*****************************************************************
05/29/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.127
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq Poised to Become Main Iranian Ally
2 IRNA: Larijani, Ivanov discuss Iran's nuclear issue
3 Guardian Unlimited: 6 World Powers to Discuss Iran in Vienna
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Set Up for Big Gains in Iraq
5 IRNA: Iran has right to complete its N-program - Malaysian PM 
6 New York Times: Iran's Drive to Nuclear Fuel Slows, Diplomats Say - 
7 IRNA: Nuclear power "should supply 30 percent" of UK's energy consum
8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani,Ivanov discuss nuclear issue 
9 IRNA: Khatami: Iran under political pressure because of its N-progra
10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM in Malaysia to attend NAM meeting 
11 AFP: Iran, Russia agree to continue nuclear talks
12 AFP: World powers ready to guarantee Iran's right to nuclear energy 
13 AFP: World powers weigh nuclear 'guarantee' for Iran, Russia says -
14 IRNA: Iran will continue uranium enrichment in its territory - Elham
15 AFP: US optimistic about prospects of consensus on Iran 
16 AFP: US pushing Europe, Japan for sanctions against Iran leaders -
17 IRNA: Lebanon expresses support for Iran's peaceful N-right
18 Guardian Unlimited: 6 Nations Plan to Sign Off on Iran Package
19 Japan Times: China, S. Korea out of naval exercise 
20 US: [NYTr] Radioactive Troika: Bush, Nuke Power, NY Times
21 New York Times: Pentagon Seeks Nonnuclear Tip for Sub Missiles - 
22 FT.com: US - Bolton changes tune over UN relationship
23 US: reviewjournal.com: Divine Strake 'win' celebrated
24 Telegraph: Call for task force to save oil billions
25 DNA - Mumbai - Spent N-fuel idles away at Tarapur unit - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
26 New Data For West Re Chernobyl & It's Worst Effects Are Still To Com
27 The Australian: Most against nuke plants - poll 
28 The Australian: Nuclear dawn won't be tomorrow
29 ForUm: The Pivdenno-Ukrainiska nuclear plant holds up for routine re
30 Sydney Morning Herald: Most Aussies oppose nuclear plants - poll - 
31 IBNLive: Govt lied on N-deal, says BJP chief
32 RIA Novosti: Beloyarsk NPP to be put into operation by 2012, 
33 Pravda.Ru: Top nuclear official at time of Chernobyl summoned in pro
34 US: Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee decisions belong with Legi
35 US: CN: Bush’s Energy Initiative - Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Renew
36 Xinhua: Promote dialogue on energy co-operation   
37 China Daily: Official: Worries over nuclear plant unnecessary 
38 Telegraph: Pressure grows for 20 nuclear plants
39 US: TMI-Alert: TMI Security Guard Found Playing A Game - 
40 The Sunday Times: Nuclear Subsidies
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
41 US: Warrnambool Standard: Nuclear bomb survivor signs out
42 US: kutv.com: Mushroom Cloud Blast In NV Delayed Indefinitely
43 US: OpEd News: The Threat of Depleted Uranium Exposure - It's Real, 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 US: Deseret News: Bacteria used to clean up hazardous waste in Idaho
45 RIA Novosti: Siberian nuclear-waste plant head returns to work 
46 RIA Novosti: Russia to remove spent nuclear fuel from overseas by 20
47 Telegraph: Quest for a nuclear waste sign that goes beyond words
48 Telegraph: Hole in the ground solution to nuclear waste
49 Mos News: Nuclear Waste Plant Chief Dismissed for Major Pollution Re
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
50 Knox News: Y-12 getting rid of bombs
51 Knox News: Cleanup, demolition slow for K-25
52 Knox News: Munger: Storm tracker
53 Tennessean: Decade has passed since Oak Ridge cleanup began - 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq Poised to Become Main Iranian Ally
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 29, 2006 9:16 AM

AP Photo XHS101 

By TAREK AL-ISSAWI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - To Iran's west lies a natural ally and
perhaps its most potent weapon in the international fray over
its nuclear program. While Iran and Iraq were arch enemies
during the rule of Saddam Hussein, all signs point to an
increasingly robust relationship now that Shiites have achieved
a dominant role in the Iraqi leadership. 

It's a bond that has yet to reach its potential - in large part
because the U.S.-led invasion is responsible for Iraqi Shiites
being at the top of the political heap for the first time in
modern history. Iraqi Shiites are not looking the gift horse in
the mouth. 

But Iran and Iraq share a Shiite Muslim majority and deep
cultural and historic ties, and Tehran's influence over its
neighbor is growing. Iran will likely try to use Iraq as a
battleground if the United States punishes Tehran economically
or militarily, analysts say. 

Many key positions in the Iraqi government now are occupied by
men who took refuge in Iran to avoid oppression by the Saddam's
former Sunni Muslim-dominated Baathist regime. 

Iraq's powerful militias, meanwhile, have strong ties to Iran
and have deeply infiltrated Iraqi security forces. They can be
expected to side with Iran if the West should attack, said Paul
Ingram of the British American Security Information Council. 

``Iran has ties with Iraq which have not been mobilized as they
could have been,'' Ingram said. ``The militias based in Iraq
received much of their training from Iran and they have not
taken any instructions yet.'' 

The Mahdi Army, loyal to firebrand anti-American Shiite cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, the military wing of the
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, both have
significant links to Iran. The latter group is led by Abdul-Aziz
al-Hakim, the turbaned pro-Iranian cleric who headed the Shiite
ticket that won Iraq's national elections in January. 

If Iran is attacked, ``Iraqi Shiites will not take this lightly.
They will not sit and watch,'' said Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based
analyst. 

Iran's reach in Iraq goes well beyond the links to the powerful
armed groups. After the U.S.-led invasion three years ago, the
Iranian government quickly dispatched medical, humanitarian and
religious assistance, especially to the predominantly Shiite
cities in southern Iraq. Iran now is waiting for its investment
in Iraq to accrue interest. 

``Iran has a clear strategic depth in Iraq and there is an
alliance between Iran and the upcoming Iraqi powers,'' said
Iranian political analyst Mashallah Shamsolvaezin. ``Iran hasn't
utilized that option yet and it's a card that will be very
influential.'' 

But Iraqi Shiites, dependent on American military power to keep
their country from spiraling into chaos, are in no hurry to
confront the United States over Iran. 

``The Shiite political class in Iraq believes that if they
generally cooperate with the U.S. and Britain, eventually they
will withdraw and leave the Shiites in power,'' asked Juan Cole,
a Middle East political analyst at the University of Michigan.
``So far things have worked out wonderfully. Why rock the
boat?'' 

Still, Iran got a boost last week when Iraqi Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari said Tehran had the right to peaceful nuclear
research - a stance that ran counter to U.S. efforts to force
Iran to stop all nuclear activities amid fears it is seeking to
develop atomic weapons. 

Zebari's comments came during a visit by his Iranian
counterpart, the second high-level visit by an Iranian
delegation since Saddam was ousted in April 2003. 

The United States has acknowledged Iran's influence in Iraq,
publicly calling for talks between Iranian officials and Zalmay
Khalilzad, Washington's ambassador to Baghdad. 

The Iranians, after initially warming to the possibility, have
now declined, claiming the U.S. wants to expand the discussions
beyond the mutual interest in Iraq to include the nuclear
dispute. 

The talks would be the most public bilateral exchanges between
the United States and Iran since soon after the Iranian
Revolution in 1979. 

With Tehran's Taliban enemy no longer ruling Afghanistan to the
east and with Saddam gone in the west, Iran is seeking to assert
its regional muscle and wants the international community to
accept that role - including the right to develop its nuclear
program for what it says are peaceful purposes. 

Iran has serious concerns over the presence of U.S. troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan and also looks to the Persian Gulf with
unease because of the vast American military presence there. 

Iran views the Gulf as its sphere of influence and sees the
American military presence as both a potential military threat
and an attempt to control the region's vast oil resources. 

Compounding the nuclear dispute with Iran is the U.S. memory of
the Islamic revolution in 1979 and the subsequent crisis after
Iranians took over the American Embassy and held hostages there
for 444 days. Both issues have left the West eager to contain
Iranian influence. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Larijani, Ivanov discuss Iran's nuclear issue

May 28, IRNA

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali
Larijani and his Russian counterpart Igor Ivanov in a meeting
here Sunday discussed how to put an end the current standoff on
Iran's nuclear issue.

 According to SNSC secretariat, during the two rounds of talks
on Sunday morning and afternoon, both sides underlined the need
to pursue a diplomatic and political solution to the issue.

 During the meetings, the two sides also studied bilateral and
regional developments, Iran's nuclear issue as well as expansion
of economic, commercial and industrial cooperation.

 The two sides also decided to continue negotiations at the same
level.

 Ivanov arrived in Tehran on Saturday to discuss Iran's use of
nuclear technology for peaceful purpose.

 Ivanov last visited Tehran in November 2005.



*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: 6 World Powers to Discuss Iran in Vienna
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 29, 2006 11:46 AM

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and Germany will meet in Vienna later this week
in hopes of approving a package of incentives and penalties
meant to persuade Iran to give up uranium enrichment, diplomats
said Monday. 

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity for divulging the
confidential information, told The Associated Press the meeting
will take place Thursday. 

The meeting is a follow-up on talks in London last Wednesday,
where senior representatives of the United States, Russia,
Britain, France, China and Germany said they made good progress
in efforts to find common ground on rewarding Iran if it gives
up uranium enrichment or punishing it if it doesn't. 

The foreign ministers of the six nations would have to give
final approval to the package. Then it would formally be
presented to Tehran by France, Britain and Germany - the three
European nations who broke off similar talks with Iran in August
after it resumed activities linked to uranium enrichment, which
can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads. 

Iran, which insists it has a right to the technology to make
nuclear fuel, has repeatedly said nothing can make it relinquish
its fledgling enrichment program. 

In Malaysia, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
reiterated this stance on Monday. 

``The main incentive for Iran is to recognize the essential
right of Iran to have nuclear technology,'' he said. ``The time
of (issuing) threats to other nations is over. Selective
approach to humanitarian issues is over.'' 

The Security Council gave Iran until the end of April to suspend
all activities linked to enrichment. Instead of complying, Iran
upped the ante, announcing last month that it had for the first
time successfully enriched uranium and was doing research on
advanced centrifuges that would let it produce more of the
material in less time. 

Indirectly linked to any deal up for approval by the foreign
ministers would be agreement on a key issue that for months has
hobbled joint action by the Security Council's permanent members
on formulating a possible Security Council resolution tough
enough for Washington while also acceptable to Moscow, a close
ally of Tehran. 

Wrangling within the council has hampered its work since it
became actively involved in March, two months after Iran's
nuclear file was referred to it by the 35-nation board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear
monitoring agency. 

Russia and China have opposed calls by the United States,
Britain and France for a resolution that would threaten
sanctions and be enforceable by military action. 

The compromise proposal is meant to break that deadlock. 

In the event that Iran remains defiant, the proposal - as
outlined to the AP by diplomats familiar with the text - calls
for a Security Council resolution imposing sanctions under
Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter. But it avoids any
reference to Article 42 - which is the trigger for possible
military action to enforce any such resolution. 

And it specifically calls for new consultations among the five
permanent Security Council members on any further steps against
Iran. That is meant to dispel past complaints by the Russians
and Chinese that once the screws on Iran are tightened, it would
automatically start a process leading to military involvement. 

Still other potential hurdles remain. The proposed resolution
still would declare Iran a threat to international peace -
something also opposed by Moscow and Beijing. 

Among the possible sanctions, according to a draft proposal
shared in part with the AP, are a visa ban on government
officials, the freezing of assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products to Iran. 

If Tehran agrees to suspend enrichment, enter new negotiations
on its nuclear program and lift a ban on intrusive inspections
by the IAEA, they would be offered rewards including agreement
by the international community to ``suspend discussion of Iran's
file at the Security Council.'' 

The package also promised help in ``the building of new
light-water reactors in Iran,'' offered an assured supply of
nuclear fuel for up to five years, and asked Tehran to accept a
plan that would move its enrichment program to Russia. 

--- 

Associated Press Writer Eileen Ng contributed to this report
from Putrajaya, Malaysia. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Set Up for Big Gains in Iraq
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Monday May 29, 2006 6:31 PM

By ROBERT H. REID 

Associated Press Writer 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - With a new Iraqi government in place, Iran
is positioning itself to play a major role here at a time when
American influence is showing signs of faltering. 

That is worrisome to Iraq's Arab neighbors, especially
Sunni-dominated countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. But it
also raises serious questions for Washington, including the
wisdom of withdrawing entirely from Iraq when it has long been
considered the eastern defense against Iranian expansion. 

Concerns about Iran have simmered since the March 2003 U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq removed a Sunni-dominated dictatorship and set
the stage for democracy - or, inevitably, Shiite rule in a
country where Shiites hold an overwhelming majority. 

Those issues have now come to the fore because of Iran's
confrontational stance over its nuclear program. In effect,
Iran's recent robust behavior in Iraq serves to remind
Washington that it has its own cards to play - including
influence among Iraqi Shiites - if the Americans threaten Tehran
militarily over its plans to enrich uranium. 

Iran has wasted little time in moving to shore up ties with the
new government that took power last month in Baghdad. Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki flew to Baghdad on Friday,
where he was warmly welcomed by Iraq's new leadership, including
not only Shiites but also Sunni and Kurdish politicians. 

In addition, work has already started on a multimillion-dollar
international airport near the Shiite holy city of Najaf,
financed mostly by a low-interest loan from Iran. The airport is
designed to serve Shiite religious pilgrims visiting Najaf's
shrines and provide a major boost to the economy of Iraqi's
impoverished Shiite south. 

All that is alarming to the Middle East's majority Sunni Arab
governments - including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - which
have long feared Iranian influence among Shiites throughout the
Persian Gulf because it could undermine pro-American regimes in
the oil-rich region. 

Last year, Jordan's King Abdullah II warned that Iran wants to
create ``a Shiite crescent'' that would disrupt the balance of
power in the region. The Saudi foreign minister gave similar
warnings. 

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak then outraged Shiites across
the region this year when he said that Iraqi Shiites were more
loyal to Iran than to their own country. 

Arab governments fear a bleak future in which Iraq either
descends into civil war or ends up closely allied with Iran. 

As long as substantial U.S. forces remain in Iraq, those dark
scenarios seem unlikely. But prospects for a long-term U.S.
presence here look shaky as American public opposition to the
war grows. 

If the Americans leave, the Iranians are waiting in the wings. 

It is unlikely, however, that Iran would take a high-profile
role, given the ambivalent feelings that most Iraqis, even
Shiites, hold toward their eastern neighbor after a bitter 1980s
war that killed an estimated 2 million people. 

Sunni Arabs deeply distrust Iranians and consider Shiite
politicians little more than Iranian agents. Rumors circulate
widely that Iranian intelligence agents direct death squads in
Baghdad. 

``Iran wants to shape the situation in its favor, but does not
want to be, or be perceived as, heavy-handed about it,'' said
Juan Cole, an expert on Shiite Islam at the University of
Michigan. 

Instead, the Iranians prefer to work behind the scenes, doling
out cash to key Shiite political players - chief among them the
biggest Shiite political party, the Supreme Council for the
Islamic evolution in Iraq. 

Iran's hand also is rumored to be behind Shiite militias in
Basra, although little evidence of a direct link has been made
public. 

Nevertheless, U.S. officials have long accused the Iranians -
though not necessarily the Tehran government- of smuggling
weapons to Shiite militias in Basra and perhaps also selling
roadside bomb technology to Sunni militants - charges Iran
denies. 

If the charges are valid, it may be that Iran wants to keep Iraq
bubbling just enough to tie down the Americans and keep them
from any military moves against Tehran. 

Ironically, both the United States and Iran share an interest in
preventing Iraq from disintegrating into full-scale civil war,
something that would threaten Shiite political power in Iraq and
risk angering Iran's Arab minority. 

But the nuclear standoff, as well as a generation of bitterness,
has prevented the two countries from working together. U.S.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has offered to talk to the Iranians
but only about the situation in Iraq. 

Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, ruled out talks with the
Americans, citing unspecified conditions. That suggested the
Iranians want to hold out until Washington is ready to put
everything - including the nuclear issue - on the table. 

--- 

Robert H. Reid is correspondent at large for The Associated
Press and has reported frequently from Iraq since 2003.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: Iran has right to complete its N-program - Malaysian PM 

Kuala Lumpur, May 29, IRNA

Malaysia-Iran-NAM 

Iran has the right to complete its peaceful nuclear program, 
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said on Monday.

 Badawi's remarks were part of an address he delivered at the 
opening session of a two-day meeting of foreign ministers of the 
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which kicked off at the International 
Convention Center in Putrajaya, political capital of Malaysia.

 NAM has always supported the inalienable and basic right of all 
signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to obtain 
access to nuclear technology and complete their nuclear program 
for peaceful purposes, he said.

 The current head of NAM moreover said that all NPT signatories 
should be allowed to pursue their right to nuclear energy without 
discrimination and complying merely with security requirements 
under the treaty.

 Pointing to the application of dual and/or discriminatory 
policies by big powers on the nuclear activities of certain world 
countries, he called for an end to discrimination or double 
standards in the nuclear field.

 Badawi cited the proliferation of nuclear weapons by the Zionist 
regime as a clear example of double standards and dual policies 
currently being exercised in violation of the rights of states.

 He added this attitude would lead to instability in the Middle 
East region.

 The Zionist regime itself does not deny its sophisticated
program to produce nuclear weaponry while other countries in the
region are prevented from pursuing nuclear energy, he pointed
out.

 The Malaysian premier said he believed the Iran nuclear issue
should be settled only through diplomatic channels, saying NAM
also favored a diplomatic solution to the issue.

 He reiterated his country's support for negotiations to resolve
the ongoing nuclear dispute and said talks should be based on
the premise that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy
for peaceful ends.

 Pointing to the situation prevailing in Iraq, he called on
states to take lessons from the problems of the country and stop
interfering in the affairs of other countries.

 Badawi also touched on the Palestinian problem, saying it is
the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to have an
independent state and that no solution would be found to the
problem unless the rights of Palestinians are fully restored.

 He said there would be no peace in this world for as long as
the problem of Palestine is not solved.

 On developments in Afghanistan, he said a powerful government
would guarantee the future of peace in that country, but added
that the Afghan government needs more resources to regain
stability and security.

 Senior officials of NAM held expert sessions behind closed
doors for the past two days to decide on the agenda of this
foreign ministerial meet.

 NAM foreign ministers, during their two-day meeting, will
discuss the topics decided upon by the senior officials and
approve an agenda for the 14th summit of the movement slated to
be held in Havana, Cuba, in September.

 They will also review progress made in implementing decisions
made in the 13th NAM summit.

 The ministers will also exchange views on the topic "Towards a
Dynamic Non-Aligned Movement: Challenges of the 21st Century"
and present the result of their discussions to the Havana
summit.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 6 New York Times: Iran's Drive to Nuclear Fuel Slows, Diplomats Say - 

By WILLIAM J. BROADand DAVID E. SANGERPublished: May 29, 2006
			 
After boasting last month that it had joined the "nuclear club" 
by successfully enriching uranium on an industrial scale — and 
portraying its action as irreversible — Iranappears to have 
slowed its drive to produce nuclear fuel, according to European 
diplomats who have reviewed reports from inspectors inside the 
country. Skip to next paragraph Readers Opinions
 
Forum: The Middle East

The diplomats say the slowdown may be part of a deliberate
Iranian strategy to lower the temperature of its standoff with
the West over its nuclear program, and perhaps to create an
opening for Washington to join the negotiations directly —
something President Bush has so far refused to do.

In discussions with White House and State Department officials
in recent days, Europeans have described the inspectors'
findings, clearly hoping to influence a debate within the Bush
administration over whether to change strategy and engage
directly with Iran. But hard-liners in the administration say
they are unconvinced and think any slowdown may be merely a
tactical ploy by the government of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. "It could simply mean we're not looking in the
right places," said one senior official with access to the
intelligence and who has long suspected that Iran has a secret
weapons program. 

Nuclear experts, accustomed to measuring the efficiency of
uranium centrifuges rather than of diplomatic initiatives,
caution, too, that the slowdown may mean that Iran has run into
technical obstacles on its nuclear road. Centrifuges are
machines whose rotors spin extraordinarily fast to enrich, or
concentrate, uranium into material that can fuel nuclear
reactors or atom bombs.

Diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
the topic's political delicacy, say that Iranian engineers
stopped pouring a raw form of uranium, called UF6, into arrays
of centrifuges after just 12 days, even as the nation erupted in
celebrations of the enrichment feat. The reports, which have now
been widely circulated, say the Iranians kept the empty
centrifuges spinning, as is standard practice because slowing
the delicate machines can cause them to wobble and crash. 

Understanding why the enrichment run was so short — and why Iran
has failed to put more centrifuges into operation — are the
newest mysteries about its program.

"The pace is more diplomatic than technical," said a senior
European diplomat who monitors the Iranian program, and who has
told the Bush administration that he believes the slowdown could
be a signal. "They could probably have gone faster. But they
don't want to provoke."

But they also do not want to stop, and that is the crux of the
standoff.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reaffirmed in a
meeting with Parliament members yesterday that Iran would not
back down in the face of Western pressure over its nuclear
program. 

"The young Iranian engineers, with their success in nuclear
technology, have in fact guaranteed the long-term energy future
for the country," Ayatollah Khamenei said, the Iranian Student
News Agency reported. "We must not give up this achievement at
any price, because retreat is a 100 percent loss." 

As Ayatollah Khamenei was meeting with members of Parliament,
the secretary of the Russian National Security Council, Igor S.
Ivanov, held a three-hour meeting with Iran's chief nuclear
negotiator, Ali Larijani. Officials in Tehran said that the two
were discussing the prospect of conducting uranium enrichment in
Russia, and that Mr. Ivanov was pushing Iran to accept a
European proposal of economic aid in return for ending its
enrichment program.

Meanwhile, President Bush and his advisers have maintained that
no negotiations can resume between Europe and Iran "while one
centrifuge spins" in the country. "Once they master the
technology, it would be easier for them to go underground with a
covert program," Greg Schulte, the American ambassador to the
atomic energy agency, said in Washington last week. "They appear
to be moving forward very methodically to develop that
knowledge."

So far, Britain and France have held to the same view, though
German officials have begun to argue that allowing a low level
of Iranian enrichment activity — essentially, allowing the
Iranians to maintain their current activity — is harmless.
"They've cracked the code," one senior German official said last
week. "We're kidding ourselves if we think we are going to deny
them the knowledge" of how to produce nuclear fuel.

 Whether Tehran and Washington can find any face-saving middle 
ground could depend on how quickly the Iranians move toward, or 
delay, what they say is the next phase: building new centrifuges, 
with the aim of installing nearly 1,000 by the end of this year.

If the Iranians were racing forward, experts say, they would have 
made substantial progress in installing those centrifuges. But 
they have not. One senior European diplomat said such delays 
could reflect a decision to pause for scientific evaluation as 
well as a diplomatic effort "not to rock the boat."

The action, or lack of it, centers on the desert south of Tehran, 
where Iran has built a sprawling industrial site near the city of 
Natanz that includes a pilot enrichment plant.

It was there, on April 11, that the Iranians announced that they 
had enriched uranium to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear 
reactor. They depicted the achievement as just the start of a 
sprint. "Our young scientists are working day and night," 
Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is in charge of Iran's Atomic Energy 
Agency, told an Iranian television interviewer the next day. 
"People are shocked and surprised that this has happened so 
quickly."

Then, on April 28 in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency reported that the Iranians were assembling two more 
cascades, or strings of centrifuges, each consisting of 164 
machines. On May 17, David Albright, the president of the 
Institute for Science and International Security, a research 
group in Washington that tracks the Iranian program, told 
Congress that those cascades were expected to start operating in 
May and June, respectively.

But in an interview last week, a diplomat close to the 
international watchdog agencies disclosed that the atomic agency 
would report soon that the Iranians had made little progress on 
the new cascades.

That would be a setback, at least as measured by Iran's declared 
intentions. It has said the pilot plant is to hold a total of six 
cascades made up of 984 centrifuges - a goal nuclear analysts 
expected Iran to achieve later this year. They see that as 
roughly the minimum number of centrifuges Iran would need to 
enrich enough uranium to make a single bomb. Analysts say that if 
the complicated plant worked reliably and efficiently, and if 
Tehran decided to throw out the inspectors and abandon its 
obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, using the 
cascades to make fuel for a nuclear weapon would take a little 
more than two years.

The assessments of Iran's progress, however, are hampered because 
Tehran has curtailed its cooperation with nuclear inspectors and 
sharply limited their ability to follow their hunches around the 
country. The inspectors still have a legal right under the 
nonproliferation treaty to track radioactive materials and their 
manipulation, giving them a window into the pilot plant at 
Natanz. But they cannot look at other buildings, and the Iranians 
have barred them from monitoring the manufacturing of 
centrifuges.

Even peering through the keyhole, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's findings and Tehran's own statements have combined to 
raise questions about its claims of irreversible breakthroughs in 
developing indigenous nuclear technology.

For instance, the inspectors found that Iran in the first 
enrichment campaign used not only its own raw uranium but 
material it had imported from China. Its domestic supplies are 
reportedly laced with impurities that can reduce the efficiency 
of delicate centrifuges or cut their lives short.

In addition, the centrifuges that Iran is running appear to be 
inefficient. Mr. Aghazadeh's remarks after the announcement last 
month contained detailed information on the rate at which Iran's 
centrifuges had enriched uranium, allowing Western experts to 
calculate their efficiency. While the cascade worked, "It didn't 
operate well," Mr. Albright of the Institute for Science and 
International Security said in an interview, echoing his May 17 
Congressional testimony.

But a European nuclear expert who closely monitors the atomic 
energy agency's work said that such low efficiencies were 
characteristic of initial centrifuge efforts, and that the 
Iranians would undoubtedly improve their record as they gained 
experience.

Over all, the first diplomat said, the Iranians, despite start-up 
problems, had clearly pushed enrichment into the industrial 
phase, confronting the world with a strengthened nuclear agenda. 
"They crossed the Rubicon in terms of having the basic 
knowledge," he said. "And that has changed the dynamic."

Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.


Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Nuclear power "should supply 30 percent" of UK's energy consumption, 
says adviser - Irna
 
London, May 29, IRNA

UK-Adviser-Nuclear energy 

Almost a third of Britain's energy supplies should come from 
nuclear power, according to the government's chief scientific 
adviser, Sir David King.

 At present the UK's 12 nuclear sites generate 19 percent of
national energy consumption, but this is set to fall as aging
facilities are shut.

 Interviewed on BBC1's Sunday AM program, King suggested that
nuclear energy should be restored to its previous 30 percent
share, requiring up to 20 new plants.

 "We would then have baseline energy through the year from
nuclear plus renewables and we can then diminish our dependence
on fossil fuels," he said.

 The top adviser also argued that as Britain becomes more
dependent on oil and gas imports it would mean "in terms of
security of supply that we have a better range of sources."
 To deflect criticisms about the massive costs, he argued that
the new generation of nuclear plants should be funded by private
money and not taxes.

 "It depends on whether the City or the markets think that
nuclear is going to be one of the sensible ways of producing a
government policy which is very clearly determined to be 60
percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050," King said.

 His support for a greater share of nuclear power comes after
Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked controversy earlier this
month by declaring that the nuclear option was "back on the
agenda with a vengeance."

 The remarks prompted criticism that Blair was undermining his
government's own energy review on meeting Britain's shortfall in
future energy requirements, which is not due to be completed
until next month.

*****************************************************************
 8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Larijani,Ivanov discuss nuclear issue 

2006/05/29   
  
Tehran, May 29 - Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security
Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani and his Russian counterpart Igor
Ivanov in a meeting Sunday discussed how to put an end the
current standoff on Iran's nuclear issue.

 According to SNSC secretariat, during the two rounds of talks
on Sunday morning and afternoon, both sides underlined the need
to pursue a diplomatic and political solution to the issue.

 During the meetings, the two sides also studied bilateral and
regional developments, Iran's nuclear issue as well as expansion
of economic, commercial and industrial cooperation.

 The two sides also decided to continue negotiations at the same
level.

 Ivanov arrived in Tehran on Saturday to discuss Iran's use of
nuclear technology for peaceful purpose.

 Ivanov last visited Tehran in November 2005.   

  
  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Khatami: Iran under political pressure because of its N-program
     
Kuwait, May 29, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Khatami
 
Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami here on Monday said
political pressures are being exerted on Iran because of its
nuclear activities.

 Khatami, who is currently in Kuwait, told reporters that the
mounting pressures on the country because of its peaceful
nuclear program and despite its being a signatory to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is "surprising."
 He said that Iran's nuclear case should be settled through
negotiation and within the framework of International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and regulations.

 Khatami, who heads the International Center for Dialogue among
Civilizations and Cultures, said the crisis created in the
region over Iran's peaceful nuclear activities will not benefit
any side involved in the issue including those creating the
crisis.

 Underlining the need to maintain the region's security and
stability, he said regional stability can only be defended
through unity and friendship among all regional states.

 Khatami arrived here Sunday for a four-day visit during which
he is scheduled to meet with Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad
al-Jabir al-Sabah, attend a session of the Islamic Bank as well
as address a gathering at a cultural center here.

*****************************************************************
 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: FM in Malaysia to attend NAM meeting 

  2006/05/29   
  
Kuala Lumpur, May 29 - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr 
Mottaki arrived in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, early Monday to attend 
a meeting of foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

 The two-day meeting begins today at the International Convention 
Center in Putrajaya, political capital of Malaysia.

 Senior officials of NAM have been holding sessions behind closed 
doors over the past two days discussing the agenda of this 
foreign ministerial meeting.

 The agenda prepared by the senior officials will be the focus of 
discussions in this two-day meeting, which will also approve an 
agenda for the NAM summit slated to be held in Havana, Cuba in 
September.   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: <font color="#ff0000" face>Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir</font> 
  
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Iran, Russia agree to continue nuclear talks

 by Siavosh Ghazi Sun May 28, 5:28 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Russia and Iran" /> Iranwrapped up high-level 
talks on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, with Tehran 
saying both sides agreed to continue negotiations and work 
towards a peaceful solution to the crisis. 

 But the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
continued to rule out any climbdown in the dispute, centred
around Western fears the clerical regime could acquire nuclear
weapons under the guise of an atomic energy drive. 

"The two delegations insisted on a peaceful and diplomatic
solution to the Iranian nuclear question," the ISNA student news
agency quoted a statement from Iran's Supreme National Security
Council as saying. 

"The two parties agreed to continue their discussions," it
added. 

Russian National Security Council chief Igor Ivanov and Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak held a series of meetings with
top Iranian officials -- led by Ali Larijani, Tehran's top
negotiator -- in talks lasting more than five hours. 

The Russian mission followed Wednesday's meeting of senior
officials from Britain, China, France, Russia and the United
States -- the five permanent UN Security Council members -- and
Germany. 

The major powers discussed a European proposal aimed at breaking
Iran's determination to enrich uranium, a process which can be
extended from making reactor fuel to nuclear weapons. 

The EU proposal would combine technology, economic and other
incentives for Iran, but also the threat of an arms embargo and
other sanctions if the Islamic republic defied a UN injunction
to halt enrichment. 

Tehran has rebuffed the EU proposal, repeating that its right to
enrich uranium was not negotiable. 

A follow-up meeting at foreign ministers level is expected in
the coming week. US officials said it would probably take place
in a European capital. 

The Russian delegation was to leave Tehran later Sunday, and a
source close to the Iranian delegation told AFP that more talks
with Russia would likely take place after the foreign ministers
meeting. 

Despite the intensive talks with Russia, Khamenei signalled that
Iran was still in no mood to back down on enrichment. 

"The young Iranian engineers, with their successes, have
guaranteed the long-term energy future of the country," the top
cleric said of Iran's progress in nuclear fuel cycle work. 

"We must not lose this at any price, because any retreat would
be a 100 percent loss," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state
television. 

Both Russia and China oppose talk of sanctions against Iran.
Russia in particular has huge economic interests in Iran's
atomic energy drive, and is helping build its first nuclear
reactor in Bushehr. 

Last year Russia offered to produce nuclear fuel on Iran's
behalf in order to ease fears Tehran would divert uranium into
warheads. Talks broke down when Iran insisted uranium enrichment
had to be carried out on its soil. 

As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
Iran insists it has a right to uranium enrichment and has vowed
not to back down on nuclear research and development. 

"The Islamic Republic of Iran remains firm in its position, to
use nuclear technology in a peaceful and legal framework,"
hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in
newspapers on Sunday. 

"The position of Iran concerning the nuclear issue is totally
legal and in the framework of the NPT," he said. 

But there have been some signs of a compromise. 

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations" /> United Nations,
Javad Zarif, said Friday that Tehran was willing to accept a cap
on its uranium enrichment capability to ensure the fuel produced
is not used to develop nuclear weapons. 

And the New York Times reported Saturday that President George
W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's administration was
beginning to debate whether to set aside a longstanding boycott
of Iran and open direct talks to try to resolve the crisis. 

The United States severed relations with Iran after the 1979
Islamic revolution and the crisis over the seizure of American
hostages, and Bush in 2002 famously described Tehran as part of
an "axis of evil". 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: World powers ready to guarantee Iran's right to nuclear energy - Russia - 

 Mon May 29, 6:52 AM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - The world's major powers are ready to guarantee 
Iran" /> Iran's right to develop nuclear energy provided Tehran 
cooperates fully with the UN nuclear safety agency, Russian news 
agencies quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying. 

 "We are prepared to guarantee Iran's right to peaceful nuclear
energy on the condition that it answers the questions that the
IAEA has raised," Interfax and ITAR-TASS news agencies quoted
Lavrov as saying on Monday, referring to the International
Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Lavrov said representatives of the five permanent UN Security
Council countries along with Germany were talking this week
about formulating a basis for resumption of negotiation with
Iran over controls on its nuclear activities. 

The United States accuses Iran of pursuing plans to build
nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear energy program
which is being developed with Russia's help. 

Iran denies this, while Moscow has stressed that Tehran's
nuclear work must remain strictly for energy. 

"We are ready and mutually interested in drawing Iran into full
economic cooperation as well as in cooperation in regional
security," Lavrov said as he met in Moscow with the head of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 

Any guarantees to Iran would be contingent on Tehran's full
compliance with its obligations under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and within the guidelines of the IAEA,
the Russian minister said. 

His comments came at the start of a crucial week of
international diplomacy among senior diplomats of the world's
leading powers. 

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the
United States, Britain, China, France and Russia -- will join
Germany on Tuesday in a teleconference among political directors
of their respective foreign ministries. 

They will try work out a package of incentives and dissuasive
measures aimed at persuading Iran to renounce some of its most
sensitive nuclear work. The six nations' foreign ministers would
then meet to finalize that proposal, possibly somewhere in
Europe by the end of the week. 

As Lavrov spoke, Iran again vowed to press on with uranium
enrichment despite international community calls to stop the
sensitive nuclear work. 

"Enrichment will continue on Iranian territory within the
framework of Iran's peaceful nuclear programme and the IAEA,"
government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters in
Tehran. 

"The information that Iran would quit uranium enrichment on its
soil and transfer it to Russia is not correct," he said. 

On Sunday Russian National Security Council chief Igor Ivanov
and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak held a series of
meetings with top Iranian officials led by Ali Larijani,
Tehran's top negotiator. 

Russia has been offering to produce nuclear fuel on Iran's
behalf in order to ease fears Tehran would divert its enrichment
programme to making warheads. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: World powers weigh nuclear 'guarantee' for Iran, Russia says -
     
 by Christopher Boian Mon May 29, 1:12 PM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - World powers are prepared to guarantee Iran" /> 
Iran's right to develop nuclear energy provided Tehran eases 
international concerns over its nuclear intentions and cooperates 
fully with the UN atomic watchdog, Russia said. 

 Speaking at the start of a critical week of high-stakes 
diplomacy, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the five permanent 
UN Security Council members and Germany were hammering out a plan 
for resumption of talks with Tehran. 

"We are prepared to guarantee Iran's right to peaceful nuclear
energy on the condition it answers the questions the IAEA has
raised," Russian news agencies quoted him as saying, referring
to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). 

In Vienna, diplomats said foreign ministers from the UN
permanent five -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United
States -- and Germany planned to meet there Thursday. 

The meeting has not yet been confirmed, they cautioned, but one
European diplomat said that it was being arranged to "fine-tune"
an EU-drafted package of incentives to get Iran to guarantee it
will not make nuclear weapons, as well as sanctions if Tehran
does not comply. 

Political directors from the six foreign ministries will Tuesday
discuss the package in a telephone conference, diplomats in
Vienna confirmed. 

The United States suspects Iran is working secretly toward
building its own nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian drive
for atomic power, and accuses Tehran of failing to cooperate
with the IAEA. 

Iran denies these charges, saying its nuclear work is confined
strictly to generating energy and insisting that it has always
cooperated with the IAEA. 

As Lavrov spoke, Iran stressed that it would pursue its uranium
enrichment work -- the process that makes fuel for reactors but
also what can be the raw material for atom bombs. 

"Enrichment will continue on Iranian territory within the
framework of Iran's peaceful nuclear programme and the IAEA,"
government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters in
Tehran. 

In Malaysia, visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said any new incentive from the European Union" />
European Unionthat did not acknowledge Iran's right to develop
nuclear energy on its own would be a non-starter. 

"The main incentive for Iran is to recognise the essential right
of Iran to have nuclear technology and the ways of realising
this right," Mottaki said. 

Lavrov's comments however suggested that some kind of consensus
among the world's top powers on how to deal with widespread
concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions may be taking shape. 

Referring to all six major world powers involved in efforts to
resolve the standoff, Lavrov stated: "We are ready and mutually
interested in drawing Iran into full economic cooperation as
well as in cooperation in regional security." 

He did not elaborate, but foreign policy experts in Russia,
Europe and the United States have said for months that the key
to breaking the deadlock lies in economic incentives and
practical security assurances from the West. 

In Vienna, a Western diplomat said the EU negotiating troika of
Britain, France and Germany "are working hard now to revise
their package to respond to concerns, mostly from Russia and
China." 

The diplomat said disagreements centered around the timing of
any Security Council resolution to require Iran to comply and
open the door to sanctions, with Russia and China wanting to put
this off but the United States and Europe wanting sanctions to
quickly follow any Iranian non-compliance. 

"There are still significant areas of disagreement" such as "the
detail and commitment in the package to a specific menu of
sanctions," the diplomat said. 

According to a draft text seen by AFP, the possible sanctions
include an arms embargo on Iran -- something Russia, a major
arms supplier to Iran, and China, a major consumer of Iranian
oil, resist. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Iran will continue uranium enrichment in its territory - Elham -

Tehran, May 29, IRNA

Iran-Elham-Nuclear 

Iran will continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes in
its soil, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said here
Monday.

 Elham made the remarks during his weekly press conference.

 "Uranium enrichment inside Iranian soil in accordance with
rules and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) for peaceful ends is Iran's main demand," he said in
response to a question on the current visit of Russian Security
Council Secretary Igor Ivanov to Iran.

 Ivanov, who is accompanied by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Sergei Kislyak, arrived in Tehran Saturday night to hold talks
with senior Iranian officials on Iran's nuclear program.

 "Iran has good and regular contact with Russia. Talks with
Russia will further continue on all issues of mutual interest.

 "As announced by the secretariat of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC), bilateral talks were very good and
positive.

 The main argument of Iran in its nuclear case is that the case
should be review by the IAEA," Elham said.

 "If the IAEA will take control of Iran's nuclear case, all
international and legal supervision will be continued. This will
be beneficial for all sides," Elham added.

 He clarified that talk of Iran enriching uranium in Russia was
not correct.

 "The sides have not held talks on suspension of enrichment by
Iran in its territory."
 "Iran is conducting uranium enrichment in order to produce
nuclear fuel. Enrichment by up to 3.5 to 5 percent is enough for
this purpose," Elham said.

*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: US optimistic about prospects of consensus on Iran 

 by Sylvie Lanteaume Mon May 29, 1:56 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Ahead of a crucial diplomatic week over Iran" 
/> 's nuclear program, the United States has expressed optimism 
about the possibility that leading world powers will reach a 
consensus on the international standoff. 

 The five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the
United States, Britain, China, France and Russia -- will join
Germany on Tuesday in holding a teleconference between senior
policymakers of their respective foreign ministries. 

They will try to put together a package of incentives and
dissuasive measures aimed at persuading Iran to renounce its
nuclear program. 

Washington believes Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear
weapons, but Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful. 

After Tuesday's conference call, the foreign ministers of the
six nations are expected to meet to finalize a potential
carrot-and-stick package that will then be presented to Tehran. 

The time and place of that meeting has not been announced yet,
but US officials believe it will likely take place at the end of
the week in a European capital. 

"Well, I would hope that it is the case when the ministers do
get together at the end of next week, likely the end of next
week in Europe, that they'll be able to come to closure on any
remaining issues," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack
said Friday. 

"I think the political directors are going to try to move the
ball forward and come to closure on whatever issues remain," he
said. 

"If they're not able to during their conference call or whatever
other bilateral contacts they have, then the ministers will try
to hammer things out." 

He added that Washington hoped to be able to produce a joint
document at the end of this meeting. 

The package prepared by France, Britain and Germany includes
sanctions that Russia and China, key trade partners of Iran, are
reluctant to accept. 

By contrast, the United States is reluctant to have discussions
about providing security guarantees to Tehran. 

The US administration has also refused to hold direct
negotiations with Iran, which are being urged by many leading
Europeans, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> Director
Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as prominent US foreign policy
experts such as Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright" /> and
Dennis Ross. 

US President George W. Bush" /> declared Thursday that the ball
was in Iran's court over the nuclear standoff. 

"If they want to be isolated from the world, we will work to
achieve that," Bush said during a joint press conference with
British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> here. 

Blair, for his part, said that he believed the Western position
was very reasonable. 

"Iran is a great country, but it needs a government that is
going to recognize that part of being a great country is to be
in line with your international obligations and to cease
supporting those people in different parts of the world who want
-- by terrorism and violence -- to disrupt the process of
democracy," he said. 

Subsequent steps by the UN Security Council will depend on the
Iranian response. 

If Iran accepts the measures the West is offering, its
negotiations with European Union" /> nations will resume. 

If it declines, then the Security Council would be inclined to
take action that would require compliance, according to
political analysts. 

McCormack said the ministers will also have to agree on how much
time to give Tehran to consider the proposals. 

"And then I would expect there would be some time where they
would have the opportunity to consider their options here," he
said. "But we have to get finished work on the package first." 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: US pushing Europe, Japan for sanctions against Iran leaders -
                           
 Mon May 29, 3:17 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is pressing Europe and Japan 
to impose sanctions designed to curtail the Iranian leadership 
financially if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the standoff 
over Tehran's disputed nuclear program, The Washington Post 
reported. 

 Citing internal government memos and interviews with three
unnamed officials, the newspaper said the plan was developed by
a treasury department task force that reports directly to
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice. 

The measures go far beyond the diplomatic pressure exerted by
the administration of President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Bushto date, both in scope of action and in objective,
the report said. 

It described the plan as designed to rein in the financial
freedom of every Iranian official, individual and entity which
the Bush administration considers connected not only to nuclear
enrichment efforts but also to terrorism, corruption,
suppression of democratic freedoms, violence in Iraq" /> Iraq,
Lebanon, Israel" /> Israeland the Palestinian territories. 

It would restrict the Tehran government's access to foreign
currency and global markets, shut its overseas accounts and
freeze assets held in Europe and Asia, the Post said. 

Major US allies would be required to freeze Iranian government
accounts and financial assets in their countries, much as the
United States did after Iranian students took over the US
Embassy in Tehran in 1979. 

Iranian officials who appear on lists being drawn up by US
officials would be prevented from opening accounts, trading on
foreign markets or obtaining credit, the paper pointed out. 

US officials interviewed by the paper said it was their hope the
allies would carry out the punitive measures if Iran" />
Iranrefused a package of incentives the Europeans are preparing
to offer in coming weeks. 

US intelligence agencies have spent months trolling through the
personal accounts of Iranian leaders in foreign banks, analyzing
Iranian financial systems and transactions and assessing how the
government does its banking, according to the Post. 

They have calculated the amount of foreign investment at stake
and even which charities have connections to the Tehran
government, the paper said. 

The United States, which already has already imposed a plethora
of sanctions against Iran, would shoulder few of the costs of
its ambitious new proposal. 

But internal US assessments suggest that the sanctions could not
hurt Tehran without causing significant economic pain for US
allies as well, The Post said. 

On Monday the New York Times reported that Iran appeared to have
slowed its drive to produce nuclear fuel after boasting that it
had joined the "nuclear club.". 

Citing unnamed European diplomats who have reviewed reports from
inspectors inside the country, the newspaper said the diplomats
say the slowdown may be part of a deliberate Iranian strategy to
lower the temperature of its standoff with the West and perhaps
to create an opening for Washington to join the negotiations
directly. 

In discussions with White House and State Department officials
in recent days, Europeans have described the inspectors'
findings, clearly hoping to influence a debate within the Bush
administration over whether to change strategy and engage
directly with Iran, the report said. 

But hardliners in the administration say they are unconvinced
and think any slowdown may be merely a tactical ploy by the
government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Times said. 

"It could simply mean we're not looking in the right places,"
the paper quoted one senior official as saying. 

Diplomats say Iranian engineers stopped pouring a raw form of
uranium, called UF6, into arrays of centrifuges after just 12
days, even as the nation erupted in celebrations of the
enrichment feat, The Times said. 

The reports, which have now been widely circulated, say the
Iranians kept the empty centrifuges spinning, as is standard
practice because slowing the delicate machines can cause them to
wobble and crash, the report said. 

Nuclear experts caution, however, that the slowdown may mean
that Iran has run into technical obstacles on its nuclear road,
the paper noted. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: Lebanon expresses support for Iran's peaceful N-right

Kuala Lumpur, May 29, IRNA

NAM-Iran-Lebanon-Nuclear 

Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh here Monday said that
peaceful use of nuclear energy was Iran's inalienable right.

 Salloukh made the remarks during a meeting with his Iranian
counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, on the sidelines of a two-day
meeting of foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
which began this morning in Putrajaya, political capital of
Malaysia.

 Criticizing the West's application of double standards on
Iran's nuclear case, he said his country believed Tehran has the
right to continue its peaceful nuclear activities in accordance
with international agreements and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).

 Mottaki, for his part, said that Iran supported the idea of "a
Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction."
 He said it will insist on "the issue in all circles."
 During the meeting, the two ministers also exchanged views on
leading regional and international developments and stressed the
need to further reinforce unity among the various Palestinian
groups.

 The Lebanese minister took the occasion to express his
condolences to the Iranian government and nation on the 17th
anniversary of the demise of the Founder of the Islamic
Republic, the late Imam Khomeini.

 Earlier, Salloukh, addressing a general meeting of NAM
ministers, acknowledged Iran's right to have access to nuclear
energy for peaceful aims.

 Senior officials of NAM held expert sessions behind closed
doors in the past two days to decide on the agenda of their
foreign ministers' meeting, which opened this morning in
Putrajaya, political capital of Malaysia.

 NAM foreign ministers, during their two-day meeting, will take
up the agenda set by the senior officials and approve an agenda
for the 14th summit of NAM slated to be held in Havana, Cuba, in
September.

 They will also review progress made in implementing decisions
arrived at in the 13th NAM summit.

 The ministers, in this meeting, will also exchange views on the
topic "Towards a Dynamic Non-Aligned Movement: Challenges of the
21st Century" and present the result of their discussions to the
Havana summit.

*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: 6 Nations Plan to Sign Off on Iran Package
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday May 29, 2006 7:16 PM

AP Photo XHS117 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Top U.S., Russian, Chinese and European
officials plan to sign off this week on a package of incentives
and penalties meant to reward Iran if it gives up uranium
enrichment - and punish it if it doesn't, diplomats said Monday. 

Agreement by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council plus Germany could open the way for sanctions if Tehran
remains defiant and refuses to abandon technology that can be
used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads. 

The meeting of foreign ministers including Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice was set for Thursday in Vienna, said the
diplomats, who demanded anonymity for divulging the confidential
information. 

Tehran appeared unimpressed: One official repeated that Iran is
permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Another announced that his
country had experimented in technology that can be used to make
the hydrogen bomb. 

Tehran's main goal was recognition of ``the essential right of
Iran to have nuclear technology,'' Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said during a visit to Malaysia. 

State television quoted nuclear official Sadat Hosseini as
saying his country ``is competing with the advanced world in the
field of producing nuclear energy through fusion.'' 

Fusion is the main principle behind the hydrogen bomb, which can
be hundreds of times more powerful than atomic weapons that use
fission. In a hydrogen bomb, radiation from a nuclear fission
explosion sets off a fusion reaction responsible for a powerful
blast and radioactivity. 

Peaceful uses of fusion are still at the experimental stage. 

The European Union, the United States, Japan, China, Russia and
others hope to set up a demonstration power plant in the
southern French town of Cadarache around 2040. Officials project
that 10 percent to 20 percent of the world's energy could come
from fusion by the end of the century. 

International concern about Iran's nuclear aims has been focused
on fears it could be trying to make a fission-type nuclear
weapon by enriching uranium to weapons-grade level. Hosseini's
comments were likely add to concern about Tehran's interest in
fusion. 

But former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said the
announcement was probably ``not very worrisome.'' 

``They like to pretend they are competing but their program is
(probably) pretty rudimentary,'' said Albright, who runs the
Washington-based Institute for Science and International
Security. 

``One part of their (nuclear) strategy is to say, 'We have it
all, so you can't stop us,''' he said. 

Any package foreign ministers approve on Thursday would then be
presented to Tehran by France, Britain and Germany - the trio of
nations that broke off talks with Iran in August after it
resumed activities linked to uranium enrichment. 

The Security Council gave Iran until the end of April to suspend
all such activities. Instead of complying, Iran announced last
month that it had for the first time successfully enriched
uranium and was doing research on advanced centrifuges to
produce more of the material in less time. 

Indirectly linked to any possible deal for Iran would be
agreement on a resolution tough enough for Washington but
acceptable to Tehran ally Moscow, a dispute that has hobbled
action by the Security Council's permanent members for months. 

If Iran remains defiant, the proposal - as outlined to AP by
diplomats familiar with the text - calls for a resolution
imposing sanctions under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N.
Charter. But it avoids any reference to Article 42, which is the
trigger for possible military action to enforce any such
resolution. 

The proposal also calls for new consultations among the five
permanent Security Council members on any further steps against
Iran - a move meant to dispel complaints by the Russians and
Chinese that once the screws on Iran are tightened, the council
would automatically move toward military involvement. 

Among the possible sanctions are a visa ban on government
officials, the freezing of assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products to Iran. 

If Tehran agrees to suspend enrichment, enter new negotiations
on its nuclear program and lift a ban on intrusive inspections
by the International Atomic Energy Agency, rewards would include
agreement to ``suspend discussion of Iran's file at the Security
Council,'' as well as help in building a peaceful domestic
nuclear program that uses an outside supply of enriched uranium. 

---- 

On the Net: www.iaea.org 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 Japan Times: China, S. Korea out of naval exercise 

The Associated Press 

China and South Korea have canceled participation in a
multinational naval security exercise, the Japan Coast Guard
said Sunday. 

The drills began Saturday with Japan and three other
participants -- the U.S., Canada and Russia -- a coast guard
official said. 

Although Japanese officials refused to give a specific reason
for the cancellation, South Korea said it was because of
concerns that part of the exercises may upset North Korea, whose
nuclear ambitions are a major regional concern. 

China and South Korea were expected to rejoin the maneuvers next
month, the Japanese official said. 

One of the exercise scenarios is a chase of a suspicious ship
from Shanghai to Vladivostok, Russia, through the East China Sea
and Sea of Japan. 

The maneuvers aim to improve ship-chasing skills, the relay of
information among participatory nations and inspections of
suspected crime-linked vessels, he said. 

The official denied Japan's icy relations with its two neighbors
played a role in the cancellation. 

In Seoul, the Korea Coast Guard said it has decided to follow
China and not take part in the first part of the drill because
of concerns that the initial scenario that included the export
of weapons of mass destruction might offend Pyongyang, but will
join the rest of the drill. South Korea said Japan also rejected
Seoul's request to postpone the drills. 

It is South Korea's policy not to join exercises that may offend
North Korea, the official said on condition of anonymity citing
protocol. 

Initially, the scenario of the first drill called the suspicious
ship as that of "a country suspected of exporting weapons of
mass destruction." Japan later revised the ship's description as
"suspected of smuggling goods and people." The Japan Times:

Monday, May 29, 2006 (C) All rights reserved 

 The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 20 [NYTr] Radioactive Troika: Bush, Nuke Power, NY Times
 
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:17:03 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
CounterPunch - May 27-29, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/montague05272006.html

Radioactive Troika: Bush, Nuclear Power Industry and the New York Times

Time to Dust Off that Old "No Nukes!" Button

By PETER MONTAGUE

It's time to dust off your "No Nukes!" button -- or grab that old one out of
your Mom's top bureau drawer. You may need it soon.

The "powers that be" have begun a new campaign to convince us that we must
have dozens or hundreds -- worldwide, thousands -- of new nuclear power
plants to avert the threat of global warming.

Three groups have teamed up for the campaign: the Cheney-Bush
administration, the nuclear power corporations, and most recently the New
York Times. The campaign has two official mascots -- Christine Todd Whitman,
the failed former head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
Patrick Moore, the widely-mistrusted former head of Greenpeace
International.

Each of the three campaign partners has a different agenda, but they all
want you to believe that building hundreds or thousands of new nuclear power
plants is the best way to meet the world's need for electricity -- that
nuclear power is safer, cleaner and cheaper than all the many alternatives.

Electricity can be generated by >many kinds of machines. Commercial- scale
electric plants exist now based on wind turbines, photovoltaic panels that
turn sunlight directly into electricity, geothermal plants that draw their
heat from the deep earth (one to two miles below ground), turbines powered
by natural gas, coal-fired dinosaurs, and nuclear power plants. There are
other ways to make electricity but these are the main ones in commercial use
today.

Nuclear power plants are by far the most complicated way to make
electricity. Nuclear power starts by mining radioactive uranium out of the
ground, then "enriching" it in a centrifuge that can make nuclear fuel but
can also make fuel for an A-bomb. (Iran's current plan to operate its own
centrifuges is what all the wrangling is about with Tehran.) The enriched
uranium is then stuffed into a nuclear power plant where it undergoes a
controlled fission reaction, splitting atoms to release tremendous
quantities of heat, which is used to boil water to turn a turbine to make
electricity.

In contrast, a wind turbine uses the wind to turn a turbine to make
electricity.

But of course the electricity from a wind turbine must be stored in some
form to provide power when the wind is not blowing. Nuclear plants produce
electricity more-or-less steadily unless there is mishap such as a leak or
spill or other glitch. Hydrogen is the leading candidate for energy storage.

So now let's listen to the New York Times editorial staff as it tries to
convince us that nuclear power is the best way for the nation and the world
to meet its electricity needs:

New York Times: "Not so many years ago, nuclear energy was a hobgoblin to
environmentalists, who feared the potential for catastrophic accidents and
long-term radiation contamination. But this is a new era, dominated by fears
of tight energy supplies and global warming. Suddenly nuclear power is
looking better."

    PM: Yes, big accidents and routine radioactive releases are two valid
concerns about nuclear power, but the biggest concern by far has always been
the unbreakable link between nuclear power plants and A- bombs. Israel,
India, Pakistan, and North Korea all built A-bomb arsenals by first building
nuclear power plants, so this is not merely a theoretical concern. As we
speak, Iran is shuffling down this well- trodden path.

New York Times: "More important, nuclear energy can replace fossil- fuel
power plants for generating electricity, reducing the carbon dioxide
emissions that contribute heavily to global warming. That could be important
in large developing economies like China's and India's, which would
otherwise rely heavily on burning large quantities of dirty coal and oil."

PM Yes -- even after taking into consideration the large quantities of
fossil fuels required for mining, processing, and enriching fuel, and in
plant construction, operation, waste disposal and plant decommissioning,
nuclear power could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some amount while
generating electricity. The question is, are there better ways to achieve
the same result? But the Times fails to address this question.

New York Times: "As nuclear expertise and technologies spread around the
world, so does the risk that they might be used to make bombs.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration erred badly when it signed a nuclear
pact with India that would undercut the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the
cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons. That misguided deal needs to be repudiated by the Senate. We can
only hope that it does not undercut a more promising administration plan to
keep the most dangerous fuel- making technologies out of circulation by
supplying developing nations with uranium and taking the spent fuel rods
back."

PM: In that paragraph, the Times' first sentence should be rewritten as
follows: "As nuclear expertise and technologies spread around the world, so
does the near-certainty that they will be used to make bombs." Since this
has already happened several times, we know it can (will) happen again. The
connection between nuclear power and nuclear bombs simply cannot be broken.

The rest of the Time's paragraph makes it seem as though President Bush is
to blame for this problem, and that if he would just uphold the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, no one would be able to make bombs from the
ingredients in a nuclear power plant. Tell it to India. Tell it to Pakistan.
Tell it to Israel. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was in full force
when these nations joined the "nuclear club" of A-bomb-wielding nations.
Nuclear power is simply an unmanageable technology. If you have a nuclear
power plant and you are committed to making an A-bomb, you can almost
certainly do it, sooner or later.

New York Times: "There remains the unsolved problem of what to do with the
radioactive waste generated by nuclear plants. Many people are unwilling to
see a resurgence in nuclear power without some assurance that the spent fuel
can be handled safely. The Energy Department's repeated setbacks in efforts
to open an underground waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada do not
inspire confidence, but there is no reason why the spent fuel rods can't be
stored safely at surface sites for the next 50 to 100 years."

PM: Perhaps the radioactive waste problem can be resolved in 50 to 100
years. But what if it cannot? Some of the smartest scientists in the world,
with essentially unlimited budgets, have been working on this problem for
more than 50 years. They have devised the highest of high-tech solutions,
all of which have turned out to be dead ends. Fifty years of study and
experiment have yielded no useful solutions. Meanwhile, we keep making this
stuff with a hazardous lifetime that far exceeds the time that humans have
walked the earth. Perhaps it would be prudent to assume that this problem
cannot be solved, and that further deployment of nuclear power should be
delayed until solutions have been demonstrated.

New York Times: "More problematic is the administration's long-term solution
for waste disposal. It wants to recycle the spent fuel in a new generation
of advanced reactors that would use technologies that don't yet exist,
following a timetable that many experts think unrealistic. Its current
approach is apt to be costly and would leave dangerous plutonium more
accessible to terrorists."

PM: Our point exactly. The nation's best scientists have failed, and now
political appointees in the Cheney/Bush administration have elbowed the
scientists aside and decided to impose their own "solution." These are the
same people who have demonstrated failure in essentially every major
decision during the past six years. Now they want to "recycle" nuclear waste
into new, untried, and clearly risk- prone and terrorist-prone "solutions"
that this nation considered and rejected for compelling reasons 25 years
ago.

New York Times: "Nuclear power has a good safety record in this country, and
its costs, despite the high initial expense of building the plants, are
looking more reasonable now that fossil fuel prices are soaring. How much
impact it could really have in slowing carbon emissions has yet to be
spelled out, but there is no doubt that nuclear power could serve as a
useful bridge to even greener sources of energy."

PM: Huh? We're not sure how much nukes can reduce global warming, but we
should spend billions more taxpayer dollars to subsidize nukes? This is no
basis for national policy. Between 1948 and 1998, civilian nuclear power
received at least $77 billion dollars of federal subsidies (in constant 2005
dollars). The insurance industry still won't touch nuclear power with a
ten-foot pole so Congress has to limit the industry's liability by law -- a
huge subsidy to the nuclear power corporations. Wall Street won't touch it
either without huge additional federal guarantees and subsidies. This is a
technology that falls on its face unless Uncle Sam provides a permanent
crutch.

We should ask ourselves, Why aren't we willing to spend $77 billion to
subsidize energy-saving measures, and the development of existing
minimally-polluting technologies like wind turbines with hydrogen storage,
and hydrogen fuel cells to make electricity and power vehicles? Even Ford
and General Motors -- not the brightest bulbs on the corporate landscape --
say they will offer us hydrogen fuel- cell vehicles in the next few years.
These technologies exist now.

Solar technologies such as wind power have an even better safety record than
nuclear and they too are looking more affordable as the cost of oil rises.

The time is now for all of us to get behind wind and solar power as
solutions to our energy challenges. Together they constitute a highly-
desirable and entirely-achievable precautionary energy program. Today the
environmental-health-and-justice movement is bogged down bickering over
individual projects like Cape Wind on Nantucket Sound. Every day we wait to
align solidly behind wind and solar improves the odds that the nuclear
cowboys will have their way with us.

A study published in Science magazine concluded that
hydrogen-fuel-cell-automobiles would be cheaper to run than today's
gasoline-powered vehicles. Conservation is the cheapest and least polluting
option of all, and it available in abundance right now. Conservation, wind,
photovoltaics, hydrogen storage (and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles), plus a
modicum of ethanol and methanol can provide a far safer and cleaner bridge
to even greener sources of energy. It's time to take a principled stand for
conservation, wind and other solar options. They are good for the planet,
good for people, and good for local control, good for "local living
economies," and good for self-determination.

These alternative sources of energy don't fit the divergent agendas of any
of the three pro-nuke campaigners. Of all these alternative energy options,
only nuclear power offers to create an endless series of international
crises (think Iran, think North Korea) requiring macho threats of military
showdown at the OK corral. Only nuclear power requires multi-billion-dollar
centralized machines that can be controlled by a tiny handful of investors
-- thus empowering Wall Street elites instead of empowering farmers who
would be only too happy to put wind turbines in their corn fields. (A farmer
in Colorado is likely to receive $3000 to $5000 per year for hosting a
single wind turbine on a quarter-acre of land, instead of producing 40
bushels of corn worth $120 or beef worth perhaps $15 on that same land.)

Of all the available alternatives, only nuclear power relies on machines
that require armed guards, anti-terrorist exercises and simulations,
evacuation drills and other paramilitary apparatus. Only nukes with their
threat of rogue weapons can provide endless excuses to spy on other nations
and search through the phone records from every citizen. Only nuclear power
with its unbreakable link to A- bombs "requires" the President to declare
habeas corpus null and void, and to declare that he and Mr. Rumsfeld will
torture anyone they choose to torture any time it suits them, thus
commencing the Great Unraveling of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which was imposed upon Real Americans by that class traitor Franklin
Delano Roosevelt and his commie-loving wife back in 1948.

In sum, none of the available alternative energy sources can match nuclear
power's ability to thwart the nation's inherent democratic tendencies and
stop the nation's slide toward local control, small- scale enterprise,
self-reliance, and a populist political reawakening. Without nuclear power
and petroleum to anchor their centralized authority and provide excuses for
their military adventures, the "powers that be" will soon seem very much
like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. And that would
never do. It simply would never do.

And so I say to you, dust off your protest banners and buttons. That time
may be coming around again when we must hit the streets. No blood for oil!
Climate justice! No nukes!

[Peter Montague is editor of the indispensable Rachel's Health and Democracy,
where this essay originally appeared. He can be reached at: peter@rachel.org ]
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 21 New York Times: Pentagon Seeks Nonnuclear Tip for Sub Missiles - 

By Published: May 29, 2006 			 

WASHINGTON, May 28 — The Pentagon is pressing Congress to
approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the to
carry out nonnuclear missile strikes against distant targets
within an hour. 

The proposal has set off a complex debate about whether this
program for strengthening the military's conventional capacity
could increase the risks of accidental nuclear confrontation.

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a new nonnuclear warhead
atop the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be
used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected
caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other
potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

If fielded, it would be the only nonnuclear weapon designed for
rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would
add to the United States' options when considering a pre-emptive
attack.

Gen. James E. Cartwright, the chief of the United States
Strategic Command, said the system would enhance the Pentagon's
ability to "pre-empt conventionally" and precisely while
limiting the "collateral damage." The program would cost an
estimated half a billion dollars over five years, and the
Pentagon is seeking $127 million in its current spending request
to Congress to begin work. 

But the plan has run into resistance from lawmakers who are
concerned that it may increase the risk of an accidental nuclear
confrontation. The Trident II missile that would be used for the
attacks is a system that has long been equipped with a nuclear
payload. Indeed, both nonnuclear and nuclear-tipped variants of
the Trident II missile would be loaded on the same submarines
under the Pentagon plan. 

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of
deterrence and nuclear policy," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat
of Rhode Island, who serves on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. "It would be hard to determine if a missile coming
out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear."

Reflecting the worry that Russia and other nations might
misinterpret the launch of a nonnuclear Trident as the opening
salvo in a nuclear barrage, lawmakers have insisted that the
Bush administration present a plan to minimize that risk before
the new weapon is manufactured and deployed. 

The program to develop a conventional version of the Trident II
missile was foreshadowed in the Nuclear Posture Review, a
classified study the Pentagon carried out in 2001. The study
urged that nonnuclear systems be added to the existing triad of
long-range nuclear air, land and sea forces — a concept that the
military nicknamed "Global Strike." 

The Strategic Command, which oversees the long-range nuclear
weapons in the United States arsenal, was given the
responsibility to figure out a way to develop such a capability.
In 2004, General Cartwright, a Marine officer, was appointed to
head the command.

In looking for a new weapon, General Cartwright said, his goal
was a nonnuclear system that could respond to a threat in no
more than an hour, including the time that would be needed to
secure the president's authorization to attack. 

"We have laid out in the construct the idea of an hour," General
Cartwright said in an interview. 

Neither bombers nor cruise missiles met General Cartwright's
requirement because he reasoned that the threat might emerge in
a region where the United States lacked bases or had few or no
forces. It can take days for the United States to move aircraft
and ships into a crisis zone and position them to strike.
Bombers can attack remote targets from the United States or
bases abroad, but it takes many hours to conduct such a mission.

So the Strategic Command developed a plan to fit conventional
warheads on existing Trident II ballistic missiles. Defense
Secretary has wholeheartedly supported the idea, and the
Pentagon wants to field the system in two years. 

In justifying the program to lawmakers, General Cartwright
outlined a number of potential situations. "The argument for
doing it is that there are instances, fairly rare, when time is
so critical that if you can't strike in an hour or so you are
going to miss that opportunity," said Representative Roscoe G.
Bartlett, the Maryland Republican who is chairman of the House
Armed Services Subcommittee on Projection Forces and who is
still weighing whether to support the plan. 

One possible situation, Mr. Bartlett said, would be "people 
putting together some terrorist weapon, and while they are 
putting it together we can take it out, and if we miss that 
opportunity it may show up on the streets of New York City or 
Washington, D.C."

Still another might involve the need to destroy an enemy missile 
equipped with a chemical, biological or nuclear warhead before an 
adversary can launch it at the United States or its allies. 
Another would be fresh intelligence about a meeting of 
terrorists.

Given the considerable American military presence in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and South Korea, some critics say the circumstances 
in which a target may be beyond the reach of American warplanes 
or armed Predator drones are few indeed. Acquiring the sort of 
precise intelligence that would give the president enough 
confidence to order the launch of a ballistic missile within an 
hour might also be a daunting proposition.

General Cartwright said that the weapon would give the president 
an option to respond quickly to the sort of immediate dangers 
that are most likely to become more common in the 21st century 
without taking the drastic step of resorting to a nuclear-armed 
ballistic missile.

A major issue, however, is whether the Pentagon will prepare for 
new threats at the risk of aggravating old nuclear risks. Under 
the Pentagon plan, each Trident submarine would carry two of the 
nonnuclear Trident II missiles along with 22 nuclear-armed 
Trident missiles. Each of the nonnuclear missiles would carry 
four nonexplosive warheads. Two types of warheads would be 
developed. One type would be a metal slug that would land with 
such tremendous force it could smash a building. The other type 
of warhead would be a flechette bomb, which would disperse 
tungsten rods to destroy vehicles and less well-protected targets 
over a broader area.

As currently configured, the weapon would not have the capability 
to destroy facilities that are buried deeply underground. The 
system would use satellite tracking to improve its accuracy. 
General Cartwright asserted that a test demonstrated that a 
nonnuclear version of the missile could fly thousands of miles 
and deliver its payload just five yards away from its target.

Two former defense secretaries, James R. Schlesinger and Howard 
Brown, weighed in with an op-ed article last week in The 
Washington Post, urging the Congress to support the system.

The worry about Russia centers on whether that country could 
distinguish the launch of a Trident II from a nuclear strike, 
especially since its early warning network has deteriorated since 
the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is also some concern 
about China, which has a meager capability to detect incoming 
ballistic missiles.

"For nations like China that have a developing capability and are 
not totally blind but can see just a little, what would you see?" 
Mr. Bartlett asked. "We need to be cognizant of the potential for 
people to misunderstand what they would see."

The Senate Armed Services Committee has insisted that the 
administration report on how it would mitigate such risks before 
money can be spent to manufacture or deploy the missiles.

In a parallel move, the House Armed Services Committee has asked 
Mr. Rumsfeld to report on discussions that have been held with 
other nations on this issue and to provide a detailed explanation 
of how the weapons would be used. The House committee also sought 
to slow the program by cutting most of the funds sought for the 
research and development of the new warhead.

General Cartwright said a number of measures could be taken to 
reduce the risk of miscalculation. One step would be to notify 
Russia and other nations when the United States launched a 
conventional Trident II missile. Another, he said, would be 
allowing foreign nations to monitor tests of the system.

"We are going to put a target area in the ocean so people can 
actually see what it looks like when it hits the earth and don't 
confuse this with a mushroom cloud," he said.

*****************************************************************
 22 FT.com: US - Bolton changes tune over UN relationship

By Mark Turner, at the United Nations

Published: May 29 2006 21:11 | Last updated: May 29 2006 21:11

After a recent Security Council resolution on Lebanon, John 
Bolton, the iconoclastic US ambassador to the United Nations, 
invoked the wisdom of the Rolling Stones to assembled reporters.

â€œYou canâ€™t always get what you want,â€ he intoned, â€œbut
if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you
need.â€

It was an interesting statement from the ambassador of a country
more often characterised in UN circles as coming late to
negotiations and rejecting them if it does not get exactly what
it wants.

Senator Paul Sarbanes upbraided this tendency in the Senate
foreign relations committee last week. â€œIâ€™d hate for you to
be the coach of an athletic team,â€ he told Mr Bolton. â€œThis
role of the constant scold, Iâ€™m not sure itâ€™s the best way
to induce change.â€

Yet the recent US record at the UN is more complex than that
put-down would suggest. For a start, in spite of personal
rivalries, significant progress has been made in relations
between the transatlantic powers, which appear once more broadly
in harmony during UN debates.

But that may no longer be enough for the US to get what it
wants. China is exerting growing influence over a range of
Security Council debates and tensions with Russia are rising.
Both regularly find common cause against Washington, undermining
attempts at action by the council.

Meanwhile, in the General Assembly, a bloc of developing
countries is growing increasingly vocal about the US vision,
with India, Egypt and South Africa, all US allies, among those
to the fore of the dissenting chorus.

In the Security Council, the US did manage, after much
wrangling, to win a unanimous statement urging Tehran to cease
nuclear enrichment. But its subsequent efforts to threaten
sanctions quickly ran into Sino-Russian opposition.

US policy at the UN, with French backing, also did much to
achieve a withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. But recent
efforts to clamp down on the Lebanese Islamic party Hizbollah
and its Iranian backers have been considerably less successful.

And on Sudan, a recent US-European push to punish alleged war
criminals overcame Chinese objections but fell short of securing
backing to target key regime figures. While a new US-backed
resolution should speed up efforts to deploy UN peacekeepers, it
is still unclear which countries will offer troops and success
is far from assured.

The picture gets worse in the General Assembly, where the US has
suffered outright defeats. It was isolated in its opposition to
a new Human Rights Council and a coalition of developing
countries recently forced through a rejection of American-backed
management reforms.

â€œThese countries that are coming into their own are not going
to put up with the 1945 order any more,â€ said Mark Malloch
Brown, UN deputy secretary-general. â€œUltimately, if the US
price of paying 22 per cent of the budget is to keep the UN ever
more imprisoned in that 1945 arrangement, they are reaching the
point where they are as likely as the US to say â€˜enoughâ€™s
enoughâ€™.â€

This has prompted some searching questions. Is the US failing
diplomatically or has its ability to wield influence at the UN
been fundamentally diminished? On the other hand, could its
recent compromises in the council mark not a decline in
influence but emergence of a more mature foreign policy?

The problem, say analysts, is that it is not always clear what
the US objectives actually are. Mr Bolton is often suspected of
pursuing a different set of policies to Condoleezza Rice,
secretary of state, leading to significant confusion among
diplomats. Mr Bolton, for his part, claims there is little
evidence of a new Russia-China axis and suggests the
developing-world attack is part of a cyclical pattern.

By contrast, he says the permanent members of the Security
Council are actually working more closely than before and that
he has recently taken a more conciliatory approach to the
assemblyâ€™s reform debate, alongside Japanese, Canadian and
Australian allies.

Mr Bolton also warns against drawing too many conclusions from
events at the UN. â€œBy and large, what happens in the Security
Council reflects larger geopolitical realities,â€ he told the
Financial Times, â€œbut what happens here in New York doesnâ€™t
necessarily affect what goes on in the bigger world.â€

â€œI donâ€™t think that much of what happens here reflects the
status of bilateral relationships. Sometimes itâ€™s like being
in the twilight zone â€“ itâ€™s a different environment that
operates under practices that are decades old.â€  

Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 23 reviewjournal.com: Divine Strake 'win' celebrated
 
May 29, 2006

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
	
MERCURY -- About 300 anti-nuclear demonstrators gathered at the 
Nevada Test Site to celebrate the indefinite postponement of a 
massive explosion that they feared would spread radioactivity. 

About 70 people were cited for trespassing during Sunday's 
gathering, said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of the 
Nevada environmental group Citizen Alert, which co-sponsored the 
event. Efforts to reach Nye County sheriff's deputies were 
unsuccessful. 

The gathering was held two days after the federal government
announced it was delaying the non-nuclear explosion dubbed
Divine Strake. 

"Initially, it was going to be a protest," Johnson said. "But we
had the win, and we decided it was important we be there and
celebrate that win." 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 Telegraph: Call for task force to save oil billions
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Roland Gribben (Filed: 29/05/2006)
 
Leading oil companies are pressing Malcolm Wicks, the energy
minister, to set up a task force to look at the future of oil
refining in the UK to avert further closures and prevent
investment being diverted abroad. 

BP, Shell and other leading oil companies have told Mr Wicks
that around £3bn-£4bn of investment is at risk unless the
Government provides clearer guidelines and stops 'gold-plating'
EU directives. 

Britain's nine remaining refineries (two have closed since 1990)
process the petrol, diesel, plastics and other petrochemicals
that fuel the economy. Refineries currently produce a trade
surplus of £1bn a year, while petrochemicals add £5bn. 

Industry leaders feel that the role of the refining industry is
being neglected in the current energy review where the main
focus is the revival of nuclear power. 

The Petroleum Industry Association, the refinery and marketing
trade body, has told Mr Wicks that plans to rebalance refinery
output depend heavily on a more sympathetic approach to issues
facing the industry as it adjusts to changing demand patterns
and the rundown of North Sea oil. 

Investment plans are on hold until the Government provides
clearer policy indicators. 

The programmes involve changes in the product mix and equipping
plants to cope with different types of imported crude oil as the
higher quality low sulphur North Sea oil tails off. 

Currently, Britain is a net importer of diesel and aviation
fuel, met by imports from Russia and the Middle East but runs a
sizable surplus of petrol profitably exported to America. 

Refineries have been turned into "petrol production machines"
since the collapse in demand for fuel oil. 

Overall petrol demand is down by a fifth since 1990 through tax
and increasing fuel efficiency in engines and a jump in demand
for diesel. 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 25 DNA - Mumbai - Spent N-fuel idles away at Tarapur unit - 

Daily News & Analysis
 
Seema Kamdar                                                                                                                            

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 00:03 IST

The criticality of Tarapur atomic power station’s unit III
recently marked a milestone in the country’s nuclear ambitions
of producing 40,000 MW by 2030. But what will happen to the used
fuel once Tarapur’s third unit of 540 MW begins commercial
operations in a month’s time? 

Fuel from the first two units at Tarapur has already been the
source of much diplomatic strain between India and the US. The
two 160 MW units, which have been built by an American company,
GE, haven’t been permitted to reprocess the spent fuel yet. 

The used fuel from these units is currently stored in the
complex under camera scrutiny and periodic inspections by
International Atomic Energy Agency, the global watchdog. “For
long, India has been demanding that the US take away this fuel
if it doesn’t want us to touch it, but there has been no
headway,” said a senior official. 

The fate of spent fuel from the third and fourth units is
uncertain. Reprocessing nuclear fuel would take away much of its
radioactivity and reduce the volume of the fuel. 

It is not clear if the spent fuel from Tarapur’s unit III and IV
would be reprocessed, said an official of the Nuclear Power
Corporation of India, which runs nuclear power plants in the
country. While the fourth unit began generation a year ago, the
third one is expected to produce power by July this year. 

“The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has perfected the art
of reprocessing and is the sole authority for the purpose,” said
former secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) KS
Parthasarathy. 		   	 

Subscription COPYRIGHT © 2006 DILIGENT MEDIA CORPORATION LTD.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Best viewed with 800x600 screen resolution 
*****************************************************************
 26 New Data For West Re Chernobyl & It's Worst Effects Are Still To Come
 
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:29:13 -0400



  > The following report, in its concentrated
form, presents to the English
>speaking reader material that was previously
difficult to access (published
>in Belarus, Russian and Ukrainian literature).
There are many scientific
>studies on the consequences of the Chernobyl
catastrophe on health,
>published in these three countries but to date,
little of this information
>has been available via Western journals.

   The Chernobyl Catastrophe Consequencies for
Human Health. ISBN 5-94442-013-8
Â© Copyright: Greenpeace, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands
APRIL 2006 GENERAL EDITORSHIP: A. YABLOKOV, I.
LABUNSKA, I. BLOKOV

THE DIFFICULT TRUTH ABOUT THE CHERNOBYL
CATASTROPHE: THE WORST EFFECTS ARE
STILL TO COME

For millions of inhabitants of the planet the
explosion of the fourth block
of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on the 26th
of April 1986 divided their
life into two parts: pre and post Chernobyl. All
mixed into the word
â€œChernobylâ€ are technocratic adventurism and the
heroism of liquidators,
human solidarity and the cowardice of leaders
(frightened to warn their
citizens about the terrible outcomes and, by that,
strongly increasing the
number of innocent victims), the sufferings of
many and the self-interest of
others. Chernobyl brought into our lives new
terminology, such as
â€œliquidatorsâ€, the â€œchildren of Chernobylâ€ and
â€œChernobyl AIDSâ€.

In the past twenty years it has become clear, that
nuclear energy conceals
dangers, in some aspects, even greater than atomic
weapons: the ejecta from
this one reactor exceeded the radioactive
contamination caused by the
nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by
one hundred times. It has
become clear that one nuclear reactor can
contaminate half of the Earth and
that no longer, not in one single country, could
citizens be assured that
the state will have the forethought and wisdom to
protect them from nuclear
misfortunes. The fate of thousands of
soldier-liquidators was sealed by the
phrase in one of the documents of the former USSR
Ministry of Defence dated
9th July 1987. â€œ... the fact of the proximity of
work performed on the core
[on liquidation] should not be reflected, nor the
total radiation dose, if
they [liquidators] did not reach the degree of
radiation sickness…â€.


The "Chernobyl' Forum" - a group of specialists,
including the
representatives of the IAEA, the UN Scientific
committee on the influence of
atomic radiation, the WHO, other UN programs, as
well as the World Bank and
the staff of some of the state organizations of
Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
presented a report, "Health Effects of the
Chernobyl Accident and Special
Health Care Programsâ€ on the threshold of the
Chernobyl anniversary, in
September 2005. The basic conclusions of the
medical portion of the report
of the "Chernobyl Forum" are that 4,000–9,000

people died, or will die, from
radiogenic cancer (which against the background of
spontaneous cancers "will
be difficult to identify"). That report indicates
that 4,000 cases of
childhood radiogenic cancers of the thyroid gland
were resolved via medical
operations. That report acknowledges that certain
increases in the cataracts
of liquidators and children from the contaminated
regions have been
discovered. The report concludes, generally, that
the consequences of the
catastrophe "for the peopleâ€™s health proved to be
not so significant, as
they were first considered to be".

A more objective point of view was well-expressed
by the UN General
Secretary, Kofi Annan: "…the exact number of

victims may never be known, but
3 million children require treatment and…many will

die prematurely…Not until

2016, at the earliest, will be known the full
number of those likely to
develop serious medical conditions…because of

delayed reactions to radiation
exposure…many will die prematurely... ".


Radioactive fall-outs from Chernobyl clouds
touched many territories, where
more than three billion people live. More than 50%
of these territories
across 13 European countries were dangerously
contaminated by radionuclides
from Chernobyl (and in 8 further countries - more
than 30 % of their
territories). It will be the fate of many future
generations to suffer the
echoes of Chernobyl in these countries according
to inexorable statistical
and biological laws.

In reality, the number of childhood thyroid
cancers caused by Chernobyl in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia is much greater than
is indicated by the IAEA
and/or the WHO. It is also impossible to consider
those having undergone
medical operations as having been "cured" - for in
reality they will have
had their health compromised by disruptions of
their hormonal and immune
systems and by living on medication. Thyroid
cancer is only one of many
pathologic changes in this organ under the effect
of the radiation. For each
case of cancer there are many tens of cases of
other diseases  of this
important endocrine gland. Disturbances of health,
connected with radiogenic
changes in the thyroid gland, already touched not
several, but many tens of
thousands of individuals. In the following 30-50
years they will touch many
thousands more.

The worsening of health related to radiation
exposure from the Chernobyl
accident (especially – in childrenâ€™s health), in

the â€œChernobylâ€ territories
of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia is without
scientific doubt. Dozens of
diseases are explicable neither by the effect of
the screening
methodologies, nor by social and economic factors.

I will not repeat here the content of the
following report, but I will
highlight some of the reasons for such serious
differences in the estimation
of the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe
between the side of the
atomic energy industry and from the side of many
independent experts. Some
former Soviet officials have not only forbidden
doctors to connect current
diseases with the Chernobyl irradiation, but have
also classified some
Chernobyl-related materials, making these
materials difficult, and at times
impossible, to obtain. In order to overcome these
political manipulations, a
rigorous scientific approach has been applied in
the assessment and
selection of material provided in this report.
Statistically significant
variances of the health of the population in the
affected territories, with
identical ethnic, psychological, geographical,
social and economic
characteristics (which are differentiated only by
the exposure to the
Chernobyl irradiation) are explained via the
consequences of the Chernobyl
catastrophe.

The following report, in its concentrated form,
presents to the English
speaking reader material that was previously
difficult to access (published
in Belarus, Russian and Ukrainian literature).
There are many scientific
studies on the consequences of the Chernobyl
catastrophe on health,
published in these three countries but to date,
little of this information
has been available via Western journals. It should
be noted that since 1959
there has been an understanding between the IAEA
and the WHO, that the WHO
will â€œcoordinate" its position with the IAEA on
atomic-related health
issues. With the valuable assistance of many
independent specialists from
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and many other countries,
I hope that this report
will be among many further objective examinations
of the true scale of the
Chernobyl catastrophe to be published in the near
future.

Member of the European Committee on Radiation
Risk,
Former Councillors For Ecology And Public Health
To The President Of The
Russian Federation Councillors for Russian Academy
of Science,
Prof., Dr. biol.  Alexey Yablokov

-----Ð˜ÑÑ…Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¾Ðµ ÑÐ¾Ð¾Ð±Ñ‰ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ðµ-----
ÐžÑ‚: Bill Smirnow [mailto:smirnowb@ix.netcom.com]
ÐžÑ‚Ð¿Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¾: 21 Ð°Ð¿Ñ€ÐµÐ»Ñ 2006 Ð³. 6:24
ÐšÐ¾Ð¼Ñƒ: Bill Smirnow
Ð¢ÐµÐ¼Ð°: Just In Ukraine, 2.32 Million Treated For
Chernobyl Diseases


*****************************************************************
 27 The Australian: Most against nuke plants - poll 

This story is from our network Source: AAP 

 May 30, 2006 

MOST Australians are opposed to nuclear power stations, a new
poll shows.

 And while there is greater opposition than support for uranium
enrichment, approval for the idea has grown since the late
1980s, according to a Newspoll of 1200 voters, published in The
Australian newspaper today.

 It showed 51 per cent of respondents were opposed to nuclear
power stations in Australia.

 More people opposed uranium enrichment than approved of it (46
per cent to 34 per cent), while 44 per cent were against the
opening any new uranium mines, and 22 per cent wanted no uranium
mining at all.

 Majority opposition to nuclear power stations came from women,
people aged between 18 and 49, and Labor voters.

 Supporters were mostly men or Coalition affiliates.

 While more people still oppose enriching Australian uranium
before exporting it for nuclear reactors, there has been a
dramatic closing of the gap in the past 20 years.

 A 1988 poll showed 59 per cent of people were against uranium
enrichment in Australia and only 25 per cent supported it.

 In the latest poll, there was a 13-point drop since 1988 to 46
per cent opposed to uranium enrichment, and a nine-point rise to
34 per cent for those in favour. 

[&raquo;] Print Friendly Version [&raquo;] Email this story 

Privacy Terms © The Australian 
 
*****************************************************************
 28 The Australian: Nuclear dawn won't be tomorrow

+ NEWS.com.au

 The hot topic is powering on and is taking the Resources
Minister along with it, energy writer Nigel Wilson reports

 May 30, 2006 

IN the debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power,
it is worth remembering one very important point: nuclear energy
is not yet commercially viable in this country.

 That, at least, is the view of federal Resources Minister Ian
Macfarlane who has found himself - courtesy of the Prime
Minister - accelerating a pro-nuclear power strategy. 

As a result, he has been forced to defend himself against
allegations of backflipping on the issue. 

While Macfarlane had been keenly promoting Australia as a
uranium exporter to the power-hungry developing world since the
World Energy Congress in Sydney two years ago, he had - until
earlier this month - been reluctant to support nuclear power for
domestic use. 

Essentially, he maintained, there was no public appetite for
nuclear energy and therefore it was a debate we did not need to
have - just yet. 

But all that has changed because of events overseas that have
influenced John Howard's advocacy of nuclear. 

Macfarlane had to accelerate his rhetoric rapidly, while
explaining that in fact all his previous remarks and actions had
been building up to encouraging a public debate about domestic
nuclear power. 

"Previously, the very word uranium has stirred a smog of
hysteria which has smothered any sort of rational debate," he
said immediately after the PM's view became public. 

"The industry has matured, the technology has evolved, more
countries are signalling their move to, or expansion of, a
nuclear energy industry, there's greater demand for Australian
uranium and the debate has moved to a more informed level. 

"This has to be a national decision but only once everyone is
given the opportunity to learn more about the issue in a
dispassionate, factual manner." 

Even so, the minister conceded that the cost of nuclear power
was still around double the cost of coal-fired electricity. 

"Back of the envelope calculations show nuclear energy to be
twice as expensive as our traditional energy sources at the
moment and, for that reason, this isn't an issue on which
Australia has to make an immediate decision," he told The
Australian. 

Almost at the same time as Howard was talking up prospects for a
domestic nuclear future, British counterpart Tony Blair was also
pushing the nuclear button. In a speech in London on May 17,
Blair endorsed a new generation of nuclear power stations. The
difference is that Britain already has a nuclear industry.
Australia doesn't. And that's a real issue for the $100 billion
Australian electricity industry. 

Blair warned that failing to replace Britain's ageing nuclear
plants would fuel global warming, endanger the country's energy
security and represent a dereliction of duty to Britons. 

Even so, he said, nuclear was only one option to meet Britain's
looming energy gap. 

Howard, while on his overseas tour, also had the benefit of the
views of his other great international friend, George W. Bush,
who has been pushing nuclear as the Advanced Energy Initiative. 

Last week, the US President told an audience at Exelon's nuclear
plant at Limerick, Pennsylvania, that new plants would cut
dependency on imported oil. 

Bush said energy demand in the US was expected to rise 50 per
cent in the next 25 years. 

He focused on nuclear power, saying it was abundant and
affordable with low operating costs. 

In Australia, analysts say, the dynamic and therefore the need,
is somewhat different. 

Australia's looming energy gap is in liquid transport fuels, not
in fuelling electricity generation. At current rates of use,
Australia has around 400 years supply of coal and more than 100
years of natural gas. 

Indeed, earlier this year the Government committed, through
Macfarlane, to encourage the use of natural gas as the fuel of
choice for up to 70 per cent of Australia's future baseload
power stations. 

Macfarlane announced a new government/industry strategic
approach initiated by the Australian Petroleum Production &
Exploration Association that, while acknowledging the underlying
priority of the gas industry was to see Australia become one of
the world's top five LNG suppliers, there was also a need to
focus on the growing domestic market. 

The Resources Minister said the key was industry enthusiasm
because it would have to involve changing business and community
attitudes about energy production, opening doors which were
currently closed, but not locked, to natural gas options. 

Substitute nuclear power and you would need the same enthusiasm
but as yet it appears absent in Australia. 

Andrew Blyth, the newly appointed chief executive of the Energy
Networks Association, points out that Australia will have to do
a lot of work before committing to nuclear. 

Aside from the inherent problem that nuclear energy is currently
priced at about double what Australian coal-fired generators can
achieve - although that is likely to change as coal becomes more
costly through the application of clean technologies - just
fitting nuclear into the Australian system poses challenges.
Blyth says Australia's physical energy infrastructure is in
urgent need of renewal and expansion. 

During the next five years, around $16 billion needs to be
invested in new distribution networks and in refurbishing gas
distribution. Yet in Blyth's terms, there is insufficient
incentive through the Government's regulatory approach to ensure
the investment takes place. 

At the most simple energy regulation is so confused that it acts
as a disincentive for remedial work in the system. 

The net result is that networks will become unreliable and the
costs of fixing them will be passed on to consumers, either
through higher electricity and gas tariffs or higher government
charges, depending on whether suppliers are privatised or still
remain in government hands. 

While there is much discussion concerning the change in scale of
nuclear power stations - some experts argue that units as small
as 100 megawatts could be constructed efficiently - the
consensus is that units of around 1500MW would be most likely to
meet Australia's needs. 

Reactors of this size are the mainstay of China's plans to
expand its nuclear capacity to 40 gigawatts by 2020. 

Sue Ion, executive director of technology at British Nuclear
Fuels, has said that evolutionary designs are intended to
replace existing nuclear plants and to prevent sizeable
increases in carbon dioxide emissions. 

The revolutionary designs, known as generation IV, aim to
deliver safe, competitive and sustainable energy. 

Generation IV is an international initiative aimed at developing
nuclear energy systems that can supply future worldwide needs
for electricity, hydrogen, and other products. 

They feature so-called passive safety systems that do not
require human intervention in the case of an accident. Some will
operate at sufficiently high temperatures to produce hydrogen
from water as well as electricity. 

Experts say the new systems will be more economical to build,
operate and maintain. 

According to the World Nuclear Association, 441 nuclear power
reactors operate in 31 countries, producing more than 363
billion watts of electricity. Another 30 reactors are under
construction, and some 24 countries - including six that do not
currently operate nuclear reactors - are planning or proposing
to build an additional 104 reactors. 

But for Australia, Macfarlane concedes the only thing that would
make nuclear energy commercially viable in the next 10 to 15
years would be a carbon tax on other energy sources. 

But therein lies the paradox. 

"The Government does not support a stand-alone Australian carbon
tax," Macfarlane said. 

That might need rethinking with huge ramifications for
electricity generators which are the nation's biggest
contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. 

 The Australian 
*****************************************************************
 29 ForUm: The Pivdenno-Ukrainiska nuclear plant holds up for routine repair
 
  News / 29 May 2006 | 11:08   

The Pivdenno-Ukrainiska nuclear plant holds up for routine repair

The third unit of the Pivdenno-Ukrainska nuclear power plant has
been blackout at 0.45 am in accordance with the beginning of the
routine repair, Energoatom press office informed. 

Eleven out of fifteen power-units currently works in Ukraine.
Zaporizhzhya APP unit #1, Pivdenno-Ukrainiska APP #2 and
Khmelnitsky APP #1 are under repair now. 

The radioactive, fire-prevention and ecological state of the
nuclear power plant are normal, Energoatom reports.   









*****************************************************************
 30 Sydney Morning Herald: Most Aussies oppose nuclear plants - poll - 

www.smh.com.au

May 30, 2006 - 5:59AM
 	 	
Most Australians are opposed to nuclear power stations, a new 
poll shows. 

And while there is greater opposition than support for uranium 
enrichment, approval for the idea has grown since the late 1980s, 
according to a Newspoll of 1,200 voters, published in The 
Australian newspaper. 

It showed 51 per cent of respondents were opposed to nuclear 
power stations in Australia. 

More people opposed uranium enrichment than approved of it (46 
per cent to 34 per cent), while 44 per cent were against the 
opening any new uranium mines, and 22 per cent wanted no uranium 
mining at all. 

Majority opposition to nuclear power stations came from women, 
people aged between 18 and 49, and Labor voters. 

Supporters were mostly men or Coalition affiliates. 

While more people still oppose enriching Australian uranium
before exporting it for nuclear reactors, there has been a
dramatic closing of the gap in the past 20 years. 

A 1988 poll showed 59 per cent of people were against uranium
enrichment in Australia and only 25 per cent supported it. 

In the latest poll, there was a 13-point drop since 1988 to 46
per cent opposed to uranium enrichment, and a nine-point rise to
34 per cent for those in favour. 	

© 2006  AAP

 Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 31 IBNLive: Govt lied on N-deal, says BJP chief
 
Reuters  

May 29, 2006 

New Delhi: BJP President Rajnath Singh today apprehended that the 
UPA Government may have misled Parliament on Indo-US nuclear deal 
because the details given before the Parliament on the issue and 
those presented before the US Congress did not tally with each 
other. 

Addressing the inaugural session of the two-day BJP National 
Executive participated by the top leaders, including former Prime 
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Leader of Opposition L K 
Advani, Singh said the fears expressed by Vajpayee after the deal 
was signed were coming true and questions were raised about 
India's nuclear defence capability in the name of developing 
civilian nuclear programmes. 

He said withholding Agni III tests by the UPA government had
raised several questions because it was not clear if these tests
were a result of self assessment as claimed by Defence Minister
or was prompted by need to cater to strategic requirements of
power nations of the world. 

"Every alert citizen wants to know because stopping the tests
was a setback to indigenous missile development programme in
contrast to the decisions taken by the previous government in
1999 when the country went ahead with Agni II tests braving a
strong economic and military sanctions imposed against India." 


"It is clear that country's defences have now been weakened
under the UPA," he said. 

Expressing concern about India's neighbours emerging as centers
of anti-India conspiracies, Singh said these activities, which
use to happen only in Pakistan were now occurring from
Bangladesh too. 

He said the previous government exerted pressure on Pakistan to
declare that it would not allow its territory to be used against
India but under the UPA, terrorists were striking at will from
Doda to Delhi and Varanasi to Bangalore. 

He said the Army was stunned at the proposals to withdraw from
strategically important Siachen Glacier, considered as the
world's highest battle ground. 

For the first time in history, the Chief of Army Staff had come
out twice openly, once against the Muslim-head count and now
against withdrawal of forces from Siachen. 

"The BJP under all circumstances will not tolerate withdrawal of
forces from Siachen in the garb of improving relations with
Pakistan," he declared. 

The party was concerned about the situation in Nepal. The LTTE
was becoming pro-active in Sri Lanka and Talibans were raising
their ugly heads in Afghanistn. 

"This is a story of failures of foreign policy of the UPA
Government," he remarked. 

*****************************************************************
 32 RIA Novosti: Beloyarsk NPP to be put into operation by 2012, 
official says
 
29/ 05/ 2006                                  

ZARECHNY, Urals, May 29 (RIA Novosti) - Construction of a
57-billion-ruble ($2.1-bln) fast breeder reactor at a nuclear
power in the Urals will be completed by 2012, Russia's nuclear
energy chief said Monday. 

"The Russian government has been sent a federal targeted program
that set 2012 as the date for putting the fourth reactor at the
Beloyarsk nuclear power plant into operation," Sergei Kiriyenko
said. 

The sodium-cooled BN-800 reactor is a fast-breeder reactor that
scientists say produces much less waste and reduces limitations
on the nuclear fuel cycle, as well as making it possible to
increase plant security. Work on the reactor type started in the
Soviet era, when it was seen as a step toward creating a massive
fast-breeder reactor preliminarily titled the BN-1600. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 33 Pravda.Ru: Top nuclear official at time of Chernobyl summoned in probe into
France's reaction to accident - 

  05/29/2006 19:05     Source:     

Investigators will question Pierre Pellerin on Wednesday,
judicial officials said. 

He will be the first person interrogated in a lawsuit brought
against the French government by more than 500 people who have
developed thyroid and other cancers they believe are linked to
the 1986 explosion that spewed radiation. 


  Chernobyl's central nuclear plant   

The newspaper Liberation reported that judges suspect him of
hiding the levels of radioactive damage to France, and said he
could be accused of involuntary injuries. 

The French government has been widely ridiculed for insisting
after the accident that the radiation did not reach France,
though neighboring countries all said it had passed through
their skies. Other European countries pulled milk from shelves
or recommended that children take iodine tablets to ward off
radiation, while France took none of these steps. 

Researchers and cancer victims accuse the government of
intentionally downplaying the effects on France of the
explosion, partly to protect the powerful nuclear industry, the
AP reports. 

French government agencies have adjusted some of their initial
radiation estimates since the accident, but deny any intentional
deception. 

Meanwhile, about 10 Greenpeace activists carrying banners
reading "France - Nuclear Wastebin" were detained Monday after
forcibly entering a nuclear waste storage facility in northwest
France that accepts waste from nuclear plants in several
countries.   

  C 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru».
*****************************************************************
 34 Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee decisions belong with Legislature

Opinion 

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont 

Published: Monday, May 29, 2006

 At the end of last year's legislative session a bill passed
that allowed Entergy to use "dry casks" to store high level
nuclear waste from Vermont Yankee by petitioning the Public
Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good. 

Many Vermonters were unhappy with both last minute changes that
weakened the original bill, and how those changes were made. One
of the biggest changes was that while Entergy had to return to
the Legislature to get approval for more dry cask storage in
order to operate after 2012, the Legislature would not vote on
relicensing. 

Relicensing of Vermont Yankee would have been left to the Public
Service Board.

Whether Vermont Yankee should continue to operate after 2012 is
an enormous policy issue that should be made by elected
officials, not by three regulators who are political appointees.
The Legislature makes policy. The job of regulators is to
implement policy. 

This year, Sens. Jeanette White, Rod Gander and Mark McDonald
introduced S.124 to remedy the situation. With Sen. Peter
Welch's leadership, S.124 passed the Senate. On the House side,
our committee, House Natural Resources and Energy, substantially
strengthened the bill. The bill is designed to ensure that there
is adequate fact finding and public engagement in one of the
most critical decisions facing Vermont's economy, environment
and public health. S.124, now called Act 160, requires the
Department of Public Service (DPS) to arrange for studies to be
conducted which will assist the Legislature and create a public
engagement process. 

The DPS will do this "in consultation with" the Joint Energy
Committee, which consists of eight senators and representatives.
We would have preferred that the Joint Energy Committee have
veto power over the DPS, but this would have created a
constitutional separation of powers issue that could have ended
up in court. 

The objectives of the studies will be:

to assess the long term economic and environmental benefits,
risks and costs of continued operation of Vermont Yankee and the
storage of nuclear waste, 

to assess all practical alternatives to the continued operation
of Vermont Yankee, and

to facilitate a public discussion of the long term economic and
environmental issues related to the operation of Vermont Yankee. 

The studies will collect information on and analyze:

long-term accountability and financial responsibility for
theongoing guardianship of the onsite nuclear waste, closure
obligations, dates of completion, and assurance of funds to
ensure that these obligations and dates are met, 

federal obligations, and the availability of funds if those
obligations are not kept,

funding for emergency management and evacuation planning both
before and after closure, and 

long term environmental, economic and public health risks
related to dry cask storage and decommissioning options.

Act 160 sets the stage for a comprehensive and informed societal
and legislative discussion of the long term economic and
environmental risks and benefits of the continued operation of
Vermont Yankee and the long-term storage of high level nuclear
waste in Vermont. There will be a minimum of three public
meetings held around the state. 

If the Legislature approves relicensing, then Entergy may
petition the Public Service Board for a certificate of public
good. The Board will use the information gathered in the
legislature's process, as well as information outlined in
section 248. 

The board will also have to use current assumptions and analyses
and not extensions of the cost benefit assumptions and analyses
forming the basis of the original license. The Legislature will
be considering this policy question of continued operation of
Vermont Yankee and increased amounts of high level nuclear waste
in the next biennium. That means that the legislators who are
elected this November will be making the decision. 

Rep. Steve Darrow represents Windham and serves on the House
Natural Resources and Energy committee. 

Copyright ©2006 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 CN: Bush’s Energy Initiative - Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Renewable Sources        

www.CattleNetwork.com: Connecting the Cattle Industry Worldwide
 
5/29/2006 9:38:30 PM               

The President's Advanced Energy Initiative promotes America's
four main sources of electricity: coal, nuclear, natural gas,
and renewable sources. 

To Continue Economic Growth In A Competitive World, America Must
Find Solutions To Its Energy Needs. Over the past 30 years, our
economy has grown three times faster than our energy
consumption. During that period, we created more than 55 million
jobs, while cutting air pollution by 50 percent. But America’s
dynamic economy is also creating a growing demand for
electricity; electricity demand is projected to increase nearly
50 percent over the next 25 years. 

As The Global Economy Becomes More Competitive, America Must
Find New Alternatives To Oil, Pursue Promising New Technologies,
And Find Better Ways To Generate More Electricity. America faces
new energy challenges as countries like China and India consume
more energy – especially oil. Global demand for oil is rising
faster than global supply. As a result, oil prices are rising
around the world, which leads to higher gas prices in America. 

The President Is Working To Meet America’s Energy Demands And
The Challenges Of The Global Economy By Developing Clean,
Domestic, Affordable Supplies Of Energy. We must safeguard the
environment, reduce our dependence on energy from abroad, and
help keep prices reasonable for consumers. 

Nuclear Power 

Nuclear Power Is Abundant And Affordable. Nuclear power is
America’s second-leading source of electricity. Today, more than
100 nuclear plants operate in 31 states. Once a nuclear plant is
constructed, its fuel and operating costs are among the cheapest
forms of energy available today. 

Nuclear Power Is Clean. Nuclear power produces no air pollution
or greenhouse gases, and there is a growing consensus that it is
an environmentally responsible choice. Without nuclear energy,
carbon dioxide emissions would have been 28 percent greater in
the electricity industry in 2004, America would have an
additional 700 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, and
nitrogen-oxide emissions would rise by the equivalent of 58
million passenger cars. 

Nuclear Power Is Safe. Advances in science, engineering, and
plant design have made nuclear power plants far safer than ever
before – plant workers and managers focus on security above all
else. 

President Bush Is Helping Expand America's Use Of Nuclear Power
In Four Important Ways: 

1. The Energy Bill The President Signed In 2005 Provides Loan
Incentives, Production Tax Credits, And Federal Risk Insurance
For Builders Of New Nuclear Plants. Loan incentives will give
investors confidence that the Federal government is committed to
the construction of nuclear power plants. Production tax credits
will reward investments in the latest in advanced nuclear power
generation. Federal risk insurance for the first six new nuclear
power plants will help protect builders of these plants against
lawsuits, bureaucratic obstacles, and other delays beyond their
control. 

2. The Bush Administration Has Launched The Nuclear Power 2010
Initiative – A $1.1 Billion Partnership Between The U.S.
Government And Industry To Facilitate New Plant Orders. At this
time last year, only two companies were seeking to build nuclear
power plants. Now, 16 companies have expressed interest in new
construction – and they are considering as many as 25 new
plants. By the end of this decade, America will be able to start
construction on nuclear plants again. 

3. President Bush Has Proposed Legislation That Will Help
Complete A Nuclear Waste Repository At Yucca Mountain. Yucca
Mountain is critical to expanding nuclear power in the United
States because it will provide a safe geologic repository to
store spent fuel and nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain was selected
based on sound science after many years of scientific study.
Making Yucca Mountain fully operational would inspire confidence
among builders and entrepreneurs that the government fully
supports the expansion of nuclear power. The President urges
Congress to pass this important legislation to move our efforts
forward. 

4. Under The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, America Will
Work With Nations That Have Advanced Civilian Nuclear Energy
Programs, Such As France, Japan, And Russia. The President's
budget includes $250 million to launch this initiative. 

GNEP Will Use New Technologies That Effectively And Safely
Recycle Spent Nuclear Fuel. Re-processing spent uranium fuel for
use in advanced reactors will allow us to extract more energy.
It also has the potential to reduce storage requirements for
nuclear waste by up to 90 percent. With re-processing, Yucca
Mountain could hold America’s nuclear waste through the end of
the 21st century. 

Working With Other Nations Under The Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, America Can Provide The Cheap, Safe, And Clean
Energy That Growing Economies Need, While Reducing The Risk Of
Nuclear Proliferation. We will help developing countries meet
their growing energy needs by providing them with small-scale
reactors that will be secure and cost-effective. We will also
ensure that developing nations have a reliable nuclear fuel
supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear
power only for civilian purposes and forego uranium enrichment
and re-processing activities that can be used to develop nuclear
weapons. 

Coal 

President Bush Is Encouraging The Research And Development Of
Clean-Coal Technologies. Coal is by far America’s most abundant
and affordable energy resource. America has enough coal to last
about 240 years at current rates of consumption. 

In 2000, President Bush Promised To Invest $2 Billion Over Ten
Years To Promote Clean Coal. The Administration is several years
ahead of schedule in keeping that promise. 

By 2012, Under The FutureGen Initiative, America Will Build The
World’s First Power Plant To Run On Coal And Remove Virtually
All Pollutants. 

Natural Gas 

The Energy Bill President Bush Signed In 2005 Addressed The
Increasing Demand For Natural Gas. Natural gas is the most
versatile fuel, but demand for it has increased, and the price
has more than doubled between 2001 to 2005. The Energy Bill
President Bush signed last year expands our ability to receive
liquefied natural gas – a super-cooled form of natural gas that
can be transported from overseas on tankers. The bill clarifies
Federal authority to license new sites, reduces bureaucratic
obstacles to open new terminals, and streamlines the permitting
process for onshore development. 

Alternative And Renewables 

President Bush's FY2007 Budget Proposes $44 Million In Funding
For Wind Energy Research. 

About Six Percent Of The Continental United States Has Been
Identified As Highly Suitable For Construction Of Wind Turbines.
This area alone has the potential to supply up to 20 percent of
our Nation’s electricity. Our goal is to expand the use and
lower the cost of wind turbine technology – so that our country
can get more electricity from clean, renewable wind power. 

The President Has Proposed A New Solar America Initiative To
Accelerate Research And Development In Solar Technology. Solar
technology has the potential to change the way all Americans
live and work. President Bush's FY2007 budget proposes nearly
$150 million in funding for government and private research into
solar technology – an increase of more than 75 percent over
current levels. This support can help make solar power
competitive by 2015. 

The President Is Working To Boost Oil And Gas Supplies To
Relieve High Gas Prices. 

In April, President Bush Directed The Strategic Petroleum
Reserve To Defer Filling The Reserve This Summer. In addition,
he has directed EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to use all his
available authority to grant waivers that would relieve the
restrictions on getting fuel delivered to the pump. The
President has also called on Congress to simplify the process
for building new refineries and to make it easier for refiners
to make modifications to increase production. 

We Need More Access To The Domestic Resources On The Outer
Continental Shelf, While Respecting The Concerns Of Nearby
States. In the long term, America must find alternatives to oil
and the way we power our cars. 

It will take time for America to move from a hydrocarbon economy
to a hydrogen economy. In the meantime, there are billions of
barrels of oil and enormous amounts of natural gas off the
Alaskan Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.   

Content Copyright ©2004  CattleNetwork.com   
*****************************************************************
 36 Xinhua: Promote dialogue on energy co-operation   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-29 09:12:05   

    BEIJING, May 29 -- The first few years of the 21st century
have witnessed long queues at petrol stations across the globe,
while soaring prices in the New York petroleum futures market
remind us how grim the world energy security situation is. 

    Increasingly strained relations between supply and demand,
the rising international oil price, strategic contentions
focusing on energy producing areas and environmental pollution
caused by energy consumption give us no cause for optimism, with
the negative effects of soaring oil prices already being felt by
the global economy. 

    The driving force of global economic growth resides in the
spiralling increase in energy consumption. "World Energy
Statistics, 2005," issued by energy giant BP, shows that the
average annual increase in global oil consumption over the past
decades hit 1.7 per cent. According to the statement from the
International Energy Agency, daily global oil demand will grow
by 50 per cent by 2030, reaching 130 million barrels a day. That
proves that the shortage of energy supply will become
increasingly aggravated. 

    The sharp fluctuation in oil prices will threaten the
stability of the international energy market. Beginning from
2000, the price of international crude oil entered a new
upswing, recording a steep climb on the basis of an average of
US$28.5 per barrel. At one point on August 29, 2005, the futures
price of crude oil in the New York market hit a historic new
high of US$70.8 per barrel. Thereafter, the oil price remained
in a state of constant flux and yet, for a long time, the price
remained at around US$60 a barrel. 

    Global warming and damage to the environment starting from
the 1990s have gradually raised humankind's awareness of energy
consumption security and environmental protection. Statistics
show that 75 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide
comes from the burning of oil, coal and charcoal. 

    As the world's second-largest energy producer and the
second-largest energy consumer, China has a stake in global
energy security. 

    China's total energy volume is by no means small, and yet
its per capita volume is fairly low, even below half the global
average. In recent years, economic growth in China has
progressively swelled its energy demand. 

    The Chinese Government is implementing a series of policies
and measures in a bid to solve the energy security issue, an
issue which has a strategic significance. Saving energy and
slashing energy consumption is regarded as a fundamental
national policy. The 11th Five Year Plan (2006-10) set out the
goal of cutting the consumption of energy per unit of GDP by a
hefty 20 per cent over this period. The government work report
delivered to the National People's Congress this year has
explicitly stipulated that the consumption of energy per unit of
GDP will ease by about 4 per cent while the GDP will grow at
roughly 8 per cent. 

    The country has put in place the strategy of developing
multiple sources of energy, while also developing alternative
sources of energy. The Mid- and Long-Term Development Plan for
China's Energy states clearly that the central task of ensuring
energy supply in China at present and in the coming period is to
optimize its energy structure by way of gearing up the work of
tapping hydro-electric power, stepping up nuclear-electric power
construction and encouraging the development of wind power,
biological energy sources and other renewable sources of energy.
It is designed to increase the proportion of renewable sources
of energy in the entire energy structure to around 15 per cent
by 2020 from the current 7 per cent. 

    China is both an energy consumer and an energy producer.
Based on statistics from the State Information Centre, China's
aggregate lump sum energy consumption in 2004 stood at 1.97
billion tons of standard coal, while the total lump sum energy
production capacity was 1.846 billion tons of standard coal,
putting the degree of China's self-sufficiency in energy at 93
per cent, outstripping the West's average level of 70 per cent. 

    Per capita consumption indicates that the lump sum per
capita consumption of energy in China in 2004 stood at 1.08 tons
of oil equivalent, accounting for 66 per cent of the global
average of 1.63 tons of oil equivalent, 13.4 per cent of the US
figure of 8.02 tons of oil equivalent, and 28.1 per cent of the
Japanese 3.82 tons of oil equivalent. 

    China's oil consumption in 2004 when a sharp increase was
recorded, stood at 300 million tons, roughly 8 per cent of the
aggregate global oil consumption; while US oil consumption was
938 million tons in the same year, accounting for 25 per cent of
global aggregate oil consumption, outstripping China twice. In
that year, China's net oil imports were less than 149 million
tons, about 6 per cent of the global trade volume in oil; while
US net oil imports in the same year stood at 590 million tons,
outstripping China three times. 

    The above-mentioned facts, whether in terms of energy
self-sufficiency, per capita energy consumption, or oil
consumption, prove false the allegation that China poses a
threat to world energy security. The solution to the energy
security issue lies in cementing co-operation and in the joint
efforts of all countries. 

    Fossil fuel will remain the dominant fuel in terms of energy
consumption in the early half of this century, and yet demand
for oil will continue to soar. Energy experts in every nation
are generally of the view that one of the major reasons causing
a shortfall in oil surplus capacity in the world today resides
exactly in the under-investment in oil industry in every country
in recent years. 

    Feasible policies to increase energy supply and defuse the
strained situation of energy supply require all states to
improve their investment environment in order to ensure
increased investment and to boost investment in extracting,
transporting and processing energy. 

    The current global energy security system was established in
the 1970s, consisting primarily of such multilateral
organizations as OPEC representing the interests of oil
exporting countries, the International Energy Agency
representing the interests of developed oil consumers, and the
International Energy Forum. 

    The changing international situation has given rise to signs
that the oil security system established to deal with oil crises
is no longer able to address today's complex global energy
security situation. For instance, intricate political and
economic factors have contributed to the reality that Asia has
to pay a higher price for importing oil than European and
American states. 

    Some developing countries are currently joining the club of
major energy importers, and for that matter, how to ensure the
energy security of developing countries in the context of the
new international trade structure has become a novel topic. 

    Despite the various rivalries in tapping and exploiting
overseas resources, the globe's energy-consuming nations,
especially developed countries and the up-and-coming consumers,
share common interests in upholding the stability of the
international market, tapping new energy, saving energy, and
environmental protection. We ought to further promote dialogue
between the energy producing states, the transporting countries
and consumer nations, and increase contacts and exchanges. 

    (Source: China Daily)   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 China Daily: Official: Worries over nuclear plant unnecessary 

 By Xie Chuanjiao (China Daily)

 Updated: 2006-05-30 06:15

YANTAI: An official from the State Environmental Protection
Administration said concerns over the proposed nuclear power
station near a sightseeing resort in East China's Shandong
Province are "unnecessary."

"Building the nuclear power station is the most economical way
to generate electricity, compared with coal, solar and wind
power stations," said Hou Wei, an official with the
administration's nuclear power safety inspection department.

Nuclear power stations also emit less pollution compared with
other types of stations, he said.

Last Wednesday, the nation's biggest nuclear reactor builder
China National Nuclear Corp signed an agreement with the
Shandong government to set up a venture and build the nuclear
plant in Rushan.

Since then, concerns over the environmental impact of the
nuclear power plant in Rushan County of Weihai have been voiced
through online forums.

Many have expressed fear that it could bring serious damage to
the local environment, since it is only 5 kilometres away from a
State-level tourist and resort district.

The official said none of the three planned nuclear power plants
in Shandong, including the one in Rushan, has received approval
from the central government.

The other two nuclear power plants are located in the province's
Rongcheng and Haiyang counties.

"Environment experts will give a careful and scientific
examination and verification before the start of the
construction," Hou said.

Hou went on to explain that his administration has also
solicited opinions from local residents in Rushan about the
plant's construction . 

Hou said the poll showed that the majority of the residents are
not worried about safety or pollution in regards to the plant.

"People are positive to the projects, mainly because of the huge
economic benefits brought along with their much cleaner
operation compared to coal-fired power plants," Hou said.

As far as netizens venting their worries online, Hou said he
believes it is occurring because of the lack of publicity on the
safety and advantages of nuclear power plants.

China has planned a string of nuclear power plants along the
eastern coast, with others under consideration in landlocked
southwestern areas.

(China Daily 05/30/2006 page3)   
*****************************************************************
 38 Telegraph: Pressure grows for 20 nuclear plants
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Roland Gribben (Filed: 29/05/2006)
 
Britain should set its sights on raising the electricity
contribution from nuclear power to 30pc by building 20 new
plants, Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific
adviser, said yesterday. 

He rejected suggestions that increases in taxes would be needed
to finance a nuclear power revival, arguing that the private
sector would have to foot the bill. Earlier this year it was
stated he supported a levy of up to £170 a year per family to
pay for building new nuclear plants. 

Sir David said on BBC1's Sunday AM programme: "This isn't going
to be Government using public money to build new power stations.

It depends on whether the City or the markets think that nuclear
is going to be one of the sensible ways of producing a
Government policy which is very clearly determined to be a 60pc
reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050." 

His comments provided further confirmation that the energy
review, expected to be published in July, will focus heavily on
a new nuclear power programme to provide security of supply and
meet environmental targets. 

The Prime Minister provided a clear signal this month when he
declared that nuclear power was "on the agenda with a
vengeance". 

Nuclear's share of electricity output is now under 19pc as more
of the first and second generation plants are shut down. 
By 2020 Sizewell B, a third generation plant, is expected to be
the only plant operating unless a new programme is under way. 

Sir David said that Britain should cut greenhouse emissions
without resigning itself to a "hair shirt future." 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. 
*****************************************************************
 39 TMI-Alert: TMI Security Guard Found Playing A Game - 

Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 21:03:56 -0700

Contact: Eric Epstein Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. 
(717)-541-1101

To: the media:

    + Today, another "Fitness for Duty" problem was identified at 
Exelon's Three Mile Island nuclear generating station. (See 
enclosure).

(Please note that on Monday, January 16, 2006, a top manager and 
a security guard at Three Mile Island were reported  sleeping 
and/or not "focused" on the job while on duty in two separate 
incidents in December 2005).

    +  Earlier in the week, President Bush visited Exelon's 
Limerick nuclear power plant to promote nuclear power's safety 
culture. Mr. Bush stated,  "And nuclear power is safe. 
(Applause.) It is safe because of advances in science and 
engineering and plant design. It is safe because the workers and 
managers of our nuclear power plants are incredibly skilled 
people who know what they're doing" (May 24, 2006)

   (Fortunately for Mr. Bush, he  did not visit Limerick on 
January 15 2004 when a drunk pilot "circled" the   nuclear plant 
and  buzzed the Philadelphia International Airport for over four 
hours.)

     =    Please note that on March 31, 1987, Peach Bottom 
(another Exelon nuclear power plant) was  indefinitely shutdown. 
Operators were found sleeping on the job, playing video games,  
engaging in rubber band and and paper ball fights, and reading 
unauthorized material.

                                                                  
               - 30 - DEP Finds TMI Security Guard Using 
Hand-Held Video Game

Surveillance Part of Safety Initiative Launched by
              Governor Rendell in  February

HARRISBURG, Pa., May 26 /PRNewswire/ -- A Three Mile Island security
guard stationed at one of the nuclear power plant's staging posts was
observed playing a hand-held video game during unannounced surveillance by
the Department of Environmental Protection this morning.

Although no violation occurred --- officers manning staging posts are
allowed to use "electronic devices" and engage in mind-stimulating
activities, such as reading or computer use, to maintain attention levels
for proper response --- DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty said the finding
demonstrates a need for changing procedures.

"The issue is not the guard's use of the video game, because current
procedures don't specifically prohibit those games," McGinty said. "The
real issue is that his complete absorption in the game distracted him from
noticing the repeated approach of our inspector. And that shows why this
procedure needs to be changed and these video games disallowed."

DEP's on-site nuclear safety staff conducted the unannounced check
between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. to assess the attentiveness of on-duty plant
staff. The TMI security guard using the hand-held device did not
acknowledge the DEP official as he approached the staging post on several
occasions.

The only responsibility of officers at staging posts is to respond to
frequent radio checks to confirm they are attentive and able to respond if
necessary. The guard did respond properly to a radio check while the DEP
official was present.

DEP documented the observation and immediately notified the plant
operator. The operator in turn notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which has final authority over health and safety regulations at
all commercial nuclear power plants in the country.

DEP will work with NRC and the company to review the incident. The
department also will work with the nuclear plant operators and the NRC to
review policies regarding the use of hand-held electronic devices such as
video games.

DEP's unannounced, off-hour surveillances are part of an effort
announced by Governor Edward G. Rendell in February to ensure control room,
security and other vital personnel at each of the state's five nuclear
power plant sites are alert and performing their duties in a manner to keep
the facilities operating safely.

The Governor directed the surveillances in response to public concern
over reports of inattentiveness by a shift manager and plant security at
Three Mile Island. The plant's operator, AmerGen Energy, reassigned a shift
manager suspected of falling asleep on the job.

DEP's surveillances, which are conducted by the Bureau of Radiation
Protection, will continue through 2006, with unannounced facility
walk-downs planned each month at the plants --- Beaver Valley Power Station
in Beaver County, Limerick Generating Station in Montgomery County, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station in York County, Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station in Luzerne County and Three Mile Island in Dauphin County.
For more information, visit DEP's Web site at

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us, Keyword: "Radiation Protection."
CONTACT: Kurt M. Knaus
           717-787-1323

      SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
*****************************************************************
 40 The Sunday Times: Nuclear Subsidies

May 28, 2006

Business Letters

Nuclear subsidies: Was Eon power chief Paul Golby being entirely 
frank in telling Andrew Davidson that his company "would be happy 
to build and run new nuclear plants without subsidy"? ("Eon rides 
into the corridors of power", last week).

He said the same thing at the annual conference of the 
Parliamentary Renewable & Sustainable Energy Group on May 9. When 
I challenged him to justify this, he declined to answer.

So, let's put this rhetoric to the test. Is Golby's Eon prepared 
to do without the following covert subsidies?

1. Plant operators have limited liability in the case of an 
accident - anything over œ700m is covered by the taxpayer. Is Eon 
prepared to take on board the full insurance liabilities, which 
in the case of Chernobyl have run to several tens of billions of 
pounds?

2. Is Eon prepared to share with any other private investors the 
full costs of the pre-construction safety analysis, currently 
covered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate using public 
money?

3. Are private investors prepared to pay the full costs of the 
UK's membership of the EU nuclear agency, Euratom; and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency - both of which do promotional 
and safety work for nuclear power.

4. Are the private-sector investors prepared to pay the full 
costs of securing nuclear facilities and nuclear materials in 
transit, currently covered by a quango, the Office of Civil 
Nuclear Security, embedded within the DTI, and paid for by the 
taxpayer?

5. Is the private sector prepared to take over from government in 
the current research done using taxpayers' money on so-called 
"Generation 4" reactor designs?

6. And finally, how will Eon and other private investors pay for 
the full cost of management (or eventual "disposal") of the new 
radioactive waste produced - including the eventual 
decommissioning of defunct reactors and associated 
infrastructures - in any atomic renaissance? All of these are 
hidden taxpayer-funded subsidies on top of the œ2 billion capital 
cost per reactor.

Ministers, above all chancellor Gordon Brown, should be properly 
briefed on this haemorrhaging of public funds, before any 
irrevocable nuclear decisions are taken.

Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey

Tech costs: An observation needs to be made following David 
Smith's discussion of the vulnerability of western economies 
after recent stock market losses. ("Ghosts of past inflation come 
back to haunt us", Economic Outlook, last week).

He mentions the technology revolution - where new technology 
helps bring down prices. However, we must also recognise the 
increasing pace of technology turnover, where technology 
replacement cycles continue to shorten as a result of more 
frequent technical advances in capabilities and capacity. 
Research by my company shows that the UK and Germany are the most 
frequent replacers of tech- nology in Europe and more frequent 
replacers than the US, something which naturally carries a cost.

It is interesting to note how companies are affording this. There 
is strong evidence that alternative forms of finance - leasing, 
tech-refresh packages and other pay-as-you-use methods - are on 
the upswing. Germany, for instance, saw growth in the use of this 
kind of finance approaching 10% in 2005, according to the 
respected Ifo Institute, and similar rates of growth have been 
seen in many UK business sectors.

The pace of technology turnover is predicted to speed up. This is 
encouraging buyers to look for pay-per-use finance, with the 
traditional model of capital purchasing rapidly falling into 
disfavour. That the issue will grow in importance is corroborated 
by one other finding from our research among European business, 
which found virtually all respondents confirming their belief 
that one major contributor to competitive edge was being able to 
take on the latest technology.

Rod Tonna-Barthet
director, Siemens Financial Services, Harrow, Middlesex

Capital note: In your article on the explosive growth of Dubai 
("Dubai's building frenzy lays foundation for global power", 
Business, last week) you mentioned that the leaders of Dubai are 
hoping other countries in the region (notably Qatar, Abu Dhabi, 
and Oman) will follow a similar western-friendly attitude to 
theirs. It is important to note that Abu Dhabi is in fact not a 
country; rather it is one of the seven emirates that make up the 
United Arab Emirates, and more notably, it is the capital of the 
UAE.

Darren Goffin
Hendon, London

The Times, The Sunday Times and Times Online       
        
*****************************************************************
 41 Warrnambool Standard: Nuclear bomb survivor signs out

the.standard.net.au   
 
By SARAH SCOPELIANOS

 May 29, 2006

Diane Wickson with a photograph of her father, Murray Jobling,
at age 21. 

Picture: ANGELA MILNE                                            

ONE of Australia's last living links to the end of World War
Two, Murray Jobling, a former Grassmere soldier settler, has
died. 

The boy who had enlisted in the army just shy of his 22nd
birthday in 1940 was aged 27 and in a Japanese prisoner of war
camp in Nagasaki when the bomb hit. 

He had trained as an army gunner with the 2/40 Battalion, and
alongside 23 other Australians he survived the bomb blast at
ground zero. 

The Australians believed their captors had penciled in their
executions and were saved by America's ``The Fat Man'' atomic
bomb. 

Mr Jobling told The Bulletin last year the dropping of the
second atomic bomb was necessary.
 

``Of course it was. It saved our bloody lives. That's a stupid
question,'' he said at the time. 

His eldest child, Diane Wickson, said her father, who died in a
Geelong nursing home two months short of his 88th birthday last
Friday, was believed to have been one of two of Australia's last
ground zero survivors.  

She said few people believed his tale of working at Mitsubishi's
war plane factory in Nagasaki. 

The bomb detonated above Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 at 11.02am,
killing an estimated 35,000 people and injured another 25,000
people. 

At the time Mr Jobling was having a smoke in the prisoners' camp
and the blast picked him up but he landed on his feet. The
person he was smoking with was buried unconscious under the
rubble and the barracks were flattened. 

``He was Dad. He went through quite a lot and was a quiet man.
Like most people who go through a lot of trauma he never talked
about it. When he did it was usually in brief terms,'' Mrs
Wickson said yesterday. 

``Over the years there were various comments about the
neighbours who didn't believe him, that sort of thing, but I had
no real idea because he didn't talk about it very much.'' 

It wasn't until 1974 when Japan opened its war records that
evidence of the Australians' survival become a matter of public
record. 

During the years, Mr Jobling lived in Coburg, later in Appin
South near Kerang where he married his wife, Evelyn, before
moving to a soldier settlement block at Grassmere with his
family. 

Mrs Wickson said that in Kerang her father measured farmers'
water allocations and wanted to settle in a place free of
irrigation. 

Mr Jobling resigned from the Koroit RSL in the 1960s in protest
about the league's support for the Vietnam War and never
re-joined. 

``He believed it was just a civil conflict and had nothing to do
with us and at the particular time it was very unfashionable. 

``He didn't say a lot, but when he did he meant it. His family
was his priority.'' He returned in 1965. 

Mr Jobling is survived by five children, 10 grandchildren and
seven great-grandchildren.
 
Warrnambool Standard     
*****************************************************************
 42 kutv.com: Mushroom Cloud Blast In NV Delayed Indefinitely
          
 May 28, 2006 4:23 pm US/Mountain 

LAS VEGAS The federal government has indefinitely postponed a
planned explosion that was expected to generate a mushroom cloud
over the Nevada desert. 

Officials said the delay would allow more time to answer
questions about the blast, which opponents fear would kick up
radioactive fallout left from nuclear weapons tests conducted at
the Nevada Test Site about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

``The previously announced date of no later than June 23 is no
longer accurate,'' said Darwin Morgan, spokesman for the
National Nuclear Security Administration in North Las Vegas.
``The experiment will be scheduled at a date later to be
announced pending the legal action.'' 

The Winnemucca Indian Colony and several Nevada and Utah
``downwinders'' have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Las
Vegas to block the non-nuclear blast. 

The lawsuit, filed by Reno-based lawyer Bob Hager, claims the
federal government failed to complete required environmental
studies before planning to detonate a 700-ton ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil bomb. 

The federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency has said the
explosion would help gather data about penetrating hardened and
deeply buried targets. 

Critics have called it a surrogate for a low-yield nuclear
``bunker-buster'' bomb. 

(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material

© MMVI, KUTV Holdings Inc. All Rights Reserved. [ /] [ /] [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 43 OpEd News: The Threat of Depleted Uranium Exposure - It's Real, Deadly and
Covered Up by the Pentagon and VA

  May 29, 2006
  
by Stephen Lendman

The Pentagon must surely believe the old but very foolish saying
that what you don't know won't hurt you. To prove it they nearly
always go to great lengths to conceal what they do know so we
won't find out. That's especially true when what they know is
bad news or hazardous to our health or that of our troops.
That's certainly the case regarding the real and deadly threat
from exposure to the toxic effects of depleted uranium (DU)
poisoning. The public has precious little information about this
crucial issue because it's been willfully and deliberately
suppressed to conceal just how potentially great and
irreversible a threat it is. 

Is it any wonder then that most of those people who've heard
about DU have been seduced by the Pentagon cover-up and stream
of lies and are taken in enough by them to believe what little
information they hear and read in the mainstream. I know those
individuals never heard of one of the two greatest and most
highly esteemed US print journalists of the last century. His
name was I.F. Stone, and I've read nearly all his important
books. Stone once told a class of aspiring journalists always to
remember "All governments are run by liars and nothing they say
should be believed." Another time he simply said "All
governments lie." If I were asked to address a group of
students, I'd be even more emphatic than Stone and say
governments only lie and never tell the public the truth,
especially about the most important issues affecting us all. I'd
also quote Stone and recommend the students paste his maxim to
their bathroom mirrors so they never forget it. 

Government propaganda, lies and deception are more extreme and
sophisticated now than in Stone's day. Those unaware of it
remind me of a poker player looking around the table to assess
the competition. He doesn't realize when he can't find who the
mark is it's him. But in a real life game of high stakes poker
when it's you against the "power structure" and their corporate
media allies, unless you know how the game is played, you surely
are their mark and they'll eat you alive. 

I know of nothing more dangerous to a free society than a
deficit of real information on the most vital issues affecting
everyone. It's impossible getting it from government sources or
the dominant corporate media in league with them because
supplying us with it would subvert their interests. It's true on
all important issues without exception. So, if the public knew
the full truth about the potentially nightmarish effects of
exposure to DU munitions that will only likely get worse unless
exposed and stopped, it would be impossible for the Pentagon to
continue using them. Only their cover-up has allowed them to be
able to recklessly and criminally use them in four wars since
1991 including the two of them ongoing now. And they couldn't
possibly ever consider raising the stakes further, as they now
have claimed the exclusive right to do, to fight future wars
with industrial strength nuclear weapons that could lead to a
nuclear holocaust. 

What we already know about the deadly effects of DU munitions
use alone is clear and growing, unreported in the dominant
media, and thus largely concealed from the public. Those unaware
of it, taken in by Pentagon propaganda, or choosing to ignore
the few facts about it they do know should welcome and praise
the impressive work done on this issue by Irving Wesley Hall.
He's a man I personally know and have had contact with. I've
also collaborated with him as he was preparing his extremely
important series of articles on this growing menace that may
eventually affect everyone. Irving has made an important
contribution, and I respect and admire him greatly for it. His
articles should be widely read and those doing it should
encourage others to read them as well for their own safety and
welfare. Having written on this subject myself, I know from my
own research how valuable Irving's work is to expanding the
knowledge base about DU and its harmful effects.

What Depleted Uranium Is and How It's Being Used

Depleted uranium is a derivative of the uranium enrichment
process required to produce fuel for commercial reactors. This
process is then followed by gaseous diffusion in two streams -
one is enriched and the other depleted. Before a use was found
for it, DU was just stored in vast amounts as a byproduct. All
that changed when it was discovered that solid "dense metal" DU
projectiles (in all forms) greatly increased their ability to
penetrate and destroy a target. That was irresistible to the
Pentagon that wanted to use them in bullets, bombs, shells and
missiles and now has done so freely in four wars since they were
first used in the Gulf war in 1991 (except for one test in the
1973 Yom Kippur war).

There's a problem with these weapons, however - a serious
downside never discussed and which great pains are taken to
conceal. These weapons in all their forms leave in their wake an
irremediable irradiated and chemically toxic landscape far more
deadly than the death and destruction to the targets struck. How
deadly and toxic the fallout is varies only with the amount of
these weapons used. Hundreds of tons of them were used beginning
for the first time in the Gulf war in 1991. A likely similar
amount was used again in Yugoslavia in 1999 and up to 1,000 or
more tons so far in Afghanistan since 2001. Any use of these
weapons is reckless and was effectively banned by common consent
(and common sense) and never used until 1991 in Iraq (except for
that one test). However, their usage ballooned in successive
wars to over 3,000 tons so far since the US introduced them on a
large and sustained scale again in Iraq in March, 2003. 

Put in perspective, since first used in 1991, the US military
has willfully and criminally spread deadly toxic radiation
across a vast area of three countries as well as everywhere else
affected by the fallout. It's caused permanent irremediable
contamination with a half-life of 4.5 billion years or forever
by my reckoning.

One more important fact is these numbers increase daily as since
last December US forces have been conducting four to six daily
bombings of target sites in Iraq alone that we know about using
DU munitions and an unknown likely less frequent number in
Afghanistan. We also have a new terror weapon we claim the right
to use routinely called "bunker-buster mini nukes" that aren't
mini but sure are nukes. These are industrial strength nuclear
bombs that can be produced to any desired potency but are likely
to be used in strengths of between one-third to two-thirds the
destructive force of a Hiroshima bomb. Pentagon propaganda
falsely says these are little more than king-sized hand grenades
that are perfectly safe when used as designed. They're supposed
to penetrate a target site deeply before exploding on the false
theory that their radiation will be contained underground and
thus are environmentally safe. Testing of these bombs are
planned in the Nevada desert and may be now underway, but at
least one already carried out and observed proves otherwise.
What was seen on explosion is hardly reassuring that the toxic
fallout will be contained when used in combat. Clearly visible
was a huge black mushroom-shaped cloud (sound familiar) that
rose thousands of feet in the air and was shown to be deadly and
toxic when ground radiation measurements were taken following at
least this one test. There may have been others as well we
haven't heard about. 

The Pentagon always deliberately spreads false and misleading
information on its controversial activities, but especially
something as outrageous as the lingering, spreading and deadly
effects from DU contamination which never end. Those exposed to
it and their loved ones with whom they have intimate contact and
their offspring are henceforth vulnerable to a vast menu of
virtually any illness, disease or disability imaginable often
leading to early death or at the least a lifetime of pain,
suffering and great expense. It's no exaggeration to say that DU
is the deadly and unwelcome gift that keeps on giving, disabling
and killing.

DU weapons aren't just toxic and deadly, they're illegal
according to the standards and binding international law under
the Hague Convention of 1907 and 1925 Geneva Protocol and other
succeeding Geneva Weapons Conventions that specifically outlaw
the use of any chemical and biological agents in any form for
any reason in war as well as any poison or poisoned weapons. DU
weapons in all their forms are radioactive and chemically toxic
and clearly fit the definition of poisonous weapons banned under
these binding international laws to which we are signatories. As
such, the US, having used them in four wars, has violated our
sacred treaty obligations which are the supreme law of the land
and is guilty of repeated war crimes. That minor detail doesn't
bother the Bush administration that considers the Geneva
Conventions and all other international laws inconvenient to its
plans just "quaint" and "obsolete." 

The Public Is Largely Unaware of the DU Threat Or Prefers to
Believe Pentagon Propaganda Instead of Known Scientific Fact

Most people get their so-called news and information from the
dominant corporate media mostly on TV which, as everyone by now
should know, never gives them what they tune in for. Instead
they get state approved propaganda, lies and deception cleverly
disguised as the real thing. It's almost always true that what
they don't report is lots more important than what they do. Of
course, the reason this goes on is that if the public knew and
understood what our government was up to, they'd never stand for
it. So it's all kept under wraps, and most people are never the
wiser. It's very easy to be influenced by the slick state and
corporate-friendly messages because they're transmitted
effectively ad nauseam round the clock on air and in print. The
repetition has a powerful effect. It clouds the mind, blocks out
the truth and distracts enough to prevent those mesmerized by it
from seeking it. Why would you not want to believe the friendly
news anchors you've grown to know and love over the years. Would
they ever lie to you? Darned right they would if they want to
keep their high-paying jobs.

I comment on this often for one reason. It's the most important
of all issues I know. Unless people know and understand the
truth about what's happening around them on the vital issues
affecting their lives, they're defenseless against the onslaught
of fraud and deceit delivered through the dominant media. It
allows government to get away with the most egregious acts as
agents for giant corporations and the "money changers" who buy
and pay for their services. This alliance is hostile to the
public interest as it allows these corporations and financial
institutions (including the US Federal Reserve which is a
private for-profit entity and not a government run one as
commonly believed) free reign to pursue their predatory quest
for greater profits and world dominance and do it at our
expense. 

The Disturbing Truths about DU the Pentagon and VA Are Taking
Great Pains to Conceal

Those truths are emerging slowly and convincingly, but emerging
they are. It's quite true we don't have all the answers yet, and
there's still much more to be learned before we know for certain
just how harmful DU is in all respects and how widespread its
contamination has spread. However, all the new evidence coming
out points in one direction and leads to an increasingly clear
conclusion. It's the same one I first heard told me by an
eminent man in a required college natural science course I took
in 1953. The man was George Wald, distinguished professor of
biology and later a nobel laureate in 1967. Dr. Wald had many
admirable qualities I admired greatly, but I still remember
verbatim the dramatic statement he made one day in class. He
told his young students that "there is no such thing as a safe
amount of radiation." He understood what Albert Einstein did
even earlier, and both these men spoke out forcefully against
the genie out of the bottle that emerged once the atom was first
split in 1938 in a Berlin laboratory. From that time to now,
it's been known beyond dispute how dangerous and deadly
radiation is in all its forms and in any amount to all those
coming in contact with it even for short periods of time.
However, for those exposed to it daily like our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan where it's contaminated a vast area, it's a
possible death sentence or at the least a lifetime of likely
misery from the poisoning that increases each day.

Some Documented Facts On the Effects of DU Poisoning

The greatest damage from DU comes from the radiation residue
after its use. When a DU weapon strikes a target, it penetrates
deeply and aerosolizes into a fine spray which then contaminates
the air, soil and water around the target area. The residue is
permanent, and its microscopic and submicroscopic particles are
then swept into the air from the tainted soil and are carried by
winds to distant areas as a radioactive component of atmospheric
dust. That dust falls indiscriminately everywhere over the area
it reaches. It causes radiation contamination that affects every
living thing and cannot be remediated. As mentioned above, the
poisoning from the contamination causes every imaginable illness
and disease from severe headaches, muscle pain and general
fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression,
cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors.
It also causes permanent disability and death. Months ago I
personally alerted my own medical providers to be on the lookout
for any unexplainable symptoms in their patients, especially if
they had served in the military in the Middle East, Afghanistan
or Yugoslavia.

I reported all this in a major, detailed article I wrote on this
subject a few months ago and available on my blog site -
sjlendman.blogspot.com. In it I went on to explain that all
military and civilian personnel at or near target areas were and
are most adversely affected by DU contamination, especially if
they remained in those areas for an extended time. During the
six week Gulf war about 150 of our forces were killed and 467
were reported injured. However, the real effects of that war
weren't apparent until years later. We're beginning to get lots
of information on it now but not without great difficulty to
make it as complete and accurate as possible. 

Because of that problem, there's great variance in the numbers
I've seen. But somewhere between about 30 - 75% of the 696,841
military personnel who served in the Gulf from August 2, 1990 to
end of July, 1991 have filed claims for or have been reported by
the Veteran's Administration (VA) to be on some form of
disability in 2004. It's likely the true number is closer to the
lower percentage, but I've chosen to report the range in case
later on we learn things were far worse than we now can imagine.
We do know an additional 11,910 vets have died as of early this
year. There's a problem compiling accurate data because the VA
has been complicit with the Pentagon in the cover-up about DU
and has said very little about the true number disabled or how
many of the disability total were the result of DU poisoning.
They could easily find out by administering blood tests and
doing other proper examinations. Instead they've done as little
as possible just as for years in the 1990s they denied the
existence of "Gulf war" syndrome (most likely from DU poisoning)
and told suffering vets it was all in their heads. They
certainly were there if any of those heads were afflicted with
brain tumors or their early stages.

We can only speculate about how many of our military personnel
post 2001 are now the victims of DU poisoning, but it's likely
the number is large and growing with more coming down with
disturbing symptoms daily. We know many returning vets are
already seeking treatment for health problems, and that medical
professionals in hospitals and other facilities providing it
have been threatened with $10,000 fines and even jail if they
speak out about what those problems are. Think how outrageous
this is - that a nation that sent hundreds of thousands of its
young men and women to fight in two illegal wars of aggression,
then turns its back on them when they return home with serious
illnesses they may never recover from or that may kill them. And
making matters even worse, the Pentagon and VA are complicit in
a cover-up and denial a problem even exists. They might as well
be saying "let 'em suffer and die." So think of it. This is the
"model democracy" we hold up to the world to emulate. In fact,
it's a deadly and sinister model all nations should reject and
condemn.

Documented Evidence On Recent DU Fallout

In February, 2006, after I wrote my article on DU, Irving Wesley
Hall wrote his carefully researched and extremely important
series on DU and its harmful effects. His findings were widely
posted, and all of it is available on his web site -
notinkansas.us. Irving's work is so important, readers should
visit his site, review his series carefully and likely learn for
the first time how serious and deadly a threat DU contamination
is to everyone coming in contact with it.

Here's a sample of the information included in the series which
needs as much resonance as possible. I've added some of my own
comments to it. Irving has made an important contribution, and
I'm proud to be associated with him and his work. He wrote that
Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee
on Radiation Risk, reported on official UK radiation levels in
the wake of the "shock and awe" assault against Iraq in 2003.
Dr. Busby documented that uranium particles traveled 2,400 miles
in nine days from Iraq to Aldermaston, England. The invisible
cloud quadrupled Europe's atmospheric radiation clearly showing
that despite Pentagon denials, DU contamination spreads far
beyond the target sites struck. Once again the Pentagon's
mendacity and indifference to its forces and the rest of us is
revealed in plain sight for all to see if they'll bother to look.

The widespread contamination is even more dangerous and deadly
than formerly believed. But apparently one emailer in
particular, with little knowledge to support what he wrote,
attacked Irving's findings and shamed and embarrassed himself in
the process. I read his response and know the facts. They
clearly contradict virtually everything he said and his
conclusions overwhelmingly. The emailer not only put his
ignorance on public display, but he also arrogantly and
insolently attacked the honesty, honor and integrity of a man of
the highest stature. 

His shameless act reminded me of a "show-stopping" moment I saw
on US TV in June, 1954. It was during the so-called Army -
McCarthy hearings when chief Army counsel Joseph Welch gave his
famous retort to the soon to be disgraced US senator, who became
infamous from his witch-hunting, self-serving search for
communists in government without ever finding any. Welch and his
reply are still remembered to this day, and I clearly recall him
making it. In defense of his client under McCarthy's malicious
attack he asked the senator on national TV: "Have you no sense
of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency."
Not long after that memorable moment the McCarthy hearings ended
inconclusively, the senator's reputation was shattered, he was
censured by the Senate, and he died a disgraced man a few years
later. We can only hope for a similar denouement for the band of
rogues in charge of US policy today who are making so many
people around the world the worst for it.

I won't try to match Joe Welch, but I'll just ask the emailer:
aren't you ashamed enough to flaunt your ignorance to a world
audience without compounding it by shamelessly attacking a
distinguished man of the highest integrity and honor. Like
"Tail-Gunner" Joe (a moniker referring to one more dark side of
the tainted senator), have you no sense of dignity, or just
plain no sense at all? 

Additional Expert Scientific Commentary Reported by Irving
Wesley Hall

Here's more from Irving's articles on the DU threat. He learned
about the work of Leonard Dietz who's a retired physicist from
the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in New York state. Dietz
pioneered the technology to measure uranium isotopes, and Irving
quoted what he said: "Anyone, civilian or soldier, who breathes
these particles has a permanent dose, and it's not going to
decrease very much over time....In the long run....veterans
exposed to ceramic uranium oxide have a major problem."

Irving reported an even more dire assessment that came from
another study of the materials currently in the DU munitions
used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The study found that in addition
to U-238, today's DU weapons contain plutonium (the most toxic
of all known substances), neptunium, and the highly radioactive
uranium isotope U-236. According to a 1991 study by the UK
Atomic Energy Authority, these elements are 100,000 times more
dangerous than the U-238 in DU. It only takes the most minute,
nearly unmeasurable amount of this substance in one's body to be
fatal.

One other expert must be mentioned as well. His name is Dr. Doug
Rokke who was the director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium
Project. He was assigned by the US Army to be their chief
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons safety officer and
expert in the Gulf war. Irving interviewed Doug, and I, too,
spoke to and corresponded with him. Doug's extensive work as
director of the project led him to conclude that "Uranium
munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and
medical care must be provided for everyone - those on the firing
end and those on the receiving end." Rokke understands the
problem well from his extensive study of it and his own personal
and tragic experience. He and his staff of 100 were all
devastated by exposure to DU contaminated dust. Thirty of them
have since died, and Rokke now suffers from serious health
problems including brain lesions, lung and kidney damage,
reactive airway disease, permanent skin rashes, neurological
damage and cataracts. It's quite clear Dr. Rokke didn't contract
this nightmarish stew of mostly very serious health problems
from an unhealthy life style, bad diet or lack of exercise.

A Grim Assessment the Evidence Points To

So what can we make from all this. From the Gulf war in 1991, at
a minimum many tens of thousands of the US military forces sent
there for a short period of time have had health problems or are
now on some form of disability. But the worst is yet to come. In
the Afghanistan war beginning in late 2001 and the Iraq war from
March, 2003, about 1.3 million US military forces have served in
combat and occupation in these countries. They were all assigned
long tours of duty and most of them have served two or three
deployments to what are beyond question the most dangerous and
toxic environments on earth. Somewhere between 30 - 75% of
Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm are now on some kind of
disability or have died. If those percentages are applied to the
1.3 million of our military now serving or having served in Iraq
and Afghanistan since 2001, between 390,000 - to 975,000 vets
may end up on disability or die from exposure to the far more
toxic DU munitions used in these wars, the many other poisonous
pollutants they've been exposed to, and the much longer and
multiple tours of duty they've had to undergo. 

In simple terms, it's likely we can expect an eventual
catastrophic human disaster of epic proportions and one being
covered up because of its enormity. And it's in addition to the
far greater one we've inflicted on 26 million innocent Iraqis
discussed below. Should the truth about all this come out fully,
what sane young men and women would ever volunteer for military
service knowing they were either signing their death warrants or
at the least likely assuring themselves a lifetime of
devastating and/or debilitating health problems. And add to that
the mass outrage by the US public and the people of other
nations that joined with the US in sending contingents of their
military to be part of an illegal occupying force. 

The effect of all this has finally reached the US Congress, but
it's unlikely anything meaningful will emerge there to reveal
how dangerous and deadly exposure to DU contamination really is.
Still on May 11, the House passed legislation that includes an
amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (himself an MD and once a
practicing psychiatrist) ordering a comprehensive study of
possible health effects from DU exposure on US military forces
and their children. It's almost certain this amendment will
never get through the Senate or certainly won't ever be signed
into law by George Bush. Still kudos and an A for effort to Rep.
McDermott even though it's almost certain it will all be for
naught.

The Devastating Toll on Iraqis Since 1991

As bad as it's been and still is for our troops and their
families, try to imagine the nightmare 26 million innocent
Iraqis have been living through since January, 1991. The Gulf
war began the malicious destruction of a once modern state. It
caused 100,000 or more Iraqi deaths in just weeks and destroyed
essential infrastructure like electricity and clean water
facilities vital to the health, welfare and the safety of the
people. It also began the spread of deadly toxic radiation
across the country from the first use of DU munitions in combat
as well as a harmful stew of other pollutants responsible for
rampant illness and disease. This living hell is what US illegal
aggression based on lies and deceit brought to this most highly
developed and well-functioning of all states in the Middle East
now unable to cope against a brutal occupier determined to
destroy and control it for its own imperial purpose and gain.

The sacking and plunder of Iraq began in January, 1991. But
although the war formally ended after six weeks of one-sided
fighting, the bombing and brutality against the people never
did. Air attacks continued sporadically throughout the 1990s
(ordered by Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton) destroying more
infrastructure, causing more deaths and adding to the spread of
deadly pollutants including the toxic radiation from the DU
weapons used. What also followed the formal end to hostilities
was a dozen years of brutal economic sanctions that ravaged a
population helpless to cope with their horrific effects. The
result was a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions that
never ended. Besides the physical and human toll, the economy
was destroyed as is evident from the following data. The per
capita annual income of Iraqis declined from a 1979 level of
$2,313 to $255 in 2003 and $144 in 2004. Further, the college of
economics at Baghdad University estimated that unemployment rose
to a level of 70%. Even the so-called "oil for food" program did
little to relieve the crisis prior to the 2003 invasion. In
fact, it was never intended to as the US planned all along to
inflict the greatest possible hardship on the people hoping
their misery would encourage them to rise up and topple Saddam.
It turned out it had the opposite effect despite the severity of
the toll. Instead of blaming Saddam, Iraqis relied on him for
whatever relief they could get. It wasn't much or nearly enough
because the US allowed him little to give.

The combination of war and economic sanctions caused widespread
illness and disease that was devastating and still is. Even by
conservative estimates, it likely caused the death of at least
one million Iraqis including 500,000 children. Some estimates
put the number as high as 1.5 million and some others far higher
still. When Denis Halliday resigned in 1998 as UN head of Iraqi
humanitarian relief he said he did so because he believed he'd
been instructed to implement a policy of genocide and refused to
do it. He added that 5,000 Iraqi children were dying needlessly
every month. Hans Von Sponek, who took on the UN relief job
after Halliday, also resigned in frustration and disgust in 2000
voicing similar sentiments when he left.

But bad as conditions were then, they got far worse following
the US illegal aggression beginning in March, 2003. The daily
toll of death and destruction since then is unknown precisely,
but even conservative estimates are appalling and shocking. The
British Lancet earlier reported by their "conservative
assumptions" an Iraqi toll of about 100,000 "excess deaths" post
March, 2003. They recently updated their initial estimate (three
years later) to a now likely 300,000 and rising daily as we all
should know. Other estimates place the number far higher, up to
500,000 in one estimate I saw a few months ago. Whatever the
true number is, the US inflicted disaster on Iraq and its people
for over the past 15 years is truly of epic proportions. It
clearly warrants the label genocide and makes all those in the
US at the highest levels of three administrations responsible
for it guilty of egregious war crimes and crimes against
humanity.

What May Lie Ahead

Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins, and the US is hopelessly
embroiled in two wars it has no possibility of winning. Both of
them will go on without end as long as we remain occupiers in
countries where we're not wanted and will never be tolerated.
Further, both countries have a long history of expelling
invaders regardless of how long it took them to do it. It will
be no different this time, but it's shocking to imagine the
human toll that will result on all sides before they finally do
end, the final tally is estimated years later, and the many
years it will then take to rebuild these shattered countries. 

So with two out-of-control wars ongoing, it would seem
unthinkable the US would now be planning one or two more. How
can that be possible, and what sane planners would ever
contemplate such an irrational course? We don't have the troop
strength, and our military budget (on and off the books) is off
the charts and running up huge deficits even the new Fed
chairman is alarmed about. Logic and fiscal sanity should
indicate it would be folly to compound the current mess with a
still greater mess. But that's exactly what appears to be in the
works, and the preliminary and softening up stage of a planned
attack against Iran is already underway just as it was leading
up to the March, 2003 "shock and awe" assault against Iraq. 

For many months, Iran has known the US has been flying unmanned
aerial surveillance drones to help select target sites. There
have been some scattered but unconfirmed reports that one or
more of these intruders have been shot down. It's also a not so
hidden secret we've sent special forces or combat personnel into
Iran under cover along with reconnaissance teams to collect
similar information on the ground as well as link up with
anti-government elements we hope will help our efforts. The
Iranians know all this, and you can bet they're trying to snare
a few of them, but if they have neither side is letting on. I
wouldn't want to be one of the illegal infiltrators and get
caught in the act. I don't think the Iranians will be very
hospitable or understanding nor should they be. So what's likely
to happen next and when.

I have no timetable, but it's been responsibly reported, and I
believe the reports, that George Bush has signed off on a "shock
and awe" attack against Iran and is intending to do it using
industrial strength nuclear weapons. They're deceptively called
"bunker-buster mini-nukes" which I explained above are nukes but
not mini ones - they're likely to be from one-third to
two-thirds as powerful as a Hiroshima bomb. But they can be
produced to any potency and some likely will be and used. I also
explained that the Pentagon has lied (do they ever do anything
else) that the radiation emitted from these earth-penetrating
munitions will be contained below ground and thus are safe to
use. Not so, and the Pentagon knows it.

Our apparent intentions toward Iran are also based on more lies
and deception as we accuse that country of violating
international law by having a secret nuclear weapons program.
There's no evidence whatever Iran has one, but they'd be
irresponsible not to be taking every measure possible to defend
itself against a hostile US intending to bring down its
government by any means including nuclear war. Iran is a
signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and so
far as known is in full compliance with it. As such it has every
legal right to enrich uranium for its commercial nuclear
industry as does every other country following NPT rules.

US hostility to Iran has nothing to do with its enrichment
policy or even its form of government. It's the result of Iran's
intent to remain independent of US dominance and go its own way.
It's been that way since the uprising that overthrew the
repressive and US installed and supported Shah in 1979 after
which Iran no longer was willing to continue relinquishing its
sovereignty and remain subservient to US interests. The result
has been continued hostility between the two countries that may
now be culminating with a US planned attempt to oust the
country's leadership forcibly since we've given up trying to
achieve that goal by other means short of war. The strategy
won't be any more successful in Iran than it's been in Iraq.
What US planners may succeed in doing is engulfing the whole
Middle East in flames without a realistic notion of what the
outcome of that may be. It certainly won't be a good one, but
that never before deterred an administration that's often wrong
but never in doubt.

The US way of doing things is to engage other nations like a
schoolyard bully. It's especially true in our dealings with the
developing world where we generally treat the countries in it on
the basis of an "our way or the highway" policy. We can't
unleash our full force bullying against most developed ones in
the Global North, but we do that freely and often, directly or
through proxies, against all others that forget "who's boss."
When that happens, that "highway" is usually strewn with
unwarranted economic sanctions, coup attempts, political
assassinations, or death and destruction from war. The US
follows this hostile course to bring "outlier" nations in line
with our policies, but also to deter others from deviating from
them as well. It's a bloodstained legacy that puts to rest the
myth that the US is a peace loving, benevolent democracy only
wanting to spread those principles to other nations that don't
practice them. But let me state clearly something I haven't said
elsewhere before but should have. By the US I don't mean the
people. I mean the leadership of both major political parties
and their corporate and elitist allies all of whom work against
the public interest everywhere and only for their own.

The US and Iranian public interest won't be served by what our
present leadership apparently has in mind for that country -
regime change the hard way. It looks like the plan is to make it
extra hard by upping the ante to send a clear and decisive
message to the Iranians and all other nations going their own
way that we will nuke you into submission unless you come around
willingly. So far we've only used nuclear weapons below the
radar with DU munitions that alone have caused unspeakable harm.
But should the US go further and attack Iran with industrial
strength nuclear bombs, we will have crossed an inviolable
threshold, moved the nation one step closer to tyranny and
brought the world a lot closer to a possible eventual nuclear
holocaust. In my judgment, that's what's now at stake unless a
way is found to stop this aggressive juggernaut before it goes
further and it's too late to act.

Iran is First in the US Target Queue Followed by Venezuela

Unimaginable as it may seem, high-level leadership and planners
in Washington may have in mind not just a third conflict but a
fourth one as well. I've written about this several times, and
recently wrote a feature article titled "The US Now Planning A
Fourth Attempt to Oust Hugo Chavez." Based on my knowledge and
ear to the ground observing and listening to the steady and
intensifying drumbeat of anti-Chavez rhetoric coming from top US
officials through the corporate media (all of it the usual
litany of lies and deception only), I have no doubt whatever a
fourth attempt to oust President Chavez and his government is
planned and likely now being implemented under the radar.
Precisely how and what will be unleashed won't be known until
the fireworks begin. But make no mistake about it, they will
begin, and this time they may include attempted assassinations
and open conflict with DU munitions or even full-scale nuclear
bombs if that's part of the plan. If that happens, the nuclear
nightmare will have arrived in the Americas and come ever closer
to the US Southern border. 

By whatever means the US has in mind in its latest attempt to
unseat Hugo Chavez, its intentions toward him and his government
are clear, unmistakable and written in stone. The US will settle
for nothing less than full control of his country's vast
hydrocarbon reserves and a government willing to hand them over
to us. Those reserves are far more vast than once thought as the
best estimates of the country's oil reserves (including the
extra-heavy kind more expensive to refine) are thought to be
about 350 billion barrels or even higher. That compares to Saudi
Arabia's estimated reserves of about 262 billion barrels of (at
least mostly) the preferred and more easily refined "light
sweet" crude. It takes no mental exertion to see the two
countries at the head of the US target queue have vast amounts
of the essential commodity the US wants most and is willing to
go to war if necessary to secure control over everywhere it
feels it's worth the cost and effort. There's no doubt the US
feels that way about Iran and Venezuela just as it did about
Iraq.

The US decided Saddam had to go not because of his oppressive
rule or his "now you see 'em, now you don't" WMDs. It was
because of his unwillingness to surrender his nation's
sovereignty to the US. Same old story, and it's the same again
in Iran and most of all in Venezuela that has to be the greatest
prize of the three. It's especially tricky for the US there as
that nation happens to have a democratic leader loved by the
great majority of his people. It's because Hugo Chavez is
fiercely and proudly independent, as he has every right to be,
and puts the needs of his people ahead of the US and its Big Oil
interests. Chavez was twice democratically elected and then
prevailed in an August, 2004 recall referendum (the third coup
attempt by ballot box means) that was a contrived act of
desperation cooked up by his right wing opposition in league
with US corporate interests. It was a flop as Chavez's
supporters flocked to the polls giving him a decisive victory.
He deserved and earned it and his other electoral victories as
he proved he's the rarest of political leaders who actually
delivers on his promises to the people. Try finding a US
politician who's done that, especially one with any power to
follow through. You'll need a high-powered version of that lamp
Diogenes once used used looking for an honest man. 

It's Hugo Chavez's intention to serve the interests and needs of
his own people and not those of his dominant Northern neighbor
that has him once again high on its target list for elimination.
Hugo Chavez will remain there until the US finds a way to remove
him which it certainly will keep trying to do. Chavez is well
aware of it and so are the Venezuelan people who love and
support him and are likely to fight to keep him in office. They
know what their lives were like before he became their president
and what a vast difference he made once he came into office. He
promised to serve the people and proved it by instituting a vast
array of social programs the majority of the US public might
only dream about if they knew what's available now to the
Venezuelan people. 

They include free, comprehensive and high-quality health and
dental care for all as well as free education through the
university level to all those who wish it and can qualify.
Compare that to what's available in the US - a health care
system available only to those who can afford its high and
fast-rising cost and a deliberately degraded inner-city public
education system as well as a costly one at the university level
unavailable to lower income families that can't afford it for
their children. Now try to imagine what the US has in mind for
Venezuelans. It won't tolerate a developing nation's leader
who'll institute such essential social services for the people
and will try to end them even if it takes nuclear war to do it.
Try to think of appropriate language to describe the leader of a
nation who would unleash such an attack and do it for power and
profit. Do the words tyrant and war criminal come to mind? 

Get Ready for the Long Knives, the Marines Again in Action to Go
Along with A Little Or Maybe A Lot of "Shock and Awe."

The plans for two "outlier" countries are set, the wheels are in
motion, and we now must wait and see what will unfold in the
next chapter of the ongoing drama of an aggressor and imperial
US against the world with Iran and Venezuela numbers one and two
in the US target queue. 

Several times before I spelled out in some detail what I feels
lies ahead unless a way is found to stop it. I fear two more
conflicts are ahead for starters to add to the ones now ongoing
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still others will follow against other
countries to be named later and by whatever timetable and means
we have in mind. The result may be that the US is near to
crossing an inviolable Rubicon in two deadly and dangerous ways
- first by unleashing the nuclear genie in an industrial
strength way, and second by suspending the Constitution and
declaring martial law at home in the wake of a likely inevitable
second major terror attack that may be as much an inside job as
was the first one on September 11.

Unless the US public awakens to these very real threats, we face
the same fate as did the Germans who lost their model democratic
state after the ascension of Adolph Hitler. Good German people
let him steal it from them while they weren't paying attention
or bought into his false rhetoric that he was serving their
interests and protecting them from an outside threat - that
never existed. We also have no outside threat from any other
nation, but we've been effectively scared to death and conned by
the false rhetoric that's made us feel we do. The result is
we're getting too close for comfort to the point of no return.
There's still time to act if we're bold enough to do it. Think
of the choice I think we face. Act together in our collective
self-interest or do nothing and see us pass from a once proud
but now tattered republic 
to tyranny. It can happen here as it has elsewhere unless we act
to prevent it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  

http://www.sjlendman.blogspot.com 

I am a 71 year old, retired, progressive small businessman
concerned about all the major national and world issues,
committed to speak out and write about them. 

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006     
*****************************************************************
 44 Deseret News: Bacteria used to clean up hazardous waste in Idaho 

[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, May 29, 2006 

Associated Press 

IDAHO FALLS — A naturally occurring bacteria is being used to 
clean up a hazardous waste plume in the aquifer under the Idaho 
National Laboratory. 

The plume was caused when an organic solvent called 
trichloroethylene, or TCE, was used to degrease machinery at the 
890-square-mile federal nuclear research area in eastern Idaho. 

The TCE-laden waste was then put into the ground because 
scientists at the time thought that soil and water would filter 
and dilute the chemical. 

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, anywhere from 
350 to 35,000 gallons of TCE were pumped into a site injection 
well at INL's Test Area North between 1953 and 1972. 

Environmental monitors discovered TCE-contaminated 
groundwater in 1987. By the 1990s, the plume of polluted water 
had expanded to two miles with a zone of high contamination 
within 500 yards of the well. The chemical can damage kidneys, 
livers and immune systems. 

Bacteria native to the underground basalt in the area is 
breaking down the organic solvent and turning it into harmless 
byproducts, scientists say. Scientists are considering other 
areas where the bacteria could help. 

"The natural bacteria are solving the problem," Ron 
Crawford, a University of Idaho professor who is studying the 
bacteria, told the Post Register. 

The DOE has plans to clean up other areas with the 
bacteria that can break down TCE, and use a method that makes 
the bacteria "breathe" TCE when oxygen is removed. 

Lee Nelson is the stewardship manager for CWI, the 
contractor for the Department of Energy's Idaho Cleanup Project 
at INL. 

He said that near the original injection site, scientists 
have been pouring a solution into the ground since 1999 that 
starves the bacteria of oxygen and forces them to metabolize TCE.

In that area, TCE levels have dropped from 10 parts per 
billion to zero, Nelson said. 

Officials at the Snake River Alliance said they liked the 
natural TCE cleanup but were concerned about other contaminants. 

"It looks like it's working," said Beatrice Brailsford, 
the groups program director. "But TCE is not the only 
contaminant of concern there." 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 45 RIA Novosti: Siberian nuclear-waste plant head returns to work 
after amnesty

29/ 05/ 2006                                  

YEKATERINBURG, May 29 (RIA Novosti) - The head of a
controversial nuclear facility in Siberia was reinstated Monday
after a court closed a criminal case under an amnesty, a
spokesman for the Federal Service for Nuclear Energy said.

 Vitaly Sadovnikov, the general director of the Mayak plant in
the Chelyabinsk Region, had been charged with breaching
regulations on the disposal of hazardous waste. Prosecutors said
large amounts of radioactive waste had been dumped into the
Techa River during Sadovnikov's tenure with his knowledge.

But a Urals region court closed proceedings on May 11. "The case
is closed under an amnesty," a court spokesman said, referring
to a reprieve approved by parliament to mark the establishment
of Russian first national legislature 100 years ago. 

Urals Federal District prosecutors launched a criminal case on
the dumping charges last year. A Chelyabinsk court stripped
Sadovnikov of the immunity from prosecution he had enjoyed as a
regional lawmaker and suspended him from his post March 2.

Prosecutors said Mayak pumped about 10 million cubic meters of
radioactive materials into the Techa every year. Environmental
group Ecodefense has put the figure as high as 15 million cu m.

UN reports said that the Chelyabinsk Region, and in particular
the town of Ozersk, where the Mayak plant is located, is one of
world's most radioactive areas as a result of environmental
pollution by the plant for almost half a century.
 
© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 46 RIA Novosti: Russia to remove spent nuclear fuel from overseas by 2013

29/ 05/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia plans to complete a
program to remove spent nuclear fuel from research reactors in
17 countries by 2012-2013, the state-controlled uranium supplier
and provider of uranium enrichment services said Monday. 

Techsnabexport deputy head Alexei Lebedev said it would cost
about $150-200 million to remove the spent fuel from 20 reactors
built in the 1960s and 1970s in the former communist bloc. 

He said the company, which provides about 35% of global uranium
supplies, had already completed the removal of spent fuel from
Uzbekistan via Kazakhstan over the winter and the next countries
in line were Latvia, the Czech Republic, Kazakhstan and Serbia. 

Work on removing Russian-produced uranium from foreign research
reactors is being conducted within the framework of a
Russian-U.S. agreement and is financed by the United States. 

		© 2005 RIA Novosti   


*****************************************************************
 47 Telegraph: Quest for a nuclear waste sign that goes beyond words

[telegraph.co.uk]       

By Robert Colvile

(Filed: 30/05/2006)
 
Nuclear scientists are facing an unusual challenge: how to
develop warning signs that will last for longer than the English
language. 

Last month, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
presented its initial findings on how to deal with Britain's
16.6 million cubic feet of nuclear waste, recommending the
construction of a concrete bunker 1,000ft or more beneath the
surface at an estimated cost of £7 billion. 

Radioactivity from the waste in such a store would last for
thousands of years, raising the issue of how to warn future
generations not to reopen the sealed chamber. 

It is far from certain that English will be understood in 10,000
years, or that our rather benign pictogram for radiation - three
circular wedges emanating from the central "atom" pictured -
will denote anything dangerous at all. 

In 1993 the US gathered a team of experts - an anthropologist,
astronomer, archaeologist, environmental designer, linguist and
materials scientist - to outline the best design for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (Wipp) in New Mexico, a nuclear waste dump
housed in a salt mine half a mile below ground. 

The design of the site had to reflect various messages, from
"this place was made by humans" to "this place was dangerous and
repulsive to us" to "this is a place of danger, the danger is to
the body and it can kill". 

The design eventually adopted for Wipp, and shared with the
planned Yucca Mountain depository in Nevada, consisted of a
giant earthwork surrounding the site, with monuments, markers
and information centres scattered around. 

Danger messages would be written in each of the official UN
languages - Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and
Spanish - as well as Navajo in the case of the Wipp site. 

This latter-day Rosetta Stone would have blank space, for future
languages to be added when current tongues have drifted from
memory. 

The work being carried out in the UK is on a far less gargantuan
scale, and at the moment focuses on preserving detailed
knowledge of the depositories for future generations - what
exactly they contain, how the waste was produced and why it was
placed where it was. 

"The Americans have got rather more space, so their approach
would be rather different," said Andy Baker of the Environment
Agency. "Our emphasis would be more on how to record information
in archives and libraries." 

Files on waste from the recently-closed Windscale reactor at
Sellafield are stored on acid-free paper, due to the difficulty
of reading computer files or CDs from decades before. They are
stored in copper bags, with no plastic binders or staples to
contaminate the pages. 

"In the Fifties and Sixties, when the nuclear industry was in
its infancy, they really didn't know if the world would be
around in the next generation, so passing the information on
wasn't a priority," said Ben Russell of Nirex, the UK firm
responsible for radioactive waste. "Now we have to concentrate
on preserving our records for the next 10 generations and
beyond." 

As any UK deep waste depository would not be opened for another
30 years at least, the experts still have plenty of time to get
the signs right. 


 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 48 Telegraph: Hole in the ground solution to nuclear waste
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

(Filed: 28/04/2006)
 
The argument over what to do with Britain's 60-year legacy of 
civil nuclear waste yesterday returned to where it was in 1997, 
when a committee recommended burying it in a hole in the ground. 

Friends of the Earth called on the Government to reject deep
geological disposal
  
Since Labour came to power, the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management has considered such varied options for the 470,000
cubic metres of waste produced by all previous nuclear
facilities as firing it into space and burying it under the sea.
But the committee, set up in 2003 to undertake a wide public
consultation on the issue, concluded that the best available
option was driving a deep shaft into stable rock somewhere in
Britain. 

This was the route being pursued by the nuclear waste agency
Nirex when an experimental shaft at Sellafield was refused
planning permission by the Conservatives before the 1997
election. 

The committee, chaired by Prof Gordon McKerron, said that the
process of building a store would take "several decades" and
might never happen because its selection should be based on the
principle of "volunteerism" - that is that a community in some
part of Britain should actively welcome it. 

It said that the period of deciding where the repository was
built could take up to two generations if there were technical
difficulties or community concerns. 

Willingness to participate should be based on the provision of
financial incentives and infrastructure improvements that made a
nuclear store acceptable to a community. 

Prof MacKerron said: "We don't think we have reinvented the
wheel, though deep geological disposal was a similar end-point
to that recommended by scientists and the House of Lords." 

He said that the difference was the extent of public
consultation that had been undertaken, with meetings all over
the country, and the recommendation to make an "urgent" start on
an interim programme of safe and secure management of wastes.

The committee said that due regard should be paid to reviewing
the security of nuclear waste against terrorist attack and
improving the existing stores - most of which are in or around
Sellafield. 

Prof McKerron said that the draft findings in his report were
not "a red or a green light" for the programme of building new
nuclear power stations that the Prime Minister has suggested and
which is being considered as part of the Energy Review. Friends
of the Earth called on the Government to reject deep geological
disposal, saying that experts had predicted that the radioactive
waste would leak from its containers within 500 years. 

Prof Peter Styles, the president of the Geological Society of
London, said: "Changes in the security situation and
appreciation of the possible changes in sea-level which global
environmental change may bring, make long-term surface storage
of radioactive waste a much less attractive solution than it
might once have seemed.'' 

Richard Shaw, the principal scientific officer at the British
Geological Survey, said: ''Deep geological disposal is the
preferred method for the management and eventual disposal of
radioactive waste adopted by many countries, including Finland
and Sweden. 

"It offers a safe option for the management of these wastes in
the United Kingdom now and in the future." 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 49 Mos News: Nuclear Waste Plant Chief Dismissed for Major Pollution Reinstated - 

MOSNEWS.COM

Vitaly Sadovnikov / Photo from www.rostovinfo.ru                
 	 	
Created: 29.05.2006 13:30 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:30 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	 
Vitaly Sadovnikov, director of the Mayak nuclear waste processing 
plant, returns to his former post only three months after being 
dismissed for a breach of safety rules that led to the dumping of 
radioactive waste in rivers.

Russia’s chief nuclear official Sergey Kiriyenko on Monday told
the press he had reinstated Sadovnikov in his office, Prime-Tass
agency said.

“The Prosecutor’s Office charges against Sadovnikov have been
settled,” Kiriyenko said.

In March, the court in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg
determined that Vitaly Sadovnikov, the director of the Mayak
plant, could not remain in his post.

The Russian Prosecutor General’s office said that he had
sanctioned the dumping of tens of millions of cubic meters of
liquid radioactive waste into the Techa river in 2001-2004, even
though the facility had enough money to prevent it.

Instead of preventing the damage to the environment, Sadovnikov
had spent the money on maintaining an office in the Russian
capital and on lump payments made to himself.

However on May, 11 the case was closed due to an amnesty
declared to mark the State Duma’s 100th anniversary. 

Mayak, located near the Ural Mountain city of Chelyabinsk, about
1,500 kilometers (950 miles) east of Moscow, produced nuclear
weapons during Soviet times and is now Russia’s main nuclear
waste processing plant. Some environmentalists say the area
around it is among the most contaminated on the planet. 	 	 	 
                            
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 50 Knox News: Y-12 getting rid of bombs

Oak Ridge complex steps up efforts to dismantle nuclear warhead 
parts

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

May 29, 2006

OAK RIDGE - The bomb builders are taking them apart - with vigor. 

Dismantlement of nuclear warheads has always been a part of the 
workload at the Y-12 National Security Complex. But not like 
this. 

"Historically, it's been viewed as sort of filler work. That has 
changed this year," said Dan Linehan, 45, a manager in the 
plant's Directed Stockpile Work organization. 

To comply with international treaties, reduce the storage-space 
requirements for plant modernization, and provide materials for 
new uses, Y-12 is breaking down bombs like never before. 

Linehan said he's not at liberty to discuss the actual number of 
warhead parts being disassembled at Y-12, but he said it's 
several times that of previous years. 

And this new work agenda apparently is here to stay. Y-12 is 
dealing with a backlog of old warhead components. Some of them 
have been in storage for decades. 

The stepped-up dismantlement effort coincides with the 
construction of a $350 million storage center for bomb-grade 
uranium - about half-finished - and plans for a $1 billion 
Uranium Processing Facility, which is tentatively scheduled for 
completion around 2015. 

"We'll be dismantling well beyond when UPF comes on line," 
Linehan said in a telephone interview. 

According to Y-12 Report, the plant's quarterly publication, as 
many as seven retired weapon systems are targeted for 
dismantlement during the next five years. 

That includes components from air-dropped bombs; Minuteman I and 
III intercontinental ballistic missiles; Lance tactical missile; 
and Spartan surface-to-air-missile, the report states. 

The report notes that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is being revamped 
to comply with arms-control agreements and to address 
national-security requirements. 

"The Moscow Treaty of 2002 commits the U.S. and Russia to a total 
of 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads each by the end of 2012," the 
Y-12 Report states. "This commitment requires accelerated 
dismantlement and disposition efforts to reduce the need to hold 
large amounts of materials in reserve. The question is how and 
where to dispose of the surplus materials in a safe, secure and 
environmentally sound way." 

There are active programs in which surplus quantities of highly 
enriched uranium - almost pure U-235, the fissile isotope - are 
"down-blended" to reduce the weapons capability and then 
converted into fuel for nuclear reactors. 

Y-12 is the nation's principal storehouse for bomb-grade uranium. 
The exact quantity of uranium stored there is classified but it 
has been estimated at more than 400 metric tons and growing 
because of weapon retirements. 

The Oak Ridge plant's primary defense role is manufacturing 
so-called secondaries - the second stage of thermonuclear 
warheads - with enriched uranium and other materials. Y-12 
continues to refurbish warheads as part of the "life-extension 
program" for deployed weapon systems 

Traditionally, production plants in the nuclear weapons complex 
have been responsible for dismantling and recycling the 
components they built originally. Y-12 gets most of its shipments 
from the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, which is the main 
assembly and disassembly center for nuclear warheads. 

In some cases, Y-12 gets other parts in addition to its warhead 
secondaries. For instance, the plant currently is responsible for 
re-entry vehicles for the Minuteman I warhead, and BWXT is 
subcontracting that recycling work to another vendor. 

According to Linehan, Y-12 ends up with these components because 
it's sometimes easier and safer to ship warhead assemblies as a 
package - rather than breaking them down into parts at Pantex. 

Duratek Inc., which operates a nuclear-waste processing facility 
in Oak Ridge, has handled some of these recycling projects in the 
past. But Y-12 officials would not confirm whether Duratek is 
doing the work on the Minuteman re-entry vehicles - apparently 
because of classification concerns. 

When Y-12 workers disassemble warhead parts, materials to be 
reused - such as the enriched uranium - are placed in secure 
storage. Other materials are targeted for disposal. 

Bill Wilburn, a BWXT spokesman, confirmed that a limited amount 
of classified waste is disposed of at Y-12, but most of it is 
transported to the Nevada Test Site for burial there. 

Linehan said the Oak Ridge plant already has shipped almost 
10,000 cubic feet of warhead waste to NTS this year. That was the 
original target for the entire year, so the plant likely will 
exceed that goal, he said. 

The number of people working full time on dismantlement is only 
20-30, Linehan said, but that number is sort of misleading. Many 
others at Y-12 support the effort, ranging from those who work in 
weapon receipts and disposition to those in security and 
environmental monitoring. 

Y-12 doesn't necessarily dismantle the oldest warheads first, 
Linehan said. It depends on the hazards involved and the size of 
the components. "Some systems take up more space than others," he 
said. 

Linehan is an electrical engineer by training. He recently 
returned to Y-12 after a six-month assignment in Washington, 
D.C., where he served as a liaison between Y-12 and the National 
Nuclear Security Administration. He said he's proud and happy to 
be involved in the dismantlement effort. 

"This is a great program," he said. "It's very rewarding in the 
fact that you get to see tangible results. It's definitely 
serving a national need." 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

 					
Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel 
Co.
								
*****************************************************************
 51 Knox News: Cleanup, demolition slow for K-25

By ELIZABETH A. DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 

May 29, 2006

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) - The federal government spent 18 months 
building the massive K-25 uranium enrichment plant in this 
once-secret city for the World War II-era Manhattan Project. 

Tearing it down has been much slower. 

After the plant shut down in 1987, nearly 10 years passed before 
work began to decontaminate it and turn it and the other 
buildings on a sprawling 1,500-acre site into a private 
industrial park. 

Another decade has gone by since then and the vacant K-25 
building is in disrepair but still standing. 

The Department of Energy cleanup project began in 1996, and a 
year later the site was renamed the East Tennessee Technology 
Park. Since then, it has faced several delays because of funding 
and safety issues. 

Original estimates had the project costing $5 billion and taking 
generations to complete. But recent work on the technology park 
was split into two contracts that will together cost about $2 
billion. 

A completion date of September 2008 has been pushed back to 
summer of 2009. Buildings not occupied by the deadline could be 
torn down to save money on maintenance. 

"It was very aggressive, very optimistic," said Steve McCracken, 
DOE's environmental manager, of the timeline. "For various 
reasons it will take longer and cost more. It's just huge. We run 
into things every day." 

"If we have safety issues, we're not going to push the schedule 
to our detriment," he said. 

K-25 is the name of the site's centerpiece, a mile-long U-shaped 
building considered the largest in the world when it was built 
from 1943-45. It is also the name of the entire site that 
consists of many other buildings _ known as K-33, K-31 and K-29, 
some built after the war. 

K-25 enriched uranium in a process called gaseous diffusion. The 
uranium was fed into the nearby Y-12 plant to make highly 
enriched uranium that was used in the atomic bomb dropped on 
Hiroshima in 1945. 

Many employees didn't know the nature of their work until the 
bombing was announced on the radio. 

During the Cold War, gaseous diffusion was the only process used 
to enrich uranium, and K-25 became a forerunner of other plants. 

Farmland covering 59,000 acres was selected in 1942 to be one of 
the secret sites of the Manhattan Project. A city sprang up 
almost instantly and had 75,000 residents at its peak in 1945 
working at K-25, Y-12 and the X-10 reactor. 

Yellow radiation warning signs still dot the premises at K-25 but 
the armed guards at the entry gates are gone. 

Currently, 25 companies are signed on as tenants in some of the 
old, refurbished buildings through leases negotiated by the 
Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee. 

"We'd always like to have many more clients visit and we're 
working diligently to get there, but we have achieved some level 
of success we're proud of," CROET President Lawrence Young said. 

CROET is in charge of finding tenants, negotiating the leases and 
sometimes maintaining buildings under lease. 

The current tenants include a waste management company and an 
auto part component manufacturer. A motorsports race course has 
even been proposed. 

Companies looking at the technology park have typical concerns 
about locating at a former uranium enrichment site with aging 
buildings. But Young says contamination shouldn't be much of an 
issue. 

"There's reams of data that shows a worker is going to be safe in 
that environment just like they would be at any other industrial 
or business park, and by and large most companies accept that," 
he said. 

Still, two of the biggest buildings on the site _ K-31 and K-33 _ 
have been cleaned out and remain vacant. BRI Energy LLC of 
Florida announced tentative plans earlier in May to use K-31 for 
an ethanol production facility. 

The buildings were grouped with K-29 in a $356 million cleanup 
contract awarded to BNFL Inc., now called BNG America. The 
company removed more than 156,000 tons of material and equipment 
from the buildings that together cover 4.8 million square feet of 
floor space. It was one of the largest decontamination and 
decommissioning projects in the country. 

Officials later determined that the 650,000-square-foot K-29 
needed to be torn down because it was not structurally sound, and 
Bechtel Jacobs started demolition earlier this year. Completion 
was targeted for July. 

The buildings and others still vacant could come to the same fate 
as K-29 if leases cannot be signed in time. 

"They are big buildings and as a result are expensive to 
maintain," Young said. 

"It just becomes a function of economics. If we can get tenants 
into those buildings that would ultimately allow us to maintain 
the buildings then obviously we would be fulfilling our mission 
and the buildings would be leased long term. Conversely if we're 
not successful in doing that, then the department would have to 
make a decision with regard to the buildings." 

Officials say they will begin tearing down K-25 next April and 
finish in two years. 

An enormous edifice from any angle, K-25 looks like an abandoned 
warehouse with peeling holes in the roof and exterior walls. 

Cleaning up K-25 has been slow because of the age of the building 
and its lingering contamination. The roof was last repaired in 
1994, and water has leaked in and onto the operating floor, 
making it "not safe to walk on or under," said Jack Howard, 
manager of the three-building project. 

"This is an example of one that sat too long," McCracken said 
during a recent tour. 

Now workers are draining and inspecting equipment and about 400 
miles of piping inside the building. They use tiny cameras to 
check for residue. 

The K-25 building cleanup was combined in a five-year Bechtel 
Jacobs contract worth $1.6 billion that also includes other parts 
of the Oak Ridge reservation. 

Preservationists, who believe K-25 has historic significance, are 
hoping workers will leave a building footprint of the building or 
the north tower that forms the bottom of the U. The National Park 
Service is looking at creating a Manhattan Project park including 
several sites around the country including K-25. 

McCracken moved to Oak Ridge with his family in 1947 when his 
father worked with the Atomic Energy Commission. He understands 
the concerns. 

"I think Oak Ridge has a tremendous history that should be 
preserved," he said. 

"You can't leave those big buildings with contaminants in them. 
What we have to do is save the legacy." 

As for the future, Young hopes the changes will draw more 
industry and not just tourists. 

"Hopefully someone drives past who may not be from the area and 
they see it as simply a business industrial site," he says, "and 
it's not until they read the historic markers that they find that 
it was once the K-25 site." 

___ 

On the Net: 

ETTP: http://www.ettpreuse.com/main1.html

AP Photo / Lisa Hudson                          
 				
Inspectors check a truck for radioactivity before it leaves the 
demolition site of the K-29 building at the Department of 
Energy's former K-25 gaseous diffusion plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., 
Monday, May 1, 2006. The 1,500-acre site is being turned into a 
private industrial park. K-25 was part of the World War II-era 
Manhattan Project where uranium was enriched. ['' border='0'] AP 
Photo / U.S. Department of Energy                            
 				
This undated file photo provided by the U.S. Department of Energy 
shows the massive K-25 building. The U-shaped building was the 
largest in the world at the time it was built in the 1940s. The 
entire site is being turned into a private industrial park. ['' 
border='0'] AP Photo / U.S. Department of Energy                            
 				
This undated file photo provided by the U.S. Department of Energy 
shows the sprawling K-25 gaseous diffusion plant. ['' border='0'] 
AP Photo / Lisa Hudson                          
 				
Workers continue demolition of the K-29 building at the 
Department of Energy's former K-25 gaseous diffusion plant in Oak 
Ridge, Tenn., on Monday, May 1, 2006. RELATED STORIES +  Y-12 
getting rid of bombs +  K-25 racecourse plans upset some +  
Cleanup of former K-25 site behind schedule + Munger: Working at 
K-25 a security dance                                                                            

    © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
 
*****************************************************************
 52 Knox News: Munger: Storm tracker

Expert reflects on nearly 30 years at National
Hurricane Center


By FRANK MUNGER, IN THE LAB 
                                
May 29, 2006

Working at the National Hurricane Center in Miami for nearly 30 
years, James Gross has gained an intimate knowledge of many 
storms. 

He has a particularly unpleasant memory of Hurricanes David and 
Frederick in 1979. At the time, he was working in the center’s 
hurricane research division, and he had an "opportunity" to work 
aboard the airplanes that flew through these powerful hurricanes 
— actually penetrating the eye wall at low elevation — to gather 
critical data. 

His stomach churned almost as much as a tropical cyclone. 

"I didn’t take much to flying," Gross said. "David, for me, was
a nine-bagger. Flying for 11 or 12 hours, I was pretty much
drained by the time it was over." 

The meteorologist spent most of his career in the operations
division, doing applied research to support the center’s
hurricane forecasts. For a couple of years, 1988-89, he served
as one of the forecasters — an elite group that typically
numbers only half a dozen. 

Gross retired in January. He shared some of his insights
recently at a seminar in Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Physics
Division, where his brother, Carl, is on the research staff. 

Easterly jet winds coming out of Africa in the summertime are
the instigator for the hurricanes that threaten the United
States. These unstable streams can generate cyclonic
(counter-clockwise) and anti-cyclonic motions. 

"They become the seeds, the sources, for tropical cyclones in
the Atlantic," Gross said. 

The peak of the hurricane season is Sept. 10-11, with the
maximum heating of the ocean surface waters. 

In order to forecast the path and size and intensity of
ever-changing tropical storms, the National Hurricane Center
relies on massive amounts of observational data — acquired from
buoys, ships, satellites, etc. — that is fed into computers. 

The center has been a leader in the use of supercomputers,
crunching numbers to solve the diagnostic equations for a
storm’s momentum, thermodynamics, moisture and other components
that define its potential rage. 

"It’s a pretty complex numerical problem," Gross said, noting
that the hurricane center doesn’t yet have the computer power to
do models of the entire planet but relies on smaller grids. 

Performance has improved tremendously over the past 15 years,
particularly in forecasting the track of hurricanes, he said. 

After a hurricane is over, the center’s scientists compare the
actual track of a storm with the forecasts, and over the past 15
years, the errors have been cut in half, Gross said. 

Thanks to better equipment and computer models and lessons
learned from past mistakes, meteorologists are now able to make
their forecast earlier in a storm’s life — day four or five —
than before. 

"Government officials are clamoring to get the information
earlier and earlier," Gross said. 

Despite the gains, there are still some "real stinkers" in
hurricane forecasts, he said, noting that the average error in
tracking last year’s Hurricane Lee path was 700 nautical miles. 

"Thankfully, these large errors are usually associated with weak
systems," he said. 

There has been virtually no improvement in forecasting the
intensity of hurricanes over the past 15 years, Gross said. 

"We can do a good job of telling you when this thing is going to
arrive, but we can’t tell you — with any real certainty,
especially at the longer ranges — what the intensity is going to
be, and that makes a big difference," he said. "If you have a
100-knot storm (115 miles per hour), and we make a forecast
(for) 48 hours and it’s plus or minus 20 knots, that can be a
120-knot storm versus an 80-knot storm." 

Scientists simply don’t understand the physics well enough to
program a numerical model of what’s actually going on in the
inner core of a hurricane, he said. There are similar problems
in forecasting a storm’s size during the early stages of
development, he said. 

In response to questions, Gross said he didn’t think scientists
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had been
overly conservative in addressing the issue of global warming
and its consequences on storm patterns. He said there is just a
lot of uncertainty about the impact on meteorology. 

Gross also disputed the popular notion that global warming has
increased the intensity of hurricanes. He suggested that a
much-cited study may have been short-sighted. 

"That study only looked at storms from the 1970s to the
present," he said. "And during that period, yes, they have
increased (in intensity). But you’ve got to look at the whole
period. And they didn’t do that. ? If you take the short record,
it’s true. If you take the longer record, that’s not true. So I
would not say they are increasing." 

The intensity of hurricanes depends on the temperature of the
stratosphere as well as the surface temperature of the oceans
and the difference between the two, Gross said. 

If the stratosphere were warming as well as the sea surface,
that would not appear to support the basis for greater storm
intensity, he said. 

"Now, they might be more frequent," Gross said. "We might get
more storms because of the warming, but the intensity — we don’t
know." 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

ASSOCIATED PRESS 				
 				
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 53 Tennessean: Decade has passed since Oak Ridge cleanup began - 

Nashville, Tennessee - Monday, 05/29/06 - 

By ELIZABETH A. DAVIS Associated Press 

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — The federal government spent 18 months 
building the massive K-25 uranium enrichment plant in this 
once-secret city for the World War II-era Manhattan Project. 
Tearing it down has been much slower.

After the plant shut down in 1987, nearly 10 years passed before
work began to decontaminate it and turn it and the other
buildings on a sprawling 1,500-acre site into a private
industrial park.

Another decade has gone by since then, and the vacant K-25
building is in disrepair but still standing.

The Department of Energy cleanup project began in 1996, and a
year later the site was renamed the East Tennessee Technology
Park. Since then, it has faced several delays because of funding
and safety issues.

Original estimates had the project costing $5 billion and taking
generations to complete. But recent work on the technology park
was split into two contracts that will together cost about $2
billion.

A completion date of September 2008 has been pushed back to
summer of 2009. Buildings not occupied by the deadline could be
torn down to save money on maintenance.

"It was very aggressive, very optimistic," said Steve McCracken,
DOE's environmental manager, of the timeline. "For various
reasons it will take longer and cost more. It's just huge. We
run into things every day."

"If we have safety issues, we're not going to push the schedule
to our detriment," he said.

K-25 is the name of the site's centerpiece, a mile-long U-shaped
building considered the largest in the world when it was built
from 1943-45. It is also the name of the entire site that
consists of many other buildings — known as K-33, K-31 and K-29,
some built after the war.

K-25 enriched uranium in a process called gaseous diffusion. The
uranium was fed into the nearby Y-12 plant to make highly
enriched uranium that was used in the atomic bomb dropped on
Hiroshima in 1945. Many employees didn't know the nature of
their work until the bombing was announced on the radio.

Farmland covering 59,000 acres was selected in 1942 to be one of
the secret sites of the Manhattan Project. A city sprang up
almost instantly and had 75,000 residents at its peak in 1945
working at K-25, Y-12 and the X-10 reactor.

Now, 25 companies are signed on as tenants in some of the old,
refurbished buildings through leases negotiated by the Community
Reuse Organization of East Tennessee, or CROET. The tenants
include a waste management company and an auto part component
manufacturer. A motorsports racecourse has even been proposed.

Companies looking at the technology park have typical concerns
about locating at a former uranium enrichment site with aging
buildings.

Two of the biggest buildings on the site — K-31 and K-33 — have
been cleaned out and remain vacant. BRI Energy LLC of Florida
announced tentative plans earlier in May to use K-31 for an
ethanol production facility.

The buildings were grouped with K-29 in a $356 million cleanup
contract awarded to BNFL Inc., now called BNG America. The
company removed more than 156,000 tons of material and equipment
from the buildings, which together cover 4.8 million square feet
of floor space. It was one of the largest decontamination and
decommissioning projects in the country.

Officials later determined that the 650,000-square-foot K-29
needed to be torn down because it was not structurally sound,
and Bechtel Jacobs started demolition earlier this year.
Completion was targeted for July.

Officials say they will begin tearing down K-25 next April and
finish in two years.

An enormous edifice from any angle, K-25 looks like an abandoned
warehouse with peeling holes in the roof and exterior walls.

Cleaning up K-25 has been slow because of the age of the
building and its lingering contamination. The roof was last
repaired in 1994, and water has leaked in and onto the operating
floor, making it "not safe to walk on or under," said Jack
Howard, manager of the three-building project.

"This is an example of one that sat too long," McCracken said
during a recent tour.

Preservationists, who believe K-25 has historic significance,
hope workers will leave a building footprint of the building or
the north tower that forms the bottom of the U. The National
Park Service is looking at creating a Manhattan Project park
that would include sites nationwide, including K-25.

As for the future, CROET President Lawrence Young hopes the
changes will draw more industry and not just tourists.

"Hopefully someone drives past who may not be from the area and
they see it as simply a business industrial site," he says, "and
it's not until they read the historic markers that they find
that it was once the K-25 site."         

[ ] [Enlarge]

Demolition proceeds earlier this month on the K-29 building,
part of the former K-25 gaseous diffusion plant in Oak Ridge,
Tenn. The former federal uranium-enrichment site is being turned
into an industrial park. (AP) 

  Copyright © 2006, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************