
all too much to bear. 

A renewable energy generating resource that has virtually no
waste volume or CO2 generation? But that can kill as easily as
fire, electricity, or navigating seas if we are not profoundly
respectful and knowledgable about it? I think we can handle it,
ignorant fear mongers aside... 

Occasionally ideologues step in to tell us that solar eclipses
will kill us all, tomatos are poison, and apples cause cancer. 

Perhaps part of our "test on Earth" is our ability to 

Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 19, 2006 12:05:28 AM |                      
					 			 				
fallicious reasoning... 

Posted by: I love proponents of | Apr 19, 2006 12:32:24 AM
| 			 					 			 				
Use the waste to build the wall.                                                
Posted by: On the plantation | Apr 19, 2006 7:02:47 AM |
			 					 			 				
Brilliant idea. That way, whatever illegals make it over the
wall will be easy to spot in the dark.						 			 			
 				Posted by: | Apr 19, 2006 9:54:56 AM | 			 					 			 				

From today's UK Guardian: 

"Independent scientists and economists know that nuclear energy
is the most expensive electricity source available, counting the
cost of building, running and decommissioning the power
stations. But an economic analysis alone cannot calculate the
costs of damage done to our genes, the very foundation of
life."					 			 			

Posted by: Twilly | Apr 19, 2006 11:28:55 AM |                                                          

The discussions above certainly show all sides of the picture.
We have thoughtful reviews of the nuclear waste stream vs. other
energy waste streams, and then we have general comments like
"damage to our genes". Persective is needed, particularly with
respect to radiation. 

It is fear of radiation in any amount in any form that drives
much of the public debate. There is a lack of understanding of
radiation - I suspect a great many people don't realize they are
being exposed to radiation every second of every day - fron
cosmic rays, from radon, from the potassium within their own
bodies. 

It is the amount of radiation, it's location relative to the
human body (internal or external), and in some cases the type
(alpha, beta, gamma) that matter. Radiation is rather like
alcohol - a little won't hurt, long-term heavy exposure can have
health effects, and a massive exposure can kill you. 

It is also important to understand when we talk about how much
radiation we are being exposed to that the amount shown to
potentially cause long-term damage (let's conservatively say 10
Rem externally all at once) is orders of magnitude higher than
what most of the discussions are about. [Not Chernobyl though -
that was a mess.] 

I've tried to provide an overview of radiation within my novel
"Rad Decision", available at no cost at See Episode 9.
Disclosure: I have worked in the nuclear industry for over
twenty years.						 			 			

Posted by: James Aach | Apr 19, 2006 1:53:31 PM |                                                               


Whoops. 						 			 			
Posted by: James Aach | Apr 19, 2006 1:54:47 PM |                                                               
			 				

James Aach wrote: 

"It is fear of radiation in any amount in any form that drives
much of the public debate."
 ___________ 

Probably a generaly true statement. For those of us who know
something a bit the subject at the practical level (and as an
atomic veteran I do include myself in that minority), the fear I
would have would not be about high general levels of radiation.
What always scared the bejesus out of me was the absorption of
dangerous isotopes into the body even in quantities that might
be measured in hundreds of molecules. Potassium and xenon
isotopes (relatively short lived) like to screw with the
thyroid; cesium and strontium (long half lives) go for the
bones. Nano amounts of the wrong elements are deadly over time.
Keeping the nuclear process clean at that level is the major
engineering challenge in my opinion. 			 			

Posted by: On the plantation | Apr 19, 2006 4:24:05 PM |
			 					 			 				

Well, one thing that is very important is a great head of hair.
Let's not forget that radiation causes hair to fall out. Think
of all that waste just sitting around. Now think about walking
among crowds of bald people. Let's not reach that point. For a
great head of hair, the HairTrap.com is the place to go. Just
don't bring the radiation or toxic waste with you. ;0)	 			 			

Posted by: Mark Styles | Apr 19, 2006 5:30:59 PM |                      
					 			 				
Mark Styles wrote: 

". . . one thing that is very important is a great head of
hair." 

__________ 

Not commonly understood, is that the the gene for male retention
of hair on the scalp (or lack thereof) is passed down through
the mother. Ball caps and sunscreen lotion get the prize for
this masking this conditon. Those affected are not damaged in
their internal brain functions, and don't think that much about
what onlookers believe. It doesn't seem to affect hair growth in
other parts of the body. 

BTW, I suspect that male genes for great hair growth also
support wide male butts. Selective female deciders picking their
choice male contributors are to be so advised which sorting out
their potential matches. 
			 			
Posted by: On the plantation | Apr 19, 2006 7:10:39 PM |

I think these various issues are well worth discussing: reactor
safety, proliferation potential, waste disposal. 

But I am disappointed that the biggest issue is not yet on the
screen:	security. At a number of stages in teh nuclear fueld
cycle, there is a great and almost undebatable need for
security. 

These include at a minimum enrichment plants, fuel
transportation, reactors, spent fuel storage, and high level
waste transportation and disposal. 

There are several independent but quite important reasons for
this need for security: 

1. Prevention of diversion of weapons usable materials to rogue
nations or subnational groups, either to build secret arsenals,
or to expand existing arsenals to levels beyind what is known
and monitored. 

2. Prevention of the diversion of material that is
environmentally dangerous to people with bad intentions. This
includes the "dirty bomb" being employed against populations,
but also a number of environmental blackmail scenarios: "give us
what we want or we will permanently pollute Lake Erie."	 

3. Prevention of disruption of energy supply in a highly
centralized system, particularly where, as in an attack on a
reactor, there could at teh same time be major environmental
consequences. 

Even then, unless security is very very good indeed, we have to
worry about the "bluff" scenario. If someone claims to have a
dirty bomb in Manhattan, how confident do you have to be to call
this bluff? 

A strong commitment to nuclear power requires that a very large
number of people guard a very large number of activities and
installations ALL THE TIME. 

These jobs are expensive to pay for. And they are not terribly
nice jobs, as research has shown. For example, we hope that the
great majority of these people would never have to confront a
real and serious security issue in the 30 or 40 years of a
career. How do you keep them interested, excited, or productive
when almost nothing ever happens? 

And of course, the vulnerability of the system, and the terrible
consequences of a serious incident -- bad people with nuclear
weapons, threats of 'dirty bombs,' ecological threats, big
blackouts -- means that we will have to have additional and very
intrusive security legislation, expanded surveillance of the
citizen, new or expanded security agencies.	 

Ultimately, it is quite honest to question whether an
industrialized society with a heavy commitment to the nuclear
fuel cycle: 

1. Can afford the necessary security costs. 

2. Can achieve the needed level of security while maintaining an
open society and civil liberties. 

3. Ultimately, can a full on commitment to nuclear power be
consistent with democratic norms? 

Let us look at these concerns along with the others, please. 

Posted by: Luke Danielson | Apr 19, 2006 8:20:25 PM |                   
					 			 				
I don't think it's so much that the public fears radiation -- we
get on jet planes without even thinking of it -- as that
governments that tax fossil fuels, and see a dollar's worth of
uranium as a twenty-dollar loss, or more, are very easily
persuaded that the public is irrational on the particular issue
of radiation that is connected to fossil fuel tax revenue
cancellation. If no irrational members of the public turn up, I
suspect they plant some. 

To me reprocessing doesn't seem worth doing. It does NOT reduce
spent fuel's radioactivity, and volume reduction, if
accomplished, is not very helpful. Dumps for spent fuel, or its
reprocessed remains, are heat-limited, not volume-limited. 

The need for long-term isolation seems to be adequately met by
deep burial or deep ocean dumping. Much greater quantities of
natural radioactivity overlie such burial sites, and are not so
conscientiously packaged, so the supposed worry about the
man-made radioactivity escaping surely cannot be genuine. 			 			
 				Posted by: G.R.L. Cowan | Apr 19, 2006 8:33:32 PM | 			
					 			 				

Great article. 			 			
 				Posted by: New | Apr 19, 2006 9:45:33 PM | 			 					 			
				

I've read recently that through most of the stages of the
production of nuclear energy (from mining through to eventual
waste disposal), there is considerable production of greenhouse
gases anyway. Which would seem to reduce some of the above
pro-nuclear energy arguments.
 Also the supply of uranium ore is not endless and will get
progressively more expensive to provide.				 			 			
 				Posted by: SpryCorpse | Apr 19, 2006 10:34:52 PM | 			 		
					 				
Post a Comment
 			 			
 			 				 				 					

 						Name: 						
 						 					 
Email Address:
 

URL:
 

Remember personal info? 
--> 					

 						Comments: 						
 						 						 					 					 --> 						 					 			 			 		 	 	  	 	
  

+ 	 	© 2005 The Washington Post Company 	 			 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 	
	 	 		 	 		 			 [ border=] 
*****************************************************************
 73 UPI: Russia aims to grow nuclear fuel business
     
  United Press International - NewsTrack - 

4/19/2006 4:09:00 PM -0400                              

MOSCOW, April 19 (UPI) -- Russia aims to boost its share of the
global nuclear fuel cycle services market to 25 percent. 

Alexei Grigoryev, a first deputy director general of
Techsnabexport, Russia's state-controlled uranium supplier and
provider of uranium enrichment services, said Wednesday he sees
strong growth in the Asia-Pacific region, Novosti reported. 

"We are continuing to develop our relations with Japan. We held
recently a number of working meetings, from which we hope that
in 2006-07 the portfolio of Russian orders in Japan receive a
boost, both in terms of the quality of nuclear fuel cycle
services, and in terms of their quantity. 

"We now have 10 percent of the Japanese market, and our future
goal, by the end of the decade, is to take 20 percent to 30
percent of Japan's nuclear energy market. In monetary terms this
implies tens of millions of dollars per year."

 						
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 74 UK: News & Star: Sellafield workers miss out on pay
 						
Published on 19/04/2006

By Gemma Fraser
 
HUNDREDS of agency workers at Sellafield were left without cash
over the Easter weekend after employer Capita failed to pay them 
on time.
 
Staff were told that they would be paid last Thursday â€“ a day 
early because of the holiday â€“ but some workers were not paid 
until late yesterday afternoon. 

Capita only took over the contract â€“ worth £150m â€“ to supply 
Sellafield with more than 1,500 agency workers at the beginning 
of the month.
 
The late payment was the first time staff received their wages, 
paid on a weekly basis, from their new employer.
 
One employee, who asked not to be named, told the News & Star 
that she had been forced to borrow money to pay the bills.
 
She said: â€œWe are supposed to get paid each Friday but we were 
told that because of the bank holiday we would be paid on 
Thursday. They even gave us a deadline that we had to have our 
time sheets in by so that we would get paid.
 
â€œI have had to borrow money from my parents and my boyfriend 
over the weekend, which is not an ideal situation to be in.
 
â€œMy bills still came out but I didnâ€™t have any money in the 
bank.â€
 
She said that the only way she could contact Capita was through a 
general helpline and she was given different information about 
when her wages would be paid each time she called.
 
She added: â€œIâ€™ve been an agency worker here for about two 
years and I never had a problem until Capita took over. Now I 
just wonder whether I can believe what theyâ€™re saying.â€
 
When Capita was awarded the contract â€“ aimed at cutting costs 
at the site â€“ last month, Sue Tandy, Sellafield commercial 
director for management services, said: â€œItâ€™s British Nuclear 
Groupâ€™s intention to ensure the move to the new contract with 
Capita causes no detriment to individualsâ€™ current 
arrangements.â€ 

*****************************************************************
 75 icWales: Nuclear-free Wales MPs take war to No.10
         
Apr 19 2006
  
Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail     
  
WELSH MPs presented an anti-nuclear petition to Downing Street
yesterday as opposition hardens to the idea of a new generation
of nuclear power stations. 

New stations are being considered as part of the Government's
energy review, due in June, with Prime Minister Tony Blair
thought to have been convinced of the case for nuclear. But he
faces opposition from the public and MPs - and from his Cabinet
colleague Peter Hain - to any such move. 

More than 2,350 people from Wales signed the petition opposing
new nuclear stations, which was presented to Downing Street by
Labour MPs Nia Griffith and Martin Caton, and Liberal Democrat
MP Jenny Willott. 

The petition comes almost exactly 25 years after the original
Nuclear-free Wales declaration, when all eight Welsh county
councils passed a resolution opposing nuclear technology. 

Ms Griffith said, "Our opposition to nuclear power stems from
the horrific legacy of nuclear waste, the enormous cost and the
timescale, which means that new nuclear power stations could not
be ready in time to fill the energy gap. Far better to invest in
the whole range of renewable technologies such as marine
turbines, solar energy and off-shore wind and create far more
jobs locally." 

The battle-lines over nuclear became even more clearly drawn
over the weekend, with Mr Blair suggesting Britain will need to
invest in both nuclear and renewable energy. Britain will lose
around 20 gigawatts of electricity capacity by 2015, mainly due
to the closure of existing nuclear stations. 

Meanwhile the Commons Environmental Audit Committee has warned
new nuclear stations may not be fully operational until 2030,
while the staunchly anti-nuclear Assembly Government has
proposed a tidal barrage across the Severn to help fill the
energy gap. Mr Hain backed the idea as an alternative to
nuclear. 

Ms Willott said, "People are still very firmly opposed to
nuclear power in Wales. The consensus is less solid about what
the alternatives are; there are lobby groups who are very
opposed to windfarms for instance. It would be very dangerous if
the argument becomes wind versus nuclear. We have a lot of
potential in Wales for renewable energy, and that's where there
is a need to build a consensus." 

So far eight of Wales' 40 MPs have signed a Commons motion
calling for Wales to be kept nuclear free. Ms Griffith said she
hoped more would sign. 

Newport West MP Paul Flynn, who was involved in the 1981
nuclear-free declaration, said, "Wales' voice was heard at that
time and I think it should be heard strongly again, against this
preposterous idea of new nuclear power stations. This is a blind
alley." 

On Sunday the Environmental Audit Committee said the first of
any new plants would not come on stream until 2017, and as the
full generating capacity of such a programme may not be
available until 2030, the committee said the country would still
face a "generating gap". 

Any new stations built in Wales would be likely to be
constructed at the existing sites in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd. 
  	
Copyright and Trade Mark Notice                                                         
© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006
icWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc.
*****************************************************************
 76 Knox News: Judge: TVA charged too much

Power provider found to have billed some industrial customers 
excessively

By REBECCA FERRAR, ferrarr@knews.com 

April 19, 2006                                                          

A federal judge ruled Tuesday against TVA in a class-action case 
accusing the federal utility of overcharging about 400 industrial 
customers in its seven-state region. 

Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins granted summary judgment in U.S. 
District Court in Birmingham, Ala., on the issue of liability. 
She stated that a pretrial conference would be set to prepare the 
case for trial on the issue of damages. 
                                
The class, represented by Johns Manville, an Etowah fiberglass 
manufacturing company, claimed TVA overbilled customers for 
surplus power during the summer of 1998. 

Michael Ermert, a Birmingham attorney representing the 
plaintiffs, said TVA overcharged the companies $40 million. 

"About 400 industrial customers are obviously concerned about the 
bottom line for their companies and when you consider electrical 
charges are a large part of running a company, charges can affect 
the bottom line," he said. "They weren't expecting a spike in the 
summer of 1998, yet that's what they got." 

TVA has contended that, according to an inspector general's 
report in 1999, the overbillings amounted to no more than $1.6 
million, and the agency planned to credit those amounts to the 
industries. 

TVA declined comment on the ruling Tuesday. "TVA has just 
received the information and we have not had time to look at it," 
spokeswoman Barbara Martocci said. 

The suit involves charges to customers in TVA's Economy Surplus 
Power program. 

"We said as a matter of law, TVA breached its contract because 
the charges applied to customers that summer were not authorized 
by the contract," Ermert said. "TVA filed a motion for summary 
judgment that said the charges were authorized. The judge granted 
summary judgment to us as to liability, that they (TVA) did in 
fact breach the contract, and denied TVA's motion." 

Birmingham Steel Corp. filed the suit in 1999 but the court ruled 
the company could not represent the class because it had filed 
for bankruptcy. Johns Manville was certified to represent the 
class in 2004. 

The plaintiffs are made up of industrial customers who 
participate in TVA's Economy Surplus Power program. Under that 
program, TVA provides an interruptible power supply to industrial 
customers, allowing them to pay a lower average rate for power. 

As of July 1999, TVA had 60 direct-served customers and 345 
customers served by distributors who took advantage of the 
Economy Surplus Power program. 

TVA, which regularly buys power on the open market to supplement 
power generated by fossil, nuclear and hydropower units, could no 
longer buy power by the hour and had to start buying power in 
more expensive blocks. 

The plaintiffs contend that TVA charged them for those blocks of 
power "even for hours when TVA had sufficient power resources to 
supply the ESP load," the judge ruled. 

Business writer Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 77 Knox News: Munger: Spallation Neutron Source grand opening
date still a guessing game

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 
                                
April 19, 2006

Although construction of the Spallation Neutron Source is almost 
a done deal, the grand-opening ceremonies for the $1.4 billion 
research complex could be months away. 

Nobody knows when at this point. 

"My best guess is sometime between Memorial Day and Labor Day," 
said Billy Stair, Oak Ridge National Laboratory's communications 
chief. 

Stair wasn't being flippant. 

The reason for the uncertainty resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 
in Washington, D.C. 

"The Tennessee congressional delegation has extended to the 
president an invitation to come, and that letter, as you would 
anticipate, gave him what they believe a reasonable window," 
Stair said. 

That window, as he said, is between Memorial Day and Labor Day. 

It's been an open secret for the past couple of years that Oak
Ridge officials want President Bush to be a part of the SNS
gala. But presidential visits are difficult to schedule, to say
the least. 

Bush's last trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory - July 13,
2004 - came with three days' notice, and preparations were made
with around-the-clock urgency. Oak Ridge folks would love to
have a little more leeway this time around, but they'll do
whatever is necessary to have the president cut the ribbon on
the nation's biggest science project. 

"I know there have been conversations with the White House
scheduling office, which appear to be positive, but there are
many contingencies that drive that decision," Stair said this
week. 

Stay tuned. 
+ 

Based on readings of the weekly activity reports of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, there are continuing concerns
about the seismic protection at Y-12's main production facility. 

The government apparently doesn't want to pay big bucks for
seismic upgrades at decades-old Building 9212. Why? Because
there are plans to replace it with a new $1 billion showpiece
called the Uranium Processing Facility. 

It's not clear, however, when Congress will fund the new
production facility at Oak Ridge's nuclear-weapons plant. That's
the rub. If UPF is delayed past 2012 or thereabouts, then safety
board staffers want some fixes at 9212. 

A compromise of some sort appears likely. 
+ 

BWXT, the government's managing contractor at Y-12, reportedly
has beefed up its oversight of construction at the new storage
facility for bomb-grade uranium. 

The move is in response to problems earlier this year involving
rebar - reinforcing steel - at the high-security building. In
multiple instances, the rebar was insufficient or failed to
match the original design specifications for the Y-12 project. 

Work recently resumed at the construction site, although there's
been no detailed information released on how the delays will
affect the overall schedule. 

According to a Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board report,
BWXT has added two new project managers experienced in nuclear
facility construction. The contractor also assigned several
additional quality-assurance and engineering personnel to the
$350 million project "to perform field oversight and review of
design/construction issues," the report said. 

Caddell-Blaine, a partnership of Caddell Construction of
Montgomery, Ala., and Blaine Construction of Knoxville, is
handling the building's construction, but BWXT will perform
rebar verifications and approve all concrete placements for an
unspecified period. 

Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at .
This column is also available in the opinion section of
knoxnews.com.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 78 Oakland Tribune: Union sues over lab's new pensions

Article Last Updated: 04/19/2006 02:55:45 AM PDT  

Legal wrangling could snarl key elements of Los Alamos
management transition

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  

  A labor union and four workers contended in a lawsuit Tuesday
that the University of California and a UC/Bechtel National-led
team were forcing more than 9,000 employees at Los Alamos
National Laboratory to swap one of the nation's plushest
pensions for lesser benefits and driving workers away from the
nuclear weapons lab. 

At stake is the gold-plated University of California pension
that has drawn thousands of workers to design and maintain U.S.
nuclear explosives at both Los Alamos and its sister lab,
Lawrence Livermore in the East Bay. 

The University Professional and Technical Employees union
alleges that the university is violating a commitment written
into the state constitution to look after its pensioners,
including weapons workers in New Mexico and California. 

University officials said they do not comment on litigation but
noted that they have acted in response to directives from the
U.S. Department of Energy. A spokesman for the UC/Bechtel team,
known as Los Alamos National Security, said the new pension
plans are intended to retain, not alienate, workers. 

The lawsuit asks an Alameda County Superior Court judge to
evaluate and rule on the retirement benefits due to those
workers, and to bar the university and new lab management team
from making changes to those benefits, as scheduled for May 15.
If the case goes before a jury, legal wrangling could snarl key
elements of the transition to new management at Los Alamos for a
year or more. 

In the last two years, the U.S. Department of Energy has put
management of both labs up for competitive bid and steered away
from more than a half-century of pure academic-style management
by the university, toward a more corporate-style of management.
The agency also insisted that lab pensions be managed
separately, without specifying whether the pensions stay within
or be split apart from the university's larger, richly funded
$42 billion pension plan. 

Worker advocates say the new management at Los Alamos has taken
away protections enjoyed by the university workers, making them
"at-will" employees, and is pressuring them to accept uncertain
future retirement benefits in order to keep their jobs. 

"An employee who can get fired on the spot for no reason is not
going to speak up for scientific integrity, is not going to
speak up if there's a safety problem," said Jelger Kalmijn, the
systemwide president of UPTE. 

Uncertainty about benefits and other employment conditions drove
retirement rates at Los Alamos 50 percent higher last year than
in the past, and Livermore workers predict the same for their
lab as it moves into a management competition. The result could
be a loss of the scientists, engineers and technicians with the
most experience and knowledge of U.S. nuclear explosives. 

"The long-term effects on the nation's security are, of course, 
unknown but potentially catastrophic," said Livermore physicist 
Jeff Colvin, a board member of the Society of Professionals, 
Scientists and Engineers, a labor organization at the laboratory. 

On March 15, Los Alamos National Security sent packets informing
Los Alamos workers that their jobs as university employees were
coming to an end May 31, but they were guaranteed jobs with the
new management if they transfer retirement benefits from the
university pension to a new pension plan. They also can take
inactive status in the university plan but risk being separated
into a second, separate plan. 

The problem, according to the union and its attorney, Arthur
Krantz, is that both new pension plans would be smaller, have
fewer assets and lack a track record for judging financial
reliability. 

"They're not being told all the pertinent information that an
employee would need to know to make a prudent decision," Krantz
said. "They're being told, 'Make your decision now, and you'll
find out what your prospects are later.'" 

Colvin said Los Alamos scientists feel coerced and "are deciding
that they're not just going to put up with what's going on with
the transition, and they are just going to take their retirement
and get out. Similar things are happening here at Livermore,
because we know that we're next in line." 

Los Alamos National Security officials say they worked with
Energy Department officials to assemble a compensation package
as close as possible or "substantially equivalent" to what lab
workers get now. If talented, experienced workers leave, the new
management team might not be able to meet deadlines for
maintenance of nuclear explosives and research on homeland
security technologies, as well as basic science. 

"LANS is committed to attracting and retaining high-level talent, 
and the plans that we have offered, we feel, help meet that 
commitment," said Jeff Berger, spokesman for the UC/Bechtel-led 
team. "We have every interest and we have every incentive to 
manage and operate the lab such that science is preeminent and 
the missions set by our customer are achieved or surpassed. 
There's no incentive for us to do otherwise." 

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.   
            
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  

*****************************************************************
 79 DOE: Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of Amendment to an Existing System
 
                         FR Doc E6-5892 
[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)] 
[Notices] [Page 20078-20079] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19ap06-56]                         
 
of Records AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice.
 
SUMMARY: As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a notice of a proposed 
amendment to an existing system of records. DOE proposes to amend 
the provisions for DOE-4, ``Form EIA-457 Survey Reports, 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),'' to establish a 
new routine use provision that allows for disclosure of 
information to authorized agents as defined in the Confidential 
Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, 
Title V of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, 116 
Stat 2962), to use the information for exclusively statistical 
purposes.
 
 
DATES: The proposed amendment to this existing system of records 
will become effective without further notice June 5, 2006, unless 
in advance of that date, DOE receives adverse comments and 
determines that this amendment should not become effective.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to the following 
address: Jay Casselberry, EI-3, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: Abel Lopez, Director, Freedom of Information 
Act and Privacy Act Group, ME-74, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586- 5955; 
Jay Casselberry, EI-3, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-8616; and 
Isiah Smith, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Administrative 
Litigation and Information Law, GC-77, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
202-586-8618.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 17, 
2002, enactment of the Confidential Information Protection and 
Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), Title V of the 
E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, 116 Stat 2962), DOE 
proposes to amend the provisions for DOE-4, ``Form EIA-457 Survey 
Reports, Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS),'' to 
establish a new routine use provision that allows for disclosure 
of information to authorized agents, as defined in CIPSEA, to use 
the information for exclusively statistical purposes.
 
Section 512(a) of the CIPSEA provides an opportunity for 
statistical agencies and organizational units to designate agents 
(as defined in section 502(2)(A)) who may use Federal statistical 
data collected or acquired under a pledge of confidentiality for 
exclusively statistical purposes. The agency that possesses the 
confidential information must ensure that any agent provided 
access to the information will comply with CIPSEA.
 
The DOE proposes to amend DOE-4 to allow for the disclosure of 
identifiable information maintained in the system of records to 
agents approved by EIA that agree in writing to maintain the 
confidentiality of the information and to use the information for 
exclusively statistical purposes. At this time, DOE is also 
updating information in other sections of the system of records 
notice including the system location, purposes, and categories of 
users.
 
DOE is submitting the report required by OMB Circular A-130 
concurrently with the publication of this notice. The text of 
this notice contains the information required by the Privacy Act, 
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4).
 
Issued in Washington, DC on April 12, 2006.
 
Ingrid A. C. Kolb, Director, Office of Management.
 
DOE-4 SYSTEM NAME: Form EIA-457 Survey Reports, Residential 
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).
 
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified.
 
SYSTEM LOCATION(S): U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration (EIA), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585.
 
[[Page 20079]] CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: 
Persons responding to the Form EIA-457, Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (RECS).
 
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Name, age, gender, race, 
ethnicity, home address, home telephone number, income, family 
size and composition, characteristics of household, 
characteristics of housing unit, fuels used, household vehicles, 
name and address of landlord, names and addresses of energy 
suppliers, and records of energy purchases.
 
AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. 
and 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. PURPOSE(S): The information is 
collected and maintained by the DOE to measure the levels of 
energy consumption by homeowners and the cost of energy consumed. 
The information also is used for monitoring, analyzing, and 
modeling changes in the residential sector and its energy 
consumption.
 
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING 
CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: A record from 
the system may be disclosed as a routine use to DOE contractors 
in performance of their contracts, and their officers and 
employees who have a need for the record in the performance of 
their duties.
 
A record may be disclosed to an agent under a written agreement 
to maintain the confidentiality of the record, to use the 
information for exclusively statistical purposes, and to use the 
information consistent with the purposes cited above. Those 
provided information under the routine uses are subject to the 
Privacy Act.
 
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, 
RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: 
Records may be stored as paper records and electronic media.
 
RETRIEVABILITY: Records may be retrieved by name and 
identification number.
 
SAFEGUARDS: Paper records are maintained in locked cabinets and 
desks. Electronic records are controlled through established 
computer center procedures (personnel screening and physical 
security), and they are password protected. Passwords are known 
only by authorized system users. Access is limited to those whose 
official duties require access to the records.
 
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records retention and disposal 
authorities are contained in the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule and DOE record 
schedules that have been approved by NARA.
 
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Headquarters: Administrator, 
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
 
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: In accordance with the DOE regulation 
implementing the Privacy Act, at Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 1008, a request by an individual to determine 
if a system of records contains information about him/her should 
be directed to the Director, Headquarters Freedom of Information 
Act and Privacy Act Group, U.S. Department of Energy. The request 
should include the requester's complete name, time period for 
which records are sought, and the office locations(s) where the 
requester believes the records are located.
 
RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES: Same as Notification Procedures above. 
Records are generally kept at locations where the work is 
performed. In accordance with the DOE Privacy Act regulation, 
proper identification is required before a request is processed.
 
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Same as Notification Procedures 
above.
 
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The subject individual and energy 
supply companies.
 
SYSTEM EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: None.
 
[FR Doc. E6-5892 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************