***************************************************************** 06/04/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.132 ***************************************************************** 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 Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July 2 If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally 3 rkm: "Iran: a week that shook the world" 4 New York Times: A Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran - 5 IRNA: Tunisian TV producer regrets negative media portrayal of Iran 6 IRNA: Supreme Leader: Anyone threatening harm to Iran's interests wi 7 IRNA: S Leader: US not in position to comment on violations of human 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Breakthrough Over Nukes Possible 9 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld Takes Aim at Iran, Russia, China 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Welcomes Unconditional Talks on Nukes 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Nuclear Breakthrough Is Possible 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Nuclear Views Reflect Deep Beliefs 13 Guardian Unlimited: Khamenei Warns U.S. Against Attacking Iran 14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns of Oil Disruption if Attacked 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Studying Iran's Retaliation Options 16 IRNA: Larijani: Iran ready to guarantee no diversion from civilian u 17 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Warns Iran Against a Slow Response 18 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld: War May Alienate Muslim Nations 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Studying Iran's Retaliation Options 20 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free | A giant awakes 21 Guardian Unlimited: Iran gives ground on US plan 22 IRNA: President says Iran ready for 'fair', 'unconditional' talks - 23 IRNA: Holy See: Diplomacy must resolve crisis on Iran nuclear progra 24 IRNA: Supreme Leader: No consensus reached against Iran's nuclear ac 25 BBC: Tehran warns of fuel disruptions 26 IRNA: Croatian journalist: Iran's peaceful nuclear right undeniable 27 WorldNetDaily: Iranian crisis resolved 28 IRNA: Supreme Leader: Iran is no threat to anyone 29 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI will decide on national interest 30 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No hurry to decide on 5+1 proposals 31 AFP: Iran will not discuss its right to enrichment - Ahmadinejad - 32 AFP: Iran's supreme leader stands by nuclear programme 33 AFP: Iran's supreme leader stands by nuclear programme 34 AFP: US urges Iran to make the right choice 35 AFP: Iran says awaiting nuclear proposal, but won't halt enrichment 36 IRNA: Muslims back Iran's peaceful nuclear plan - Lebanese merchant 37 AFP: Iran will not discuss its right to enrichment - Ahmadinejad - 38 AFP: US sweetens offer to Iran: diplomats 39 AFP: Iran must not give in to 'threats and bribes' - supreme leader 40 AFP: US echoes Gulf fears of pollution from Iran's nuclear program - 41 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Reproaches U.S. Over War Killings 42 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Demise of reactor project 43 Reuters: Rail links focus of fresh inter-Korea economic talks 44 US: TIME TO DUST OFF THAT OLD 'NO NUKES!' BUTTON 45 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Warns U.S. About NATO Expansion 46 AFP: Top US military official in India to boost strategic ties - 47 Guardian Unlimited: In Advance of G-8, Putin Mixes It Up 48 USNews.com: Hungry for fuel, China emerges as a leader in alternativ 49 HindustanTimes.com: N-deal clearance two months away NUCLEAR REACTORS 50 AU ABC: Govt accused of secrecy over nuclear power station plans. 51 AU ABC: Nuclear list earmarked for research, says Govt. 52 AU ABC: Carpenter urges nuclear wake-up call. 53 AU ABC: PM reveals plans for 'full-blooded' nuclear debate. 54 SNA: Bulgaria Signs NPP Builder "in 2006" 55 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate 'not an issue' - 56 NEWS.com.au: WA rejects nuclear power plant - WA - 57 The Australian: Cabinet documents show nuke sites 58 The Australian: Nuclear plan 'irrational' | | 59 The Australian: Three N-plants 'would reduce emissions' 60 The Observer: Nuclear costs to hit £90bn, warns Brown 61 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's nuclear secret - 62 Australian Financial Review: Don't endanger energy debate 63 Sydney Morning Herald: Cabinet set to approve nuclear review 64 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard sees the light, and it's a nuclear one 65 AU: The Age: Nuclear energy the 'elephant in the lounge' 66 AU The Age: Energy debate must include nuclear option - Opinion - 67 AU: The Age: Bite the atomic bullet or face blackouts - National - 68 AU The Age: Cabinet to order nuclear inquiry - 69 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power need not be high risk, says Bis 70 AU: The Age: Nuclear power 'cheaper, safer' than coal and gas 71 Times of India: 3 NSG members still won't back India on N-tech- 72 AU ABC: Vaile holds off naming nuclear reactor sites 73 AU ABC: Nuclear power costing report to launch debate 74 AU ABC: Govt accused of secrecy over nuclear power station plans 75 Border Mail: Cabinet to clear nuclear review 76 Border Mail: We must explore options on future energy needs 77 RIA Novosti: Russia to build energy unit at north-west NPP - nuclear 78 US: POAC: NRC approves transfer of Salem County nuclear licenses to 79 Green Left Weekly: Environment groups unite against nukes 80 US: SF Chron: U.S. court puts PG nuclear permit on hold until terror 81 ABC: Australia to debate nuclear power 82 US: The Olympian: Decades later, nuclear towers unused but standing 83 US: SciGuy: More education = more likely to favor nuclear power? 84 globeandmail.com: Nuclear cleanup plan would store waste in caves ne 85 AU ABC: Downer's SA nuclear power idea ridiculous, says Labor. 86 AU ABC: Vaile holds off naming nuclear reactor sites. NUCLEAR SECURITY 87 US: ContraCostaTimes.com: Regulators told to review nuclear facility NUCLEAR SAFETY 88 AU ABC: Radiation vaccination may be possible, say scientists. 89 US: Deseret News: Utahns on their own in wake of disaster? 90 US: Las Vegas SUN: Tribal leaders lead protest Nevada Test Site's `D 91 MiamiHerald.com: A first-hand account of nuclear ruin 92 US: reviewjournal.com: Court ruling creates concern 93 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear disaster drills staged NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 94 US: Yahoo: [NukeNet] Court revokes radioactive storage permit (at Di 95 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Court orders Diablo terror analysis 96 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast: Wilma Subra's key findings 97 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume history 98 Bellona: Kick-off for the Lepse Expert Panel 99 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain change of plan 100 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN RAIL LINE : Paiutes have terms 101 Independent: Geologists unearth more UK sites for nuclear waste stor 102 US: SHJ: South Carolina's delegation must make Washington face pluto 103 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Waste site accused of piling up too much PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 104 Santa Fe New Mexican: Nuclear waste: DOE begins hearings on WIPP per 105 Tri-City Herald: Oregon uneasy with Hanford study 106 RedOrbit: Doe Begins Hearings on Wipp Permit 107 lamonitor.com: Anastasio takes the helm ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:54:18 -0500 (CDT) Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July McGovern: Staged terror attacks across Europe, US "probable" in order to justify invasion Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 1 2006 Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July. Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, McGovern was asked about the timetable for war in Iran and said that behind the diplomatic smokescreen, the final chess pieces were being moved into position. "There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least - they will all be there in another week or so." "The propaganda has been laid, the aircraft carriers are in place, it doesn't take much to fly the bombers out of British and US bases - cruse missiles are at the ready, Israel is egging us on," said McGovern. McGovern said Iran's likely response to a US air strike would be threefold - mobilizing worldwide terrorist cells that would make Al-Qaeda look like a girls netball team - utilizing its cruise missile arsenal to attack US ships and sending fighters into Iraq to attack US forces. "The Iranians can easily send three divisions of revolutionary guard troops right over....the long border with Iraq," said McGovern, stating that the local Sunni population of Iraq would welcome such an invasion. The turmoil caused by such an action would lead the US to tap its so-called 'mini-nuke' arsenal said McGovern, opening a new Pandora's box of chaos. McGovern highlighted President Bush's all time record low approval ratings as a reason for launching an attack on Iran to again whip up false patriotic fervour. "I can see Karl Rove saying, 'look what you need to do is become a war president again, get us involved with something pretty big here and then strut around and say you can't vote for a bunch of Democrats to pull the rug out from under me while there's a war going on'." McGovern drew a comparison with the concillatory cold war stance of Russia and JFK's decision to respond in a similar manner, and the Iranian President's letter which was immediately dismissed by the Bush administration. JFK's approach saved the US from potential nuclear anihalation while Bush's actions put the US in severe danger as Russia and China give ominous mixed signals on what their response to a US strike on Iran will be. McGovern lambasted Bush's inner circle as uniformly lacking any real military experience and characterized them as a cabal already hell-bent on war. McGovern entertained the notion that western governments and intelligence hierarchies could potentially stage terror attacks in Europe and the US either before or after an invasion of Iran. "That's altogether possible," said McGovern. "I would say even probable because they need some proximate cause, some casus belli to justify really unleashing things on Iran....I would put very little past this crew - their record of dissembling and disingenuousness is unparalleled." McGovern said that Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld, fearing impeachment and Enron-style criminal proceedings, are urging President Bush to launch a war in order to create a climate unconducive to lengthy investigations and impeachment proceedings. Asked to cite specifically when we should expect to see an attack launched, McGovern said, "I think we all agree that an attack is likely before the election and we all agree that it has to do largely with the election - as for timing I see a likelihood that it could come as early as late June or early July, most of my colleagues predict August, September, maybe an October surprise even." "My thinking is that for it to be October that would be so crass and so transparent that even this crowd would shy away from making it so obvious," said McGovern. McGovern is set to appear along with a host of other respected and credible whistleblowers at the American Scholars Symposium at the end of this month. Click here to listen to a clip of the interview with Ray McGovern. Prison Planet.tv members can listen to the entirety of this interview. If you are not a subscriber please consider the great benefits of becoming an exclusive member by clicking here. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/010606iranstrike.htm ***************************************************************** 2 If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:11:09 -0500 (CDT) June 2, 2006 The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally It is absurd to demand that Tehran should have made concessions before sitting down with the Americans By Jonathan Steele It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent. Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war. Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map". Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about. But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler. Misquoting Ahmadinejad is worse than taking Khrushchev out of context for a second reason. Although the Soviet Union had a collective leadership, the pudgy Russian was the undoubted No 1 figure, particularly on foreign policy. The Iranian president is not. His predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was seen in the west as a moderate reformer, and during his eight years in office western politicians regularly lamented the fact that he was not Iran's top decision-maker. Ultimate power lay with the conservative unelected supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet now that Ahmadinejad is president, western hawks behave as though he is in charge, when in fact nothing has changed. Ahmadinejad is not the only important voice in Tehran. Indeed Khamenei was quick to try to adjust the misperceptions of Ahmadinejad's comments. A few days after the president made them, Khamenei said Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation". The evidence suggests that a debate is going on in Tehran over policy towards the west which is no less fierce than the one in Washington. Since 2003 the Iranians have made several overtures to the Bush administration, some more explicit than others. Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Bush was a veiled invitation to dialogue. Iranians are also arguing over policy towards Israel. Trita Parsi, an analyst at Johns Hopkins University, says influential rivals to Ahmadinejad support a "Malaysian" model whereby Iran, like Islamic Malaysia, would not recognise Israel but would not support Palestinian groups such as Hamas, if relations with the US were better. The obvious way to develop the debate is for the two states to start talking to each other. Last winter the Americans said they were willing, provided talks were limited to Iraq. Then the hawks around Bush vetoed even that narrow agenda. Their victory made nonsense of the pressure the US is putting on other UN security council members for tough action against Iran. Talk of sanctions is clearly premature until Washington and Tehran make an effort to negotiate. This week, in advance of Condoleezza Rice's meeting in Vienna yesterday with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, the factions in Washington hammered out a compromise. The US is ready to talk to Tehran alongside the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany), but only after Tehran has abandoned its uranium-enrichment programme. To say the EU3's dialogue with Tehran was sufficient, as Washington did until this week, was the most astonishing example of multilateralism in the Bush presidency. A government that makes a practice of ignoring allies and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of bodies such as the International Criminal Court was leaving all the talking to others on one of the hottest issues of the day. Unless Bush is set on war, this refusal to open a dialogue could not be taken seriously. The EU3's offer of carrots for Tehran was also meaningless without a US role. Europe cannot give Iran security guarantees. Tehran does not want non-aggression pacts with Europe. It wants them with the only state that is threatening it both with military attack and foreign-funded programmes for regime change. The US compromise on talks with Iran is a step in the right direction, though Rice's hasty statement was poorly drafted, repeatedly calling Iran both a "government" and a "regime". But it is absurd to expect Iran to make concessions before sitting down with the Americans. Dialogue is in the interests of all parties. Europe's leaders, as well as Russia and China, should come out clearly and tell the Americans so. Whatever Iran's nuclear ambitions, even US hawks admit it will be years before it could acquire a bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. This offers ample time for negotiations and a "grand bargain" between Iran and the US over Middle Eastern security. Flanked by countries with US bases, Iran has legitimate concerns about Washington's intentions. Even without the US factor, instability in the Gulf worries all Iranians, whether or not they like being ruled by clerics. All-out civil war in Iraq, which could lead to intervention by Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours, would be a disaster for Iran. If the US wants to withdraw from Iraq in any kind of order, this too will require dialogue with Iran. If this is what Blair told Bush last week, he did well. But he should go all the way, and urge the Americans to talk without conditions. j.steele@guardian.co.uk ======= http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1788543,00.html ======= ***************************************************************** 3 rkm: "Iran: a week that shook the world" Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 12:35:29 +0100 Iran: A week that shook the world rkm http://cyberjournal.org Permit me to offer a humble analogy, comparing earthquakes to geopolitics. With an earthquake, the fault line is the focus of the event, but it's what happen on the two sides of the fault line -- extending for many miles -- that is of real concern. The fault line is merely a catalyst, facilitating the rapid adjustment of tectonic forces. It is the adjustment that knocks down buildings. Iran has become a geopolitical 'fault line' - a catalyst facilitating the rapid adjustment of great-power forces. While Iran is the focus of developments, it is what happens in global geopolitics -- extending thousands of miles from Iran - that is of real concern. It is those power adjustments, not events in Iran per se, that will 'knock down buildings' as regards the next phase of human history. As background for this analysis, I recommend this recent posting from William Engdahl, in case you haven't already seen it: 10 May -- Engdahl: USA's "geopolitical nightmare" http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1138&lists=newslog Engdahl makes a very strong case that the neocon regime has totally botched it, as regards the balance of power in the big game: US-UK axis vs. China-Russia alliance. To begin with, there IS now a China-Russia alliance -- a development that has been greatly accelerated by the neocon's aggressive pursuit of their PNAC agenda. Rather than securing US dominance, the neocons have undermined US power and US prestige. As a consequence of this poor performance, Engdahl argues, the old guard Establishment -- the 'realists' -- are in the process of leashing in the neocons and arranging a shift in US (and lapdog UK) policy.. As regards the China-Russia alliance, note this article: 31 May -- China-Russia relations at "record high" - Chinese President http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1215&lists=newslog [excerpt, EMPHASIS added]..."Through mutual effort, our relations have risen to a record-high level, and their STRATEGIC component is expanding dramatically," Hu Jintao said in an interview with official government paper Rossiskaya Gazeta. The Chinese leader said the two countries had been able to sustain high growth rates in trade for seven consecutive years and had made substantial progress in ENERGY and INVESTMENT cooperation. As regards Iran directly, we know very well why the two sides have an interest there. Russia and China are seeking to expand their future oil sources, in the face of peak oil, and have have made deals with Iran to achieve that. The US-UK axis wants to gain the upper hand in Iran in order to continue their traditional strategy of oil-based dominance. They want Iran's oil to be brokered through Anglo-American oil companies and banks, rather than by direct exchanges between Iran and its customers. As they did after invading Iraq, they want to cancel existing contracts and write their own new ones. Wherever possible, they want their hand on the global oil tap. This scenario is well understood by both sides, despite the fact that US-UK mainstream media fail to report on it. US concerns about nuclear proliferation, in the case of Iran, are utter nonsense. For one thing, Iran is in complete compliance with international treaties, and has shown no signs of seeking nuclear weapons. For another, the US is one of the main causes of nuclear proliferation globally. In this regard the following articles are of interest: 02 Jun -- U.N. watchdog: Iran not an immediate nuclear threat http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1231&batch=16&lists=newslog 03 Jun -- Blix: U.S. Impedes Efforts to Curb A-Arms http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1233&lists=newslog We can see a new confidence emerging in Russian and Chinese leaders, as they respond to the US-created crisis in Iran. A lot has changed since the invasion of Iraq. In that case Russia and China stood by while the Coalition of Willing Imperialists seized Iraq's oil. Not so this time. Russia has been openly arming Iran; the US is complaining, and the Russians are ignoring the complaints: 29 May -- US urges Russia to reconsider missile export to Iran http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1198&lists=newslog This increased confidence does not arise because Iran is more important than Iraq, but because of the increased relative power -- thanks to the neocons -- of China-Russia compared to US-UK. The 'realists' understand that further confrontation will only accelerate this momentous power shift. In this next series of articles we can see the neocons being pressured into abandoning their unilateral invasion plans, and entering into the game of diplomacy. This is consistent with Engdahl's thesis, as regards the 'realists' tightening the leash on the neocon project... 28 May -- GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1194&lists=newslog 27 May -- U.S. Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1192&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- US offers direct talks with Iran...sort of http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1220&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1221&lists=newslog As with an earthquake, we are seeing major shifts unfolding very rapidly. On 27 May I saw the first public reports of the US considering talks, and on 2 Jun we already see a negotiation proposal ready for presentation to Iran: 02 Jun -- Powers agree Iran nuclear package http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1228&lists=newslog 02 Jun -- Expected Security Council Actions http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1225&lists=newslog We don't yet have a text of this proposal, but we can learn much from the comments of the various parties. According to Russia, there is nothing in the proposal that authorizes the use of force, regardless of how Iran might respond to the proposal. I would be inclined to take this article at face value, because it is consistent Russia's long-standing position regarding the crisis, and because the reports I have seen coming out of Russia generally have been remarkably free of propaganda spin: 02 Jun -- Russia: Iran proposal 'excludes use of force' http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1229&lists=newslog What we don't know is whether or not the proposal imposes any preconditions on Iran: are they being asked to suspend enrichment while negotiations proceed? We do know that the neocons are publicly demanding such a precondition, and that the Iranians are adamant about refusing any preconditions: 02 Jun -- Guardian: absurd to demand Tehran make concessions http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1230&lists=newslog 03 Jun -- Iran unmoved by nuclear pressure http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1235&lists=newslog My money says that preconditions are NOT part of the agreed proposal. If the Russians and Chinese had agreed to preconditions, they would have been shooting themselves in the foot. They know Iran would refuse, and that would put the US in a favorable position to continue its confrontational stance. Russia and China have become too shrewd and confident to fall into such an obvious trap. Instead, it is the neocons who have shot themselves in the foot, by committing themselves to multilateral negotiations. They've been squeezed from inside and outside -- by the 'realists' and the China-Russia alliance -- and these negotiations may mark the end of the PNAC agenda, at least in its overtly aggressive form. Here's why I say the neocons have shot themselves in the foot: They seem to think they can make their unilateral demand for preconditions stick, but I suggest they are wrong. If the proposal does not require preconditions, then Russia and China will support Iran in not submitting to US demands. Meanwhile the same 'realist' elements that pushed the neocons into accepting negotiations can be expected to undermine domestic support for precondition demands (note the Guardian article above). Rather than Iran being isolated by the 'international community', it is the neocons who will be isolated, both internationally and domestically. In the end I think they'll be forced to negotiate without preconditions, and from that position they won't be able to re-create an excuse for armed intervention. An alternative possibility is that Iran will agree to preconditions, either because a time-limit has been set on enrichment suspensions, or because Russia and China have assured Iran that she would not be left hanging in limbo. In this alternative scenario, the neocons would save more face, but they would still have shot themselves in the foot. They will enter into talks, but they won't be able to dictate the outcome, and their attempts at conquest will continue to be stymied. However the neocons do still have one card up their sleeve - the false-flag-incident card: 03 Jun -- Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June or July http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1238&lists=newslog Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July. The neocons may think they can play this card, but they will find that the walls have ears. "Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it" --President Woodrow Wilson Wilson is speaking here of the financial elites behind the scenes, those who decide whether to make or break neocons or realists (or the League of Nations), depending on circumstances. The neocons have their covert resources, but there are overseers of the overseers. Consider the recent gunshot incident at the US Capital: 31 May -- US Capitol sealed off after 'gunshots' heard http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1211&lists=newslog 31 May -- Gunfight at Capital Hill Corral?? http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1214&lists=newslog One never knows whether to believe Tom Flocco. His stuff makes sense, and claims to be authoritative, but I can seldom find independent corroborations for his more radical claims. I can't find reliable contradictions to those claims either, so they are worthy of some consideration. In the 'Gunfight' article above he claims that the neocons were planning on "disrupting northeast rail traffic via a fake terrorist attack." British and French intelligence agents, according to Flocco, had obtained damning evidence of this plot, and were killed in a shootout in the Capitol garage. This story may or may not be true, but it is the kind of thing I would expect if the neocons try to play the false-flag card. They will find that there are spooks following their spooks. We cannot expect to have this full story played out in the media. It's too embarrassing for all parties concerned. The details will be kept within 'the family', as with all gangster activities. If the neocons are being put on a shorter leash, then their close collaborator -- Israel -- will need to have its leash tightened as well. Consider these articles: 26 May -- Bush: U.S. would aid Israel if attacked http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1183&lists=newslog 01 Jun -- shift in US-Israel relations??...Israeli view http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1217&lists=newslog ...Bush's statement seemingly is a step in the direction of the defense alliance, even if it is a verbal promise that is not enough to send a military force.... In the absence of a definitive interpretation, one can understand the Bush statement in a different way - as shackles on Israeli freedom of operations. If America is ready to defend Israel, why give it billions a year in military aid? And why does Israel need an independent nuclear capability if it is under the American umbrella? And if Israel is attacked, should it wait for approval from Washington before it responds, or act according to its own best judgment? Why indeed is this 'aid' being offered, unless to rein in Israel's unilateral options? Everyone already knew that the US would come to the aid of Israel, if the US wanted to; no need for Bush to announce that. --- All of these developments have unfolded into the public view in the space of one week, from 27 May to 3 June. If I am understanding them correctly, these developments mark a major historical shift in the world balance of power. Heretofore Washington and London have gotten by with claiming to be the voice of the 'international community'. China and Russia have now emerged from the background, and are with confidence making their own voices heard -- as befits their status as world powers. The tectonic forces have been building for some time. With Iran as the catalyst fault line, we have seen a geopolitical earthquake take place over the past week. What had seemed to be a uni-polar world has now clearly become a multi-polar world. The 'realists' knew this had become inevitable, and are now engaged in damage control. The neocons will take the fall; they will serve as the sacrificial lamb, carrying all the blame for the excesses of their regime (as did Nixon before them). The elites behind the scenes will as usual remain behind the scenes, their primary role in the whole episode going unreported. rkm http://cyberjournal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cj-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org For additional commands, e-mail: cj-help@cyberjournal.org ***************************************************************** 4 New York Times: A Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran - By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER Published: June 4, 2006 WASHINGTON, June 3 — On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Ricesat down to a small lunch in President Bush's private dining room behind the Oval Office and delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iranwas at risk of falling apart. The World: It's Just Like Iraq, Only Different(June 4, 2006) A meeting she had attended in Berlin days earlier with European foreign ministers had been a disaster, she reported, according to participants in the discussion. Iran was neatly exploiting divisions among the Europeans and Russia, and speeding ahead with its enrichment of uranium. The president grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of exasperation "that said, 'O.K., team, what's the answer?' " That body language touched off a closely held two-month effort to reach a drastically different strategy, one articulated two weeks later in a single sentence that Ms. Rice wrote in a private memorandum. It broached the idea that the United States end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks with Iran. Mr. Bush's aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide said recently, "the Iranians were winning." Mr. Bush gradually grew more comfortable with offering talks to a country that he considers the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and whose president has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Mr. Bush's own early misgivings about the path he was considering came in a flurry of phone calls to Ms. Rice and to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, that often began with questions like "What if the Iranians do this," gaming out loud a number of possible situations. Mr. Bush left open the option of scuttling the entire idea until early Wednesday morning, three senior officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal debates in the White House. He made the final decision only after telephone calls with President Vladimir V. Putinof Russia and the Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany led him to conclude that if Tehran refused to suspend its enrichment of uranium, or later dragged its feet, they would support an escalating series of sanctions against Iran at the United Nationsthat could lead to a confrontation. Even after Mr. Bush edited the statement that Ms. Rice was scheduled to read Wednesday before she flew to Vienna to encourage Europe and Russia to sign on to a final package of incentives for Iran — and sanctions if it turns the offer down — Ms. Rice wanted to check in one more time. She called Mr. Bush. Was he sure he was O.K. with his decision? "Go do it," he was said to have responded. She did, but the results remain unclear. Iran has given no indication it will agree to Mr. Bush's threshold condition, suspending nuclear fuel production. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that he would oppose "any pressure to deprive our people from their right" to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. The official news agency IRNA reported that Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Saturday that Javier Solana, the European Union'sforeign policy chief, was expected to arrive in Tehran in the next few days with the new package of incentives. "Iran will examine the proposal and announce its opinion after that," Mr. Mottaki said. Mr. Bush's aides now acknowledge that the approach they had once publicly described as successfully "isolating" Iran was in fact viewed internally as going nowhere. Mr. Bush's search for a new option was driven, they say, by concern that the path he was on two months ago would inevitably force one of two potentially disastrous outcomes: an Iranian bomb, or an American attack on Iran's facilities. Conservatives, even some inside the administration, are worried that Mr. Bush may be forced into other concessions, including allowing Iran to continue some low level of nuclear fuel production. Others fear that the commitments Mr. Bush believes he extracted from Mr. Putin, Ms. Merkel and President Jacques Chiracof France may erode. But the story of how a president who rarely changes his mind did so in this case — after refusing similar proposals on Iran four years ago — illustrates the changed dynamic between the State Department and the White House in Mr. Bush's second term. When Colin L. Powellwas secretary of state, the two buildings often seemed at war. But 18 months after Ms. Rice took over, her relationship with Mr. Bush has led to policies that one former adviser to Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush said "he never would have allowed Colin to pursue." It is unclear how much dissent, if any, surrounded the decision, which appears to have been driven largely by the president, Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley, with other senior national security officials playing a more remote role. Both White House and State Department officials say Vice President Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran, agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment — clearing the way to sanctions that could test the Iranian government's ability to survive. After the surprise election of Mr. Ahmadinejad last summer, Iran ended its suspension of uranium enrichment, and the United States and Europe won resolutions at the International Atomic Energy Agency to move the issue to the United Nations Security Council. But it took weeks over the winter to get the weakest of Security Council actions — a "presidential statement." Russia, which has huge financial interests in Iran and is supplying it with nuclear reactors, was particularly reluctant to push the Iranians too hard. At a private dinner on March 6 at the Watergate with Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov warned that Iran could do what North Korea did in 2003 — throw out inspectors and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would close the biggest window into Iran's program, making it hard to assess its bomb capability — the same issue that had led to huge errors in Iraq. On March 30, Ms. Rice traveled to Berlin for what turned into a fractious meeting with representatives of the other four permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. She questioned what kind of sanctions would be effective. The conversation went nowhere. That led to Ms. Rice's warning to Mr. Bush over lunch, on April 4, that the momentum to confront Iran was disintegrating. Mr. Bush, one aide noted, was receiving special intelligence assessments every morning, some on Iran's intentions, others examining Mr. Ahmadinejad's personality, still others exploring how long it would take Iran to produce a bomb. On Easter weekend, Ms. Rice sat in her apartment and drafted a two-page proposal for a new strategy that pursued three tracks: the threat of "coercive measures" through the United Nations, negotiations with Iran that included what Ms. Rice has called "bold" incentives for Iran to give up the production of all nuclear fuel and a separate set of strategies for economic sanctions if the Security Council failed to act. They were accompanied by a calendar Ms. Rice had marked in three colors tracking the schedule for each of the three tracks, which Mr. Hadley told her was "brilliant, colorful, and completely impenetrable." For the first time, her proposal also raised a question the administration had long avoided: Had the time arrived for the United States to play what she and Mr. Bush, both bridge players, called their biggest card - offering to talk with Iran? She shared the proposal with Mr. Hadley, and then raised it with Mr. Bush in private on May 5 The idea intrigued Mr. Bush, White House officials say, and on May 8, Ms. Rice met with him just hours before flying to New York for a meeting with her European counterparts. She asked him what kind of body language to display at the United Nations meeting. Should she signal that the United States was considering negotiations with Iran? "Be careful," he said, according to officials familiar with the conversation. "I haven't made up my mind." That same day, an 18-page letter from Mr. Ahmadinejad arrived. It declared liberal democracy a failure, although it also was perceived by many as an effort to reach out and start a dialogue. Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley read the letter on the flight to New York, but dismissed it. "It isn't addressing the issues we're dealing with in a concrete way," Ms. Rice said that day. Her meeting in New York with her European counterparts turned testy, particularly an exchange with Mr. Lavrov, who was still smarting from a speech by Mr. Cheney denouncing Russia for its increasingly authoritarian behavior. But the discussion, while fractious, convinced her that the only way to break the stalemate was to offer to join the negotiations. While Mr. Bush was intrigued, he was intent on secrecy, and so when the National Security Council met on the subject on May 17, he warned against leaks. The session was notable because Mr. Cheney, who had fought in the first term against engagement with Iran, said the offer might work, largely because it would force the choices back on Iran. And while the council had dismissed the letter, it used the meeting to discuss whether to respond. While Mr. Bush initially told Ms. Rice that others could work out the final negotiations, Ms. Rice told the president that "only you can nail this down," apparently a reference to keeping Ms. Merkel and Mr. Putin on board. Mr. Bush made the calls and got them to agree that if Iran resists, they will move ahead with a range of sanctions. But Mr. Bush, led by Ms. Rice, is taking a significant risk. He must hold together countries that bitterly broke with the United States three years ago on Iraq. And now, he seems acutely aware that part of his legacy may depend on his ability to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear power in the Middle East, without again resorting to military force. Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article. Copyright 2006The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Tunisian TV producer regrets negative media portrayal of Iran - Tehran, June 4, IRNA Imam Khomeini-Tunisian TV Producer A Tunisian TV producer regretted the negative portrayal of Iran by certain world media and press which act as tools for the US and certain big powers. Ms Anges Tuniga who is in Iran to participate in ceremonies to mark the 17th demise anniversary of the late founder of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Imam Khomeini said in an exclusive interview with IRNA Sunday that even she too, as a journalist and TV producer, was dubious about the real situation in Iranian society due to misleading publicity of the western media. Commenting on the American propaganda on Iran's peaceful nuclear program, she noted that the US always claimed that the arena of scientific and technological activities was open to all countries whereas it was doing everything in its power now to stop Iran from pursuing its peaceful nuclear program and making it abandon its plans. Saying that she was absolutely astonished by the simple life the late Imam led as a very great political leader of the contemporary world, Tuniga said what she witnessed during her recent visit to Iran convinced her that the late Imam was a great man of people who possessed very unique characteristics. She termed as 'very remarkably different' the present situation of Iranian women compared with the post-revolution era and said Iranian women were quite active in all social areas. ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Supreme Leader: Anyone threatening harm to Iran's interests will face nation's June 4, IRNA -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei here Sunday warned that anyone who threatens harm to Iran's interests will face the wrath of the entire Iranian nation. The Supreme Leader's remarks were part of his address to a huge crowd of people gathered at the late Imam Khomeini's mausoleum in southern Tehran to mark the 17th anniversary of the departure of the Founder of the Islamic Republic. "Iran does not intimidate anyone and will not hesitate to defend its ideals and national interests in the face of aggression. Anyone who threatens our country will face the wrath of the nation," said the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei said that the noble Iranian nation, with its power and dignity, had for years been kept backward by dictatorial powers and their cronies. "We want to use the enormous and rich human and natural resources of Iran in the right place and free the country from the intimidation and bondage of the past several centuries." Ayatollah Khamenei, elsewhere in his speech, said that Iran had no problems with any country in the region or in Europe so much so that Washington felt it necessary to fan flames of hostility. ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: S Leader: US not in position to comment on violations of human rights - , June 4, IRNA Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said on Sunday that the US has no right to comment on (violations of) human rights by other countries. "The government that runs the Guantanamo jail and Abu Ghraib prison and has committed crimes in (the Iraqi city of) Haditha and recently in (the Afghan capital) Kabul has no right to speak of human rights," said Ayatollah Khamenei in his address to a huge crowd of people marking the 17th demise anniversary of the late Imam Khomeini. Following are excerpts of the Supreme Leader's speech: "You spent 300 billion dollars in Iraq to bring a government to power that will be your puppet and mercenary, but have failed," said the Supreme Leader in his address obviously referring to the Bush administration and its allies. "In Palestine, you did your best to prevent Hamas from coming to power, but the Palestinian people voted for Hamas in defiance of your wishes. And, thereafter, the ample pressures you imposed on the Palestinian government have even strengthened the solidarity between the Palestinian nation and government. "As for Lebanon, senior US officers have stayed on in Beirut for years hoping they would eventually dominate the country, undermine the resistance and have an Israel puppet regime in power there, but the Lebanese people refused to follow your wishes. "Why, Mr Bush, do you not admit that your behavior has brought hatred for the US government and nation worldwide? Why do you not acknowledge that you have grown too weak and ineffective? "Compare our president's message to the US president with the impolite and insignificant message published a few days ago. It was a message far from diplomatic, full of arrogance, hatred and also absurd. "If you could damage the Islamic Republic, you would not have wasted even a single minute." Elsewhere in his speech, the Supreme Leader noted that against the former US secretary of state's urging that the US uproot the Iranian nation, the nation instead has made lots of progress. Ayatollah Khamenei said adherence to Islamic principles and guidance by supreme jurisprudence are the two main factors that will prevent defeat of the Islamic Revolution. He said the revolution will survive and flourish because the Iranian nation is pious and committed to its ideals and ready to defend the constitution at all times. "Those in the leadership rank will lose their legitimacy if they fail to defend Islamic aspirations and principles both theoretically and practically," he added. The Leader went on to say that the enemies have tried to defeat the revolution by targeting the two or three factors which ensure its survival. "The Islamic Revolution cannot be impeded. Iranian society is a pious, religious community and religion and Islamic Revolution have great influence in various ranks," declared the Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian people believe in religion and are committed to the defence of religious values, which play an important part in their lives. News sent: 14:49 Sunday June 04, 2006 Print ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Breakthrough Over Nukes Possible From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 12:46 PM AP Photo VAH102 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said Saturday that a breakthrough was possible over Tehran's nuclear program, but only if the United States drops its conditions for negotiations. In a major policy shift, the United States agreed this week to join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran providing Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. It would be the first major public negotiations between Washington and Tehran in more than 25 years. On Thursday the four countries, along with China and Russia, agreed to offer Iran incentives to give up suspect nuclear activities, but threatened U.N. sanctions if Tehran refuses. Iran responded Friday saying the West will not deprive it of nuclear technology. ``The efforts of some Western countries to deprive us will not bear any fruit,'' said the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United States in turn warned Tehran that it expects a prompt response to the offer, suggesting the incentives could be replaced by penalties if the Islamic republic delays. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran was still waiting to receive the offer and would make its views known after studying the package. ``We think that the views we will present our partners could prepare the ground for a comprehensive understanding,'' he told a news conference Saturday in a rare show of optimism. But Mottaki repeated Iran's position that it wouldn't accept to join conditional talks. ``These negotiations have to be without any conditions,'' he told reporters. Mottaki said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana would deliver the package to Iranian officials in the next few days. No specific date has been set for the trip, he said. In Belgium, Solana's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach confirmed he was ready to travel to Iran very soon. ``The trip is not going to be a negotiating trip, the objective is to present the proposals of the international community,'' she said. Iran would study the package ``within the necessary timeframe,'' Mottaki said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld Takes Aim at Iran, Russia, China From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 7:31 PM AP Photo TOK207 By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer SINGAPORE (AP) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld branded Iran as the world's leading terrorist nation yet hoped Tehran seriously would consider incentives from the West in exchange for suspending suspect nuclear activities. Rumsfeld, attending an annual security conference, also took aim Saturday at Russia and China for allowing Iran's involvement in a group that he said has stated opposition to terrorism and extremists. Iraq was on Rumsfeld's mind, too, as he expressed concern the war could alienate Muslims in Southeast Asia. Upcoming stops on his trip include Indonesia and Vietnam. The U.S. and five other world powers decided last week to offer incentives to Iran if it gives up uranium enrichment. Under that condition, the Bush administration said it would join talks with Iran. ``The information has just been communicated to them, and it seems to me the appropriate thing now to do is to wait and see which path the Iranian government will take,'' Rumsfeld said on the sidelines of the security conference. The Pentagon chief said he hoped Iran would ``recognize the seriousness and substance'' of the offer. He added that the U.S. agreed to the proposals because progress in talks involving Iran and Britain, Germany and France had ``arrived at a point where it seemed not to be moving forward.'' The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons. Tehran insists it is for peaceful energy purposes. Iran's president told U.N. chief Kofi Annan on Saturday that a breakthrough in negotiations over the nuclear program was possible and that he welcomed unconditional talks with all parties. Iran's foreign minister said officials were waiting to receive the proposals and would ``make our views known after studying the package.'' Despite the diplomatic efforts, Rumsfeld did not retreat from his assessment of Iran. In doing so, Russia and China came under criticism for allowing Iran's involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The group, which includes Russia, China and four Central Asian nations, was founded to build confidence among the member nations and grapple with militant Islamic groups. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to the annual summit in Shanghai this month. Iran is an observer to group and has applied for full membership. Rumsfeld said he finds it ``passing strange'' to bring the ``leading terrorist nation in the world into an organization that says it's against terror.'' When Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced in mid-May that Ahmadinejad would attend the summit, he said, ``We cannot isolate Iran or exert pressure on it. Far from resolving this issue of proliferation, it will make it more urgent.'' On Iraq, Rumsfeld told military leaders at the conference that opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq will not force the U.S. to leave the country prematurely. He said the world eventually would understand that American troops are not in Iraq to take over oil fields, as some critics have suggested. ``We don't intend to occupy that country for any period of time,'' Rumsfeld said in response to a question from the audience. ``Our troops would like to go home and they will go home.'' ``And they will go home at a pace when we're able, along with our friends and allies with the coalition, of passing off responsibility to the Iraqi security forces, so they can pull up their socks and take responsibility for their own country.'' On other topics, Rumsfeld: -said he believes China will become more open about its military buildup. This issue dominated last year's military conference. He said other countries have a right to understand why China is expanding its military and there could be repercussions if China does not explain itself. -defended Pakistan's efforts to fight terrorism, including growing problems with violent insurgents who travel across the border into Afghanistan. -warned that although security cooperation among nations in Southeast Asia is expanding, it could be set back if China, Russia and North Korea do not become more open and less threatening. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Welcomes Unconditional Talks on Nukes From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 10:31 PM AP Photo VAH101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A breakthrough in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program is possible, the republic's president told the U.N. chief Saturday while welcoming unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech later Saturday that his government would not rush to judge an incentives package offered by Western countries to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. State television reported that Ahmadinejad spoke by phone to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and told him the crisis could be settled as long as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency preserved Tehran's right to use atomic energy. A U.S. offer for negotiations is conditioned on Iran suspending uranium enrichment - a process that can produce both fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity and the material for atomic warheads - and allowing international inspections to prove it. ``A breakthrough to overcome world problems, including Iran's nuclear case, would be the equal implementation of the law for all,'' state TV quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Annan. Ahmadinejad alluded to the fact that Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows signatories to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful uses while promising not to acquire atomic weapons. The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons. Tehran insists it is only for generating electricity. In a major policy shift, the United States agreed this week to join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. It would be the first major public negotiations between Washington and Tehran in more than 25 years. Six world powers agreed Thursday to offer Iran a new package of incentives if it gives up uranium enrichment and to impose sanctions if it refuses. Washington warned Friday that Iran does not have much time to respond, suggesting the window could close and be replaced by penalties. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is to hand deliver the proposal to Iranian officials in the next few days. ``We won't make any prejudgement about the proposal to be presented to us ... we won't be in haste to judge it,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Iran's capital, Tehran. ``We are after negotiations, but fair and just negotiations. They must be without any conditions,'' he said in a speech marking the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. The incentive package, agreed on by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, carries the threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant over continuing uranium enrichment. ``The Iranian nation won't give in to talks that contain threats or conditions that seek to deprive our definite right,'' Ahmadinejad said. At an Asian security conference, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Washington was hoping for a positive Iranian response to the incentives package. The Pentagon chief said he hoped Iran would ``recognize the seriousness and substance'' of the offer. He added that the United States agreed to the proposals because progress in talks involving Iran and Europe had gotten to a point where they did not seem to be moving forward. The Vatican, meanwhile, insisted that diplomacy is the only option for resolving the crisis. The Holy See ``is firmly convinced that even the present difficulties can and must be overcome through the diplomatic path, using all means which diplomacy can avail itself of,'' Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement. Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead - but tens of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large scale. Iran has said intends to move toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006 but also indicated it might suspend large-scale uranium enrichment to ease tensions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Nuclear Breakthrough Is Possible From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 3:16 PM AP Photo NYET740 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president told U.N. chief Kofi Annan on Saturday that a breakthrough in negotiations over its nuclear program was possible, and he welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a settlement could take place as long as the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog - preserved Tehran's right to use atomic energy, Iran's state-run television reported. ``A breakthrough to overcome world problems, including Iran's nuclear case, would be the equal implementation of the law for all,'' it quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Annan in a phone conversation. Ahmadinejad's comments alluded to the fact that Iran has signed the IAEA treaty, which allows member states to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful uses. In a major policy shift, the United States agreed this week to join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. It would be the first major public negotiations between Washington and Tehran in more than 25 years. Six world powers decided Thursday to offer Iran a new package of incentives if it gives up uranium enrichment or impose sanctions if it refuses. The United States warned Friday that Iran does not have much time to respond to the proposal, suggesting that the window could close and be replaced by penalties. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana would deliver the package to Iranian officials in the next few days. ``We are waiting to officially receive the proposals. We will make our views known after studying the package,'' Mottaki said Saturday. He added that Iran would join no talks if conditions were attached. At an Asian security conference, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Washington was still hoping for a positive Iranian response to the new incentives package. Rumsfeld said he hoped Iran would ``recognize the seriousness and substance'' of what had been put forward. The package, agreed upon by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, carries the threat of U.N. sanctions if Tehran remains defiant over its nuclear program. Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead - but tens of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large scale. Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006 but also has indicated it may suspend large-scale uranium enrichment to ease tensions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Nuclear Views Reflect Deep Beliefs From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 6:16 PM AP Photo VAH106 By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - In nearly every Iranian statement on its nuclear program, officials stress that uranium enrichment and related technology are the nation's ``right'' according to international treaties. To Western ears, it's the sound of heels being dug in. But to Persian sensibilities, the declarations are far more nuanced and powerful. They touch on history, pride, fears and the belief among Iran's leaders that they are standing up not only for themselves but also other countries against injustices orchestrated by the United States. With the standoff moving toward high-level talks - which could include Washington after a 27-year diplomatic freeze - these differing perceptions may test the flexibility of negotiators on all sides. ``It's really like hearing two versions of the same story,'' said Mohammad Ghaed, a respected Tehran-based author and essayist. ``The West is talking about issues such as security and strategic balance. Here in Iran, that's part of it. But we also have all our psychosis and cultural baggage along for the ride.'' On one level, it's a selective history lesson. Some scholars go all the way back to the 13th-century invasions, including the armies of Ghengis Khan, to explain Iranian worries about relinquishing any type of self-sufficiency - such as the recent offers to move the country's uranium enrichment program to Russia. Many other Iranian commentators say attitudes are still heavily influenced by the CIA-aided riots in 1953 against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, who angered the West with plans to seize control of foreign-operated oil operations. Mosaddeq was toppled and the Western-backed monarchy was restored. The West also backed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the devastating 1980-88 war with Iran, which included chemical gas attacks by Iraqi forces. ``Our experience with foreign meddling has not been good, to say the least,'' said Ghaed. ``This shades the whole nuclear debate.'' In some circles, it's called the ``Uncle Napoleon'' syndrome. A critically acclaimed 1996 comic novel by Iranian writer Iraj Pezeshkzad, ``My Uncle Napoleon,'' addressed the national paranoia that outsiders are pulling the strings in Iran. But more important, Iran's nuclear program taps into deeply felt ideas of Persian pride and self-image, which place Iran at the center of the region's culture and politics. Long before Iran's disclosure of uranium enrichment, officials said the United States must treat Iran as ``an equal'' before Tehran would consider any dialogue or relations, which were severed by Washington after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. ``The Westerners are seeking to deprive us of our right to peaceful nuclear power,'' former President Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshippers at Friday prayers at Tehran University last month. The United States and its allies believe Iran is steadily moving toward development of nuclear arms. Such a scenario raises a host of fears, including a regional arms race, weapons-grade uranium reaching terrorists and the prospect of a nuclear standoff between Israel and Iran. Israel is widely believed to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons but has kept the information secret and refuses to confirm or deny the reports. Iran insists it wants only energy-producing nuclear reactors and claims Islamic principles do not allow nuclear weapons, even though they are held by neighboring Pakistan. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has framed the dispute in terms of ``haves and have nots,'' with the powerful West trying to withhold technology from weaker nations. It's a message that carries well across the Muslim world, earning Ahmadinejad titles such as the ``Islamic Chavez'' in reference to his anti-U.S. counterpart in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. ``They fear that Iran would set an example for other nations,'' Ahmadinejad told a political group in Tehran. ``This will eventually lead to the downfall of the `global arrogance''' - one of the terms applied to the United States along with the ``Great Satan.'' During a trip last month to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, Ahmadinejad received star treatment. At a university in Jakarta, he drew huge cheers as he lashed out at ``the double standards'' imposed by the big powers. He later told Indonesia's president that ``proud'' Islamic countries should pool their technology. Ahmadinejad's stature among Muslims also rose with his May 9 letter to President Bush, which included a litany of Muslim grievances from the treatment of Palestinians to the plight of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. ``In era when the Muslim world is starving for heroes and leaders, Ahmadinejad is certainly being perceived by young Muslims in that role,'' noted Ehsan Ahrari, a Virginia-based political analyst who follows Islamic affairs. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Khamenei Warns U.S. Against Attacking Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 4, 2006 11:31 AM AP Photo VAH103 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned Sunday that energy supplies from the Gulf region would be disrupted if Iran came under attack from the United States and insisted his country would not give up the right to produce nuclear fuel. ``If you make any mistake (and invade Iran), definitely shipment of energy from this region will be seriously jeopardized. You have to know this,'' Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on state-run radio. Khamenei warned that the U.S. and its allies would not be able to provide security for all oil shipments that cross the strategic Hormuz Strait near Iran should a disruption occur. ``You will never be able to protect energy supply in this region. You will not be able to do it,'' he said, addressing the West. Khamenei, however, did not elaborate on how oil supplies would be disrupted and insisted Iran would not start any war. ``We won't be the initiator of war,'' he said. The supreme leader's harsh rhetoric came a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a breakthrough in negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program was possible and welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States. Ahmadinejad said late Saturday that his government would not rush to judge an incentives package offered by Western countries to persuade Iran to cease enriching uranium. Khamenei appeared to take a tougher line Sunday. ``That a country has no right to achieve proficiency in nuclear technology means it has to beg a few Western and European countries for energy in the next 20 years,'' he said. ``Which honest leader is ready to accept this?'' Khamenei said Iran was not a threat to any country and called accusations that Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons ``wrong, a sheer lie.'' ``We have not threatened any neighbor,'' he said. Ahmadinejad, however, has repeatedly questioned Israel's right to exist and said the country should be wiped off the map. The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons, but Tehran insists it is only for generating electricity. ``We have no target to use a nuclear bomb. It's against Islamic teachings,'' Khamenei said Sunday. The Islamic republic's supreme leader said that the production and maintenance of an atomic bomb would ``impose a lot of irrelevant costs,'' and that a state like Iran did not need such a weapon. ``Unlike the U.S., we have no claim to dominate the world,'' he added. In a major policy shift, the United States agreed this week to join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran, provided Tehran suspends all suspect nuclear activities. It would be the first major public negotiations between Washington and Tehran in more than 25 years. Six world powers agreed Thursday to offer Iran a new package of incentives if it gives up uranium enrichment and to impose sanctions if it refuses. Washington warned Friday that Iran does not have much time to respond, suggesting the window could close and be replaced by penalties. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns of Oil Disruption if Attacked From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 4, 2006 10:01 PM AP Photo WX104 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday that Western accusations Iran seeks nuclear weapons are a ``sheer lie,'' and he declared that attempts to punish Tehran would jeopardize the world's oil supply. The implied threat was dismissed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said Iran was too dependent on oil revenues to disrupt the flow of crude. She also put Iran on notice that the incentives offered by the West to suspend its nuclear program are not open-ended, although she declined to say Tehran had a firm deadline to respond. Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, made his comments in a speech broadcast live on state radio. ``If you make any mistake (punish or attack Iran), definitely shipment of energy from this region will be seriously jeopardized,'' Khamenei said, addressing Western nations. Khamenei said the United States and its allies would be unable to secure oil shipments passing out of the Gulf through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the Indian Ocean. At its narrowest point, the strait separating Iran from the Arabian peninsula is 44 miles wide. ``You will never be able to protect the energy supply in this region. You will not be able to do it,'' he said. Khamenei, however, did not specify how oil supplies would be disrupted, and he insisted to the assembled throng that Iran would not be ``the initiator of war.'' In a television interview later Sunday, Rice sought to play down Khamenei's remarks. ``I think that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind,'' she said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``Obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were to be disrupted on the market.'' Last week, Rice said the United States was prepared to join the European Union and Germany in negotiations with Iran only if Tehran agreed to stop enriching uranium. The Western nations fear Iran is using what it calls a peaceful civilian nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons. Khamenei said Iran was not a threat to any country. ``We have not threatened any neighbor,'' he said, calling the accusation that Iran is seeking an atom bomb ``a sheer lie.'' ``It's against Islamic teachings,'' he said. However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly has questioned Israel's right to exist and said in October the Jewish state should be ``wiped off the map.'' Israel is believed to possess the world's sixth-largest nuclear arsenal. Khamenei's harsh rhetoric came a day after Ahmadinejad said a breakthrough in negotiations was possible. He welcomed the U.S. offer to join talks but rejected preconditions. Ahmadinejad attended Khamenei's speech Sunday. Contrary to Khamenei's remarks, other Iranian officials have repeatedly ruled out using oil as weapon. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter and has the second-largest reserves in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Khamenei's remarks were more important for what he did not say. ``He didn't close the door for dialogue or understanding with the U.S.,'' Leilaz said. ``Khamenei even didn't close the door for possibility of Iran suspending uranium enrichment. Iran is after maximum concessions from America.'' Rajabali Mazrouei, a former reformist lawmaker and political analyst, said Iran would be unable to close the strait. ``Khamenei's comments should be assessed as part of usual exchange harsh of rhetoric between Iran and the United States,'' he said. ``Iran is in a position to temporarily disrupt oil shipments from the region but it will not be in a position to close the Strait of Hormuz permanently.'' Khamenei's remarks appeared to reflect a deep concern for his country's future energy supplies. Despite its huge oil reserves, Iran already must import a large portion of the gasoline and diesel it needs because domestic refinery capacity is insufficient. ``That a country has no right to achieve proficiency in nuclear technology means it has to beg a few Western and European countries for energy in the next 20 years,'' he said. ``Which honest leader is ready to accept this?'' After months of threats and counter-threats, Washington said last week it was prepared to join talks with Iran if it stopped enriching uranium, which can produce fuel for electricity-generating reactors or, if sufficiently processed, the fissile core for a warhead. In conjunction with the U.S. offer, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany drew up a fresh economic incentive package for Iran last week but made it conditional on an end to enrichment. Iran could face sanctions if it declines the package. Ahmadinejad said the Iranians would study the offer carefully but rejected preconditions. Rice said the offer is not open-ended. ``I'm not one for timelines and specific schedules, but I think it's fair to say that we really do have to have this settled over a matter of weeks, not months,'' she said. Javier Solana, the chief EU diplomat, was expected in Tehran soon to deliver the new incentive package. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Studying Iran's Retaliation Options From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 4, 2006 4:46 AM AP Photo GFX988 By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - If cornered by the West over its nuclear program, Iran could direct Hezbollah to enlist its widespread international support network to aid in terrorist attacks, intelligence officials say. In interviews with The Associated Press, several Western intelligence officials said they have seen signs that Hezbollah's fundraisers, recruiters and criminal elements could be adapted to provide logistical help to terrorist operatives. Such help could include obtaining forged travel documents or off-the-shelf technology - global positioning equipment and night goggles, for example - that could be used for military purposes. The senior officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive positions they occupy. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed hundreds of American servicemen. The group's Saudi wing, in coordination with the larger Lebanese Hezbollah, is blamed for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 . Tensions between Iran and the U.S. and its allies have grown over Iran's expanding nuclear program. Iran insists its aims are peaceful; leading U.S. officials say they are convinced the Iranians intend to develop a nuclear weapon within the next decade. John Negroponte, head of the U.S. intelligence network, suggested in an interview aired Friday by the British Broadcasting Corp. that an Iranian bomb could be a fact in as little as four years away, although he admitted, ``We don't have clear-cut knowledge.'' The U.S. and five other world powers agreed Thursday on a plan designed to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Iran's president, without directly mentioning the proposal, pledged Friday that the West would not deprive his country of nuclear technology. The Bush administration and U.S. allies know Iran could order attacks. Some officials believe that threat is a bargaining chip worth more to Iran if kept in reserve. Given that diplomacy could fail to defuse the nuclear standoff, U.S. intelligence agencies are studying Iran's options to retaliate: using oil as a weapon, attacking Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, unleashing Hezbollah or deploying other tactics. To the State Department, Hezbollah is a militant Lebanese group classified as a terrorist organization. Its terrorist wing, the Islamic Jihad Organization, is a global threat with cells in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, South America, Asia and North America. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other single terrorist organization. Yet in many countries, Hezbollah is praised for providing education, medical care and housing, particularly in Lebanon's south, and raising money for it is legal. So far there are no signs the Iranian-backed group is planning an imminent attack on U.S. interests. But that possibility has counterterrorism agencies keeping close watch as the friction with Iran grows. U.S. analysts believe the potential is greater for Iran to use terrorism to retaliate, rather than to strike first. But they have considered scenarios under which Iran may view its own pre-emptive attack as a deterrent. One senior official said that if Iran was backed into a corner and considered U.S.-led military action as inevitable, the Iranians might calculate that terrorism could break international unity, increase pressure on the U.S. or shift American public opinion. U.S. analysts, however, are cautious in their judgments about what might lead Iran to order strikes. Hezbollah, which means Party of God, was founded in 1982 to respond to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The radical Shiite organization advocates for Israel's elimination and the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon modeled after the religious theocracy in Iran. With some exceptions, Hezbollah has not targeted the United States in recent years - a strategic decision that gives the group more freedom to operate, according to one U.S. counterterrorism official. On orders from Iran, Hezbollah was tied to a string of kidnappings and assassinations of Westerners in the 1980s, including the abduction of the CIA's station chief in Tehran, William Buckley, in 1984. Hezbollah is accused of bombing the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina in the early 1990s, killing more than 100. The group denies the charges. A former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said before and right after the Sept. 11 attacks that Hezbollah was believed to have the largest embedded terrorist network inside the U.S. ``I have no reason to believe that there has been a dismantlement of that capability,'' said former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. Steven Monblatt, the head of the Organization of American States' Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, said tensions with Iran could lead Hezbollah to take steps to prepare attacks on Western interests in Latin America and elsewhere. ``I think it is legitimate to be concerned about situations where terrorist groups will not have an operational base, but will have made the preparations to establish one,'' said Monblatt, a former State Department official. ``I don't know anyone alleging an operational cell right now. Now, how do you distinguish an operational cell from a sleeper operation - a more kind of logistical base?'' Leadership in Hezbollah is exercised by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a Shiite Muslim cleric who took over after Sheik Abbas Musawi was killed in southern Lebanon in an Israeli helicopter strike in 1992. Hezbollah gets significant support from Iran, Shiite communities and particularly the Lebanese diaspora. One official said the group has access to several hundred million dollars a year, much of it going to the social service network in southern Lebanon. The organization has been linked to all kinds of organized crime, including drug trafficking, drug counterfeiting and stolen baby formula. The substantial profits are thought to be funneled almost entirely back to the Middle East. Kevin Brock, a career FBI agent who is now deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, recently told reporters that the U.S. has active investigations into Hezbollah around the world. ``The prioritization obviously has been al-Qaida, but that doesn't mean Hezbollah has dropped off the screen by any stretch of the imagination,'' Brock said. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have had success in breaking up Hezbollah-linked crime rings, including a cigarette-smuggling operation in North Carolina. This year, the Justice Department announced an indictment charging 19 people with a global racketeering conspiracy to sell counterfeit rolling papers, contraband cigarettes and counterfeit Viagra. Portions of the profits, law enforcers allege, went to Hezbollah. Extensive operations have been uncovered in South America, where Hezbollah is well connected to the drug trade, particularly in the region where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. The area has a large Shiite Muslim immigrant population. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 IRNA: Larijani: Iran ready to guarantee no diversion from civilian use , June 1, IRNA Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani that Iran is prepared to guarantee no diversion from civilian use of nuclear energy. In an interview with Italian daily, La Republica, published on Thursday, Larijani said that Iran has not objection to diplomatic resolution of the crisis the big power manipulated it as they wished. He added that Iran does not heed any precondition for talks for removal of Tehran-Washington logjam. "Iran is actively working for diplomatic means to leave behind the current crisis and understanding can only be reached by practical compliance with international laws and genuine talks without any pressure," he added. On giving guarantee to the West about peaceful use of nuclear technology, Larijani asked "When Iran agrees to inspection of its entire nuclear sites by UN nuclear watchdog, how can it deviate from peaceful path?". Larijani said he is certain that in response, the West will say that once Iran manages to access this technology, it will immediately end its membership in NPT. "However, it is impossible to condemn someone before any crime is committed. As a responsible country, we are prepared to give any guarantee." In reply to another question about the reason for Iran's insistence on uranium enrichment, he said that similar to France, Iran intends to make progress. "Our oil reserves are limited and will end some day. We do not wish to rely on others to supply our required fuel and there is no international mechanism to guarantee this. "We are willing to give any guarantee, while the West cannot say that it is possible to be an NPT member and produce nuclear weapons. Neither can it say that the signatories to NPT are banned from civilian research studies to which they are entitled. After all we are actually prepared for talks," added the SNSC secretary. 2326/1416 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Warns Iran Against a Slow Response From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 4, 2006 7:01 PM AP Photo WX104 By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put Iran on notice Sunday that the incentives offered by the West to suspend its nuclear program are not open-ended, although she declined to say Tehran had a firm deadline to respond. ``I'm not one for timelines and specific schedules, but I think it's fair to say that we really do have to have this settled over a matter of weeks, not months,'' Rice said. Asked whether the U.S. and its allies expected an answer by mid-July when the world's economic powers attend a summit in Russia, Rice said, ``We'll see where we are at that time.'' ``No one among these six powers is prepared to let this simply drag out with Iran continuing to make progress on its nuclear program,'' she told ``Fox News Sunday.'' Rice said it was essential that Iran suspend suspect nuclear activity because ``you don't want the negotiations to be used as a cover for continued progress along the nuclear front.'' The six nations - the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, France, China and Russia - agreed Thursday to offer Iran new incentives if it would give up uranium enrichment. Rice would not give any details about the offer, which is to be hand delivered to the Iranians in the next few days by the European Union's foreign policy chief. Rice said the proposal represented ``a major opportunity'' for Iran. ``It's sort of a major crossroads for Iran and it's perhaps not surprising that they will need a little bit of time to look at it. ``But the fact is there are two paths, and we hope they're going to choose the path that is a path away from confrontation and toward a solution,'' the chief U.S. diplomat said. The nations said they would punish Iran, through the U.N. Security Council, if it refused to accept the terms. ``We are absolutely satisfied with the commitments of our allies to a robust path in the Security Council should this not work,'' Rice said. But she did not directly answer questions about whether China and Russia have agreed to impose sanctions on the Iranians if they do not accept the incentives package. The United States and other Western nations suspect Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons. Tehran insists it is only for generating electricity. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Saturday that a breakthrough was possible and welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States. But Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted Sunday that his country would not give up the right to produce nuclear fuel. He also warned that energy supplies from the Gulf region would be disrupted if Iran came under attack from the United States. Rice dismissed that talk. ``I think that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind,'' Rice said. She cited Iran's heavy dependence on oil revenue. ``So obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were to be disrupted on the market,'' she said. Rice also made clear that if the first major public negotiations in more than 25 years involving Washington and Tehran go ahead, ``this is not an offer of a grand bargain somehow with Iran. This is not an offer to let bygones be bygones and to forget the record of terrorism or the human rights.'' Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., praised the Bush administration's offer of direct talks with Iran as a positive step in part because it is ``keeping all our allies on the same page.'' ``Iranians realize there are consequences short of sanctions that could affect their economic growth,'' Biden said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``We should not take military action now,'' he added. ``It should be the last resort. There is no imminent threat.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Rumsfeld: War May Alienate Muslim Nations From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 6:01 AM AP Photo SIN105 By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer SINGAPORE (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Saturday he is concerned that the war in Iraq could alienate people in Southeast Asia's Muslim nations, where he will travel next week. Speaking to military leaders at an annual security conference, Rumsfeld said that the ill feelings will not force the U.S. to leave Iraq prematurely and that the world eventually will understand that American troops are not there to take over Iraqi oil fields, as some critics have suggested. ``We don't intend to occupy that country for any period of time,'' Rumsfeld said in response to a question from the audience. ``Our troops would like to go home and they will go home.'' ``And they will go home at a pace when we're able, along with our friends and allies with the coalition, of passing off responsibility to the Iraqi security forces, so they can pull up their socks and take responsibility for their own country.'' Rumsfeld took aim at Russia and China for allowing Iran's involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a group he said has stated opposition to terrorism and extremists. He said he finds it ``passing strange'' to bring the ``leading terrorist nation in the world into an organization that says it's against terror.'' Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been invited to attend the annual SCO summit in Shanghai this month. Iran is an observer to group, which also includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and has applied for full membership. Rumsfeld said he believes China will eventually be more open about its military buildup - an issue that dominated last year's military conference here. Other nations, he said, have a right to understand why China is expanding its military and there could be repercussions if China does not explain itself. Lack of transparency, he said, could affect other nations' decisions on whether to do business there. Rumsfeld also issued a broad defense of Pakistan's efforts to quell terrorism, including growing problems with violent insurgents who travel across the border into Afghanistan. He said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been less successful rooting out extremists in the tribal areas along the border, but is improving. In his speech, Rumsfeld said that security cooperation among nations in Southeast Asia is expanding but could be set back if China, Russia and North Korea don't become more open and less threatening. Rumsfeld pledged that the United States will stay involved in Southeast Asia. He pointed to improved relationships between the United States and Japan, India, Indonesia, South Korea and Pakistan. ``More nations are freer than ever before, yet freedom is increasingly under assault - by the designs of violent extremists and rogue regimes,'' said Rumsfeld. As countries work together to fight terror threats and bring aid during disasters, there are still concerns that he said the U.S. will monitor. ``The way ahead for other nations will be something that our country will watch closely,'' said Rumsfeld. He said that includes attempts by Russia to restrict the freedom of neighboring countries, the continued lack of transparency in China's military budget and threats by North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons. The future of the Pacific Rim, said Rumsfeld, will depend on the path North Korea takes - whether it continues to repress its people and threaten its neighbors or follows Libya's example that ``leads back to membership in the community of nations.'' Libya has renounced weapons of mass destruction and agreed to cooperate in the hunt for terrorists. In return, the U.S. has said it would restore full diplomatic relations. Representatives from about two dozen nations were invited to the defense leaders' conference, which has been hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies for five years. On this trip, Rumsfeld also plans to visit Vietnam and Indonesia, then travel to Brussels for a NATO defense ministers meeting. --- On the Net: Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Studying Iran's Retaliation Options From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 8:46 AM AP Photo GFX988 By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - If cornered by the West over its nuclear program, Iran could direct Hezbollah to enlist its widespread international support network to aid in terrorist attacks, intelligence officials say. In interviews with The Associated Press, several Western intelligence officials said they have seen signs that Hezbollah's fundraisers, recruiters and criminal elements could be adapted to provide logistical help to terrorist operatives. Such help could include obtaining forged travel documents or off-the-shelf technology - global positioning equipment and night goggles, for example - that could be used for military purposes. The senior officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive positions they occupy. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The group's Saudi wing, in coordination with the larger Lebanese Hezbollah, is blamed for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed hundreds of American servicemen. Tensions between Iran and the U.S. and its allies have grown over Iran's expanding nuclear program. Iran insists its aims are peaceful; leading U.S. officials say they are convinced the Iranians intend to develop a nuclear weapon within the next decade. John Negroponte, head of the U.S. intelligence network, suggested in an interview aired Friday by the British Broadcasting Corp. that an Iranian bomb could be a fact in as little as four years away, although he admitted, ``We don't have clear-cut knowledge.'' The U.S. and five other world powers agreed Thursday on a plan designed to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Iran's president, without directly mentioning the proposal, pledged Friday that the West would not deprive his country of nuclear technology. The Bush administration and U.S. allies know Iran could order attacks. Some officials believe that threat is a bargaining chip worth more to Iran if kept in reserve. Given that diplomacy could fail to defuse the nuclear standoff, U.S. intelligence agencies are studying Iran's options to retaliate: using oil as a weapon, attacking Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, unleashing Hezbollah or deploying other tactics. To the State Department, Hezbollah is a militant Lebanese group classified as a terrorist organization. Its terrorist wing, the Islamic Jihad Organization, is a global threat with cells in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, South America, Asia and North America. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other single terrorist organization. Yet in many countries, Hezbollah is praised for providing education, medical care and housing, particularly in Lebanon's south, and raising money for it is legal. So far there are no signs the Iranian-backed group is planning an imminent attack on U.S. interests. But that possibility has counterterrorism agencies keeping close watch as the friction with Iran grows. U.S. analysts believe the potential is greater for Iran to use terrorism to retaliate, rather than to strike first. But they have considered scenarios under which Iran may view its own pre-emptive attack as a deterrent. One senior official said that if Iran was backed into a corner and considered U.S.-led military action as inevitable, the Iranians might calculate that terrorism could break international unity, increase pressure on the U.S. or shift American public opinion. U.S. analysts, however, are cautious in their judgments about what might lead Iran to order strikes. Hezbollah, which means Party of God, was founded in 1982 to respond to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The radical Shiite organization advocates for Israel's elimination and the establishment of an Islamic government in Lebanon modeled after the religious theocracy in Iran. With some exceptions, Hezbollah has not targeted the United States in recent years - a strategic decision that gives the group more freedom to operate, according to one U.S. counterterrorism official. On orders from Iran, Hezbollah was tied to a string of kidnappings and assassinations of Westerners in the 1980s, including the abduction of the CIA's station chief in Tehran, William Buckley, in 1984. Hezbollah is accused of bombing the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina in the early 1990s, killing more than 100. The group denies the charges. A former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said before and right after the Sept. 11 attacks that Hezbollah was believed to have the largest embedded terrorist network inside the U.S. ``I have no reason to believe that there has been a dismantlement of that capability,'' said former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla. Steven Monblatt, the head of the Organization of American States' Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, said tensions with Iran could lead Hezbollah to take steps to prepare attacks on Western interests in Latin America and elsewhere. ``I think it is legitimate to be concerned about situations where terrorist groups will not have an operational base, but will have made the preparations to establish one,'' said Monblatt, a former State Department official. ``I don't know anyone alleging an operational cell right now. Now, how do you distinguish an operational cell from a sleeper operation - a more kind of logistical base?'' Leadership in Hezbollah is exercised by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a Shiite Muslim cleric who took over after Sheik Abbas Musawi was killed in southern Lebanon in an Israeli helicopter strike in 1992. Hezbollah gets significant support from Iran, Shiite communities and particularly the Lebanese diaspora. One official said the group has access to several hundred million dollars a year, much of it going to the social service network in southern Lebanon. The organization has been linked to all kinds of organized crime, including drug trafficking, drug counterfeiting and stolen baby formula. The substantial profits are thought to be funneled almost entirely back to the Middle East. Kevin Brock, a career FBI agent who is now deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, recently told reporters that the U.S. has active investigations into Hezbollah around the world. ``The prioritization obviously has been al-Qaida, but that doesn't mean Hezbollah has dropped off the screen by any stretch of the imagination,'' Brock said. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have had success in breaking up Hezbollah-linked crime rings, including a cigarette-smuggling operation in North Carolina. This year, the Justice Department announced an indictment charging 19 people with a global racketeering conspiracy to sell counterfeit rolling papers, contraband cigarettes and counterfeit Viagra. Portions of the profits, law enforcers allege, went to Hezbollah. Extensive operations have been uncovered in South America, where Hezbollah is well connected to the drug trade, particularly in the region where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. The area has a large Shiite Muslim immigrant population. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free | A giant awakes The major powers yesterday ruled out military action against Iran, but in truth it has never been an option against the Middle East's most influential force Essay by Reza Aslan Saturday June 3, 2006 The Guardian After months of pressure from both sides of the political divide in Washington DC, the Bush administration on Wednesday announced that it would join Europe in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme. The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, presented the decision as proof that the United States is serious about pursuing all avenues of diplomacy before resorting to a military option. But if this week's announcement indicates anything, it is that the White House has finally begun to recognise what its own policy advisers and military analysts have been privately saying for some time: there is no military option with regard to Iran. That's because the invasion of Iraq has completely reshaped the dynamics of the region, making Iran the new political power in the Middle East. With its two nearest enemies - Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - gone, Iran has firmly secured its interests in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Through its ties with Hizbullah, Iran has managed to fill the power vacuum left by Syria's abrupt withdrawal from Lebanon. At the same time, Iran has taken advantage of the cut in international funding to the Hamas-dominated Palestinian authority to make up its economic shortfall, thus gaining an even firmer foothold in the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, record oil prices and booming trade with Russia, China and India have allowed Iran to shrug off any economic pressure to give up its nuclear program. Not since the takeover of the American embassy in 1979-80 has Iran been in a more favourable bargaining position vis-a-vis the United States. In fact, one could argue that when it comes to the nuclear issue, Iran is holding all the cards. After all, while it is clear that for years Iran has been hiding the size and scope of its nuclear programme so as not to attract unwelcome attention, technically it has yet to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (a testament to the inherent weakness of the treaty). That partly explains why the International Atomic Energy Association has been loath to issue anything more than a few tepid appeals for Iran to voluntarily suspend its nuclear programme and return to the negotiating table. It is also why there has been so much hesitation from the international community to refer Iran to the UN security council. Russia and China are not the only countries resisting calls to punish Iran. Brazil, South Korea, Japan, and other signatories of the non-proliferation treaty are rightly concerned about what effect sanctioning Iran would have on their own burgeoning nuclear programmes. Given the relative weakness of the US bargaining position, it is no wonder that there are some in the Bush administration - notably the vice-president, Dick Cheney - who continue to insist that a military solution to America's Iran problem is not just a viable option, but the best option available to the US. (Last month, presumably as the administration was mulling over the decision to hold direct talks with Iran, a number of reports surfaced claiming that the Pentagon, under specific instructions from the vice-president's office, has been using an Iranian terrorist organisation called the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to conduct stealth military and intelligence operations in Iran in anticipation of a possible military attack). As Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker, there are even those in the US government who are convinced that a sustained bombing campaign would not only halt Iran's nuclear programme; it would, apparently, so weaken the clerical regime that Iranians would be compelled to rise up and overthrow it. Putting aside the fact that the US has neither the military resources nor the domestic support to fight a second pre-emptive war in the region (much less one directly on Iraq's borders), and ignoring, for a moment, the almost unanimous conviction among American security analysts that military strikes would delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few years at most, what Dick Cheney and other proponents of an American invasion generally fail to address in their drumbeat for war is Iran's unprecedented ability to retaliate against US interests by using its proxies in the Middle East. Iran's military reach in the region has never extended so far. In Lebanon, Hizbullah has vowed to respond to any attack on its benefactor by launching its own missiles into Israel. (Such an attack would undoubtedly prompt a fierce Israeli response, which would destabilise Lebanon's fragile government and lead to another decades-long civil war.) In the Palestinian territories, Iran has long had a ready-made militia in the form of Islamic Jihad. Now, thanks to the tens of millions of dollars Iran is pouring into the new Palestinian Authority, Iran can also rely on Hamas to act as an extension of its military forces. But Iran can do the most harm in Iraq, where Iran's infiltration of Shia militias, especially the ruthless and well-equipped Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, gives it the ability to attack not just American interests, but American soldiers. Indeed, Iran's influence over its neighbour is such that any hope of salvaging a stable, viable government in Iraq would vanish with the first bomb to fall upon Tehran. Furthermore, those who imagine that bombing Iran would somehow lead to regime change are merely confirming the almost wilful ignorance displayed by the Bush administration when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike the people of Iraq, who were forced together by artificial borders and fabricated nationalities, Iranians are united by an almost exaggerated sense of nationalism that transcends all boundaries of politics or piety. Perhaps the only way to rally the Iranian people around a regime that the vast majority of them despise is to rain bombs on the country. That is precisely what happened in 1980, when Hussein, spurred by the United States, launched a surprise invasion of Iran. At the time, Iran was in the midst of profound political and social turmoil as a host of competing factions - from the Marxists to the Social Democrats to the clerical establishment - vied with one another for control over the new government. Hussein believed that this post-revolutionary chaos would allow him a quick victory over his enemy. Instead, Iranians immediately put aside their differences and united behind their charismatic spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who then used the emergency powers he had been granted to push aside the democratically inclined transitional government and transform what began as a vibrant experiment in indigenous Islamic democracy into a fascist clerical oligarchy. Despite its new found position as a potent regional power, however, Iran is even more fragmented today than it was three decades ago. The clerical regime likes to proclaim that all Iranians are unanimous in insisting on their inalienable right to pursue nuclear technology, whatever the costs. But underneath the facade of a unified Iran is a raucous debate over how best to proceed with the country's nuclear ambitions. A great many Iranians, including some powerful conservatives, are incensed with the way negotiations with Europe have broken down under the leadership of Iran's bellicose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The merchant class is up in arms at the prospect of suffering even greater international isolation. And Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the last presidential elections, the pragmatic cleric and wily politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has even gone so far as to publicly denounce the president (something unheard of in Iranian politics) for essentially destroying any hope Iran may have had to pursue its nuclear research in peace. In the meantime, the chorus of voices in Iran calling for a negotiated settlement is growing louder by the day. But the moment the bombs start to fall on Iran, this debate would come to a halt. As happens in times of national security, political dissent would be stifled and the regime given unchecked wartime authority to do whatever it thought best to "protect" the country. Already those activists, like the Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who call for an end to the nuclear showdown with the west, have been labelled American stooges and possible threats to Iran's national security. Fortunately, despite the machinations of the vice president, the Bush administration seems to be slowly coming to terms with the fact that it may have no choice but to fully engage Iran in diplomacy. And while Ahmadinejad continues to scoff at any conditions placed upon Iran by the US for direct dialogue, the truth is he has no say in the matter. It is one of the peculiar hallmarks of the Iranian government that the country's democratically elected president is responsible for virtually no foreign or domestic policy decisions. All such determinations are made solely by the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamene'i, who, on more than one occasion, has indicated his willingness to pursue dialogue with the US. Direct negotiations between the US and Iran have the potential not only to put an end to the nuclear impasse, but also to open the door for further dialogue on other issues of mutual concern, including the security situation in Iraq. No one can doubt that the last three decades of US policy toward Iran have failed to either bring down the clerical regime or make Iran more democratic. Indeed, it has done the exact opposite, so that the regime is now stronger than ever and the democratic opposition on the verge of collapse. It's time for a new approach to Iran, one that replaces America's failed sanctions policy with a package of security guarantees and economic incentives in exchange for international cooperation with its civilian nuclear programme. In other words, the same package being offered to North Korea. Of course, unlike North Korea, Iran is a sophisticated and technology-savvy country that boasts adult literacy rates approaching 90%. The vast majority of Iranians - nearly 70% of whom are under 30 years old - are fiercely pro-American and would like nothing more than an end to the clerical regime. But in a country in which nearly a third of the population is unemployed and the average annual rate of inflation is 24%, most Iranians are far too concerned with eking out a living to consider rising en masse against their government. Neo-conservative fantasies notwithstanding, Iran is no longer a rogue state teetering on the brink of a popular revolt. For better or worse, Iran is now a sturdy and stable political powerhouse in an increasingly volatile region. It is long past time for the Bush administration to begin treating it as such. If the US can put aside its ideological reservations and confront Iran the way it confronted the Soviet Union and China - with an aggressive policy of interdependent trade relations in the hope that economic growth will foster democratic change - it could do so much more than reign in Iran's nuclear ambitions. By forcing the country out of its isolation and giving Iranians access to the global market, the US could achieve the very regime change it has been striving for all these years. · Reza Aslan is the Iranian-born author of No god but God Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Iran gives ground on US plan Tehran officials signal their willingness to talk about nuclear power after Washington's U-turn Jason Burke in Paris Sunday June 4, 2006 The Observer Iran seemed finally to be backing away from a confrontation with America and Europe over its nuclear programme, as senior officials and politicians in Tehran said yesterday that proposals put forward last week might form the basis for negotiation. State-run television reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that a deal was feasible, provided Tehran kept a minimum right to atomic energy. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki added that he welcomed unconditional talks with all parties involved, including the United States. 'We think that, if there is goodwill, a breakthrough to get out of a situation [the EU and US] have created... is possible,' Mottaki told a press conference. 'We think the views we will present our partners could prepare the ground for a comprehensive understanding.' However, Mottaki added that Iran would not cease uranium enrichment, a Western precondition for talks. Last week's diplomacy showed no signs of slowing this weekend. The EU's foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, is due to arrive in Tehran today or tomorrow to hand over the most recent negotiating offer - the first backed by all major Western powers. Details of the deal have not been made public, but it is believed to include massive assistance with a civilian nuclear programme and a series of major trade concessions. If Iran rejects it, there is the possibility of sanctions, and eventually of military action. There was no immediate reaction from the Foreign Office to the statements of Ahmadinejad and Mottaki, but the new line was privately welcomed by Western diplomats. 'It's very early days but hopefully it's a vindication of our strategy,' said one Paris-based diplomat. Others, however, pointing out Iran's labyrinthine command structure, said that comments from the president and the foreign minister might not be the last word. 'There's a good chance that they are just playing for time,' said one. Others doubt the good faith of the Americans, who last week said they were prepared to negotiate directly with Iran for the first time in 27 years. 'The Americans have learnt the lessons of Iraq and are looking to build as broad an alliance as possible to give them the greatest possible room for manuvre later on,' said one analyst. Iran announced in April that it had enriched uranium for the first time. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead - but tens of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large scale. Iran, which says it intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment by late 2006, seems to have in effect reached the end of a period of massive advance and investment in its nuclear programme. It may well be the case that scientists have advised the political leadership that a pause - during which negotiations could continue - would not cause a real delay. Iran maintains that, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes - such as the production of reactor fuel - but has also occasionally indicated that it may suspend large-scale uranium enrichment if that helped to ease international tension. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 IRNA: President says Iran ready for 'fair', 'unconditional' talks - , June 3, IRNA - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Saturday Iran is ready to hold 'fair and unconditional' talks with the West on Iran's nuclear issue. The president, speaking to thousands of people gathering at the shrine of late Imam Khomeini, however, stressed that Iran rejects any compromise on its absolute rights over uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Full story on president's remarks will follow shortly. 1771/1771 ***************************************************************** 23 IRNA: Holy See: Diplomacy must resolve crisis on Iran nuclear program , June 3, IRNA The Vatican said on Saturday that diplomacy can and must resolve the crisis over Iranian nuclear program. "The Holy See is firmly convinced that even the present difficulties can and must be overcome through the diplomatic path, using all means which diplomacy can avail itself of," Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement. "The Holy See supports, as always, every initiative aimed at open and constructive dialogue," Navarro-Valls said. In a major policy shift, the United States said earlier this week that it will join France, Britain and Germany in talks with Iran calling for suspension enrichment. It would be the first major public negotiations between Washington and Tehran in more than 25 years. The Vatican spokesman said: "In particular, it appears necessary that, through confidential contacts, those elements that objectively impede reciprocal trust be removed, without ever dismissing any sign of goodwill given by either side, and having regard for the honor and sensitivity of every country." Using that approach, both sides can move closer together, Navarro-Valls said. ***************************************************************** 24 IRNA: Supreme Leader: No consensus reached against Iran's nuclear activities - , June 4, IRNA Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei here Sunday emphasized that no consensus has been reached in the international community on Iran's nuclear program. Ayatollah Khamenei said that the facts are clear as far as the Iranian people and wise people of the world are concerned. However, a lie is being propagated by the Americans and several of their allies, the Supreme Leader added. The Supreme Leader's remarks were part of his address to a huge crowd of people gathered at the late Imam Khomeini's mausoleum in southern Tehran to mark the 17th anniversary of his demise. Enemies of the Islamic Republic say there is a global consensus against Iran or that Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb or nuclear weapons and is a violator of human rights, the Supreme Leader said. The US and Zionist mass media have launched a propaganda war on Iran in order to sway international public opinion against the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei said. But Iran has won the support of 116 members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as well as those of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), he pointed out, and stressed that independent countries of the world support Iran's nuclear program. Even countries which supported the US in its allegations against Iran have made it known they were not acting freely and that US pressure made them parrot the allegations, Ayatollah Khamenei added. ***************************************************************** 25 BBC: Tehran warns of fuel disruptions Last Updated: Sunday, 4 June 2006 [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks on Sunday] Khamenei spoke on the anniversary of the death of his predecessor Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned that fuel shipments from the Gulf region could be disrupted if the US makes a "wrong move". In a speech on state TV, Ayatollah Khamenei also said accusations that Iran intended to make a nuclear bomb amounted to a "sheer lie". He insisted Iran would not give up its right to produce nuclear fuel. Tehran has agreed to study proposals drawn up by six world powers to defuse the row over Iran's nuclear programme. The proposals are due to be delivered by the EU's foreign policy head, Javier Solana, within days. The precise details of the proposals are not known, but they aim to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear work - a step which Iran has repeatedly said it will not take. 'No bomb' In his speech on Sunday, marking the 17th anniversary of the death of his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei said suggestions Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme were a lie. "We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons to be against Islamic rules," he said. The Americans, with the frenzied propaganda, want to influence world public opinion. However, they haven't yet managed to do so Ayatollah Khamenei Khamenei: Speech excerpts The ayatollah launched a scathing attack on the US, which he said was the most hated country in the world. "How do you talk about human rights and opposition to terrorism when your government has prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?" he asked. He said the US was trying to influence world public opinion with their "frenzied propaganda" but questioned whether there was indeed an international consensus against Iran's nuclear programme. Islamic countries, Non-Aligned Movement nations and other independent countries all backed Tehran, the Iranian leader said. He warned the US action on Iran could disrupt energy supplies. "If you make a wrong move regarding Iran, definitely the energy flow in this region will be seriously endangered," he said. He did not specify how the supplies would be disrupted. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off the warning. "I think we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind," she told Fox News. "I think something like 80% of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue, and so obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were disrupted on the market." Iran has the world's second biggest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and the second biggest gas reserves after Russia. Proposals Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will consider proposals from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, to defuse the tensions. The proposals have not been made public but sources say they could include giving Iran a nuclear reactor and an assured supply of enriched uranium. But President Ahmadinejad repeated that Iran would never bargain away its "legitimate and legal right" to produce nuclear fuel. In Singapore, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld played down those comments, saying Iran was not in a position to respond until it had seen the proposals. Mr Rumsfeld said the US had agreed to the proposals because progress in multilateral talks had "arrived at a point where it seemed not to be moving forward". ***************************************************************** 26 IRNA: Croatian journalist: Iran's peaceful nuclear right undeniable - , June 4, IRNA A Croatian journalist here Sunday stressed Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology. Branimir Pofuk, who is a correspondent for Croatia's biggest morning daily `Jutarnji List', is here to participate in the ceremonies marking the 17th demise anniversary of the late founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Imam Khomeini. Describing as "new and exciting" his experience as a non-Muslim who was astonished by the huge participation of Iranians mourning the death of their beloved Imam in this year's comemmoration ceremonies, he said the core of political teachings of Islam was quite evident in the stands adopted by Iranian officials who are pursuing Imam's school of thought. Commenting on the remarks of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in this morning's ceremony at the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini and which addressed US officials, he said in his opinion the Supreme Leader's remarks echoed the opinion of the Iranian nation. He said it was the absolute right of the Iranian nation to develop and promote a nuclear program for peaceful purposes, adding that it was quite natural that Iranians wanted to develop their own resources and seek the advantages of modern technology. Pointing out that Iran has repeatedly stressed the peaceful purposes of its nuclear program, the Croatian journalist noted that since Iran's nuclear activities have not been proven to be for the purpose of producing any kind of nuclear arms, the Iranians were quite rightful to follow up their nuclear plans. Referring to the fact that many world countries, including the 117 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) were backing Iran's peaceful nuclear program, he said that his country, too, as a small state in the heart of Europe, had never sided with the US in confronting Iran over its nuclear program. Pofuk further dismissed US claims of a global consensus against Iran's peaceful nuclear program, and said what he saw in Iran in the past few days persuaded him that young Iranians were highly talented and capable of achieving scientific and technological development for their country. ***************************************************************** 27 WorldNetDaily: Iranian crisis resolved Founded 1997 Sunday, June 4, 2006 Today's Edition [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: June 3, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Secretary of State Condi Rice issued an ultimatum to Iran last week to give up "the pursuit of nuclear weapons." Meanwhile, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the China-Arab Cooperation Forum all called for a "nuke-free" Middle East. All three organizations also expressed strong support for the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and all its provisions, particularly the one that affirms the inalienable right of all signatories to enjoy all the benefits of nuclear energy in return for foregoing the pursuit of nuclear weapons. And, all expressed their view that when it comes to achieving a nuke-free Middle East, Iran is not the problem. Israel is the problem. As Condi was threatening to exert "greater pressure on the Iranians through sanctions and other measures through the Security Council and, if necessary, with like-minded states outside of the Security Council," the Nuclear Suppliers Group was meeting in plenary session in Brazil. Established in 1975, as a direct result of the test of a nuclear weapon by India, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is comprised of 44 nuclear-supplier states that have voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of nuclear materials, material production and processing equipment and related technology to non-nuclear-weapon states. NSG members are expected – but not required – to forgo nuclear exports to countries that do not subject their imports to the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards regime. The IAEA has accepted the responsibility for verifying that NSG exports are not used by the importer for any military purpose. Since 1992, to be eligible for importing nuclear reactors, reactor fuel and certain proscribed equipment from an NSG member, the importer – NPT signatory or not – must have in place a comprehensive IAEA Safeguards Agreement covering all nuclear activities and facilities. Hence, the NSG effectively controls nuke proliferation-potential exports and the IAEA effectively subsequently monitors nuke proliferation-potential imports. Now, India is not a NPT signatory, but has some materials, equipment and facilities subject to IAEA Safeguards. In the past, we put great pressure on all NSG members to rigorously apply the NSG guidelines to India. In particular, we attempted to prevent the construction by Russia of the first two nuclear power plants at Koodankulam. We even attempted to prevent refueling of the U.S.-built Tarapur atomic power station. Russia was only able to supply low-enriched uranium to Tarapur in 2001 on the basis of "safety" considerations. But then, last year, Bush-Cheney-Rice decided to make India "our new strategic partner." Since India refuses to subject all its "nuclear" activities to IAEA Safeguards, our deal with India will require permanent "waivers" of NSG guidelines. As of this writing, it is not clear whether China will agree, since the objective of the new U.S.-Indian "strategic partnership" is to "contain" China. Either way, Bush-Cheney may have destroyed the IAEA-NPT-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime, which has always been a top priority. The regime has been in the way of the establishment – via pre-emptive attacks against "nuke" proliferators – of an American Hegemony. When Bush-Cheney came to power, they confronted IAEA certification that no "source or special nuclear materials" – much less hundreds of pounds of almost pure uranium-235 or plutonium-239 – were being used by Iraq, Iran and North Korea in furtherance of a military purpose. Bush-Cheney ignored the IAEA – and defied the Security Council – by launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq, allegedly to put an end to Iraq's nuke "ambitions." Bush-Cheney appear to be on the verge of defying the IAEA and the Security Council once again, launching a pre-emptive attack against Iran, allegedly to put an end to Iran's nuke "ambitions." Bush-Cheney and the Israelis claim – but surely don't really believe – that if the Iranians are allowed to get their uranium-enrichment centrifuges (basically second-hand Pakistani junk) operating in IAEA Safeguarded cascades, they will be only months away from having a nuke arsenal. If Iran circumventing the IAEA Safeguards regime were their real concern, the solution to the Iranian uranium-enrichment crisis is at hand. We have prevented the Iranians from realizing the multi-billion dollar investment they made in the 1970s in EuroDif, the French-based uranium-enrichment consortium. But, now the Brits want to sell their one-third interest in Urenco – the Dutch, UK and German world-leader in centrifuge technology and uranium enrichment. Why don't the Chinese buy out the Brits, then guarantee Iran nuclear fuel for Chinese-built nuclear power plants as part of a Chinese-Iranian agreement for co-production of Iranian oil and natural gas? There, Condi. See how simple that was. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 IRNA: Supreme Leader: Iran is no threat to anyone , June 4, IRNA Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei here on Sunday said that everyone knows that Iran is no threat to any country. Addressing a ceremony marking the 17th anniversary of the passing away of the founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Imam Khomeini, the Supreme Leader stressed that Iran has never threatened any of its neighbors. "We have friendly relations with all in the region and in Asia. We have good and healthy relations with Europe, and in the near future, because they need our gas and energy, these relations will become even better," Ayatollah Khamenei said. Referring to the friendly relations between Iran and the Arab states, the Supreme Leader reiterated that the Arab world supports Iran's stance on Palestine. Terming Tehran-Moscow relations as 'good', Ayatollah Khamenei said the Russians know very well how they would be treated if a pro-American government was in power in Iran. Referring to 'political independence' and 'national and cultural self-belief as assets saved by the late Imam for the Iranian people', Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian nation should safeguard these assets. This is a historic asset, the Supreme Leader said adding, "It represents our political independence and national self confidence." Ayatollah Khamenei further urged the people not to sell out this precious resource because of the enemies' threats. As to great natural and human resources in Iran, the Supreme Leader called for greater efforts to be made by officials to make up for the past problems and shortages. ***************************************************************** 29 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI will decide on national interest 2006/06/04 Tehran, June 4 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Saturday that Iran will decide on the proposals to be delivered by EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana based on its national interests. Speaking at ceremonies commemorating the 17th anniversary of the demise of Imam Khomeini, he added "negotiations do not have pre-conditions." "We also regard the peaceful use of nuclear energy as our legitimate right and will not negotiate on our rights with anybody, the president added. We will wait after they have put forth their proposals and after we have heard them, then, we will decide based on our national interests," Ahmadinejad underlined. "Talking about the rights of a nations is like wanting to talk about our independence which we will not accept." We welcome talks, logic, and contacts and there are a lot of issues in the world which we could discuss, the Iranian president said. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday that European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will be arriving in Tehran within the next two days to present Europe's new proposal to resolve the nuclear standoff. "Europe and the other states reached a consensus during a session held in Vienna on Thursday on a package of incentives that will be presented to Iran in the form of a new proposal," Mottaki quoted Solana as saying. "Iran will review the (new European) proposal at an appropriate time and announce its stance," he added. He expressed hope the offer would pave the ground for a comprehensive discussion of the country's nuclear case. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 30 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No hurry to decide on 5+1 proposals 2006/06/04 Tehran, June 4 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here on Saturday said that Iran was not in a hurry to give its decision on a new proposal that was to be presented by world powers on its peaceful nuclear program. "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a phone call, asked me not to hurry but to study (carefully) the package (of incentives) that is to be proposed to us," said Ahmadinejad in his address at a ceremony on the 17th anniversary of the demise of the Father of the Islamic Revolution and Founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini here on Saturday. Ahmadinejad reiterated that Tehran will not hurry but will carefully look at the proposal before rendering judgment. "The UN chief has asked me not to say anything until the proposal has been formally presented to Iran by the 5+1 Group led by the Europeans so as not to poison the atmosphere. "We will record all discussions and the sides should know that we will inform our dear Iranian nation of the proposals at the right time," the president said. Saying the friends of the late Imam Khomeini "will not tire" in their efforts for the Islamic nation, he reminded the "dear Iranian nation that the right to pursue nuclear energy for civilian and other peaceful purposes is the legal and natural right of the Iranian nation." "Today, the Iranian nation at large -- the old and insignificant, residents or expatriates, young or old -- unite in asserting the absolute right of the Iranian nation to access nuclear technology." Referring to the current standoff on its nuclear activities, he stressed that the way was still open for talks. "We will negotiate in a fair atmosphere and condition; and we welcome dialogue and will not prejudge the proposals that are to be presented to us this weekend or early next week." But he reiterated that Iran "will not hurry in responding to the proposals." "We will wait and see; we are monitoring their approach and will decide on the proposals later." He said Tehran had informally learned that a set of proposals is to be presented to it and that these proposals have given rise to a host of contradictory comments. According to the president, he had been told proponents of the offer may officially recognize the right of the Iranian nation but that he had also heard comments otherwise. "We have been told that Mr Javier Solana (EU foreign policy chief) intends to come to Iran and explain the proposals and we have heard that during his visit adjustments (to the proposals) may be made after consultation with us." But he warned against setting pre-conditions to talks, saying "those who set conditions for talks with Iran should know that the Iranian nation will never bow to offers for dialogue from the standpoint of threats or conditions that put the absolute rights of the Iranian nation in question." He said there are many issues that could be talked about which are sources of common concern. Citing global issues such as "peace, security and tranquility, bilateral ties as well as respect for the principle of equality," he said these are issues concern all and Tehran is willing to discuss them with all interested parties. "We can talk, cooperate and unite in efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction," the president said, adding "we can find solutions to all these problems." "Today, the weakest or smallest nation will not bow to threats of bullying powers," the president went on to say. He blasted arrogant powers and powers which do not believe in monotheism for speaking in the language of threats to certain weaker nations. "Open your ears and eyes. What has it benefited you after speaking to the Iranian nation in the language of threats for the past 27 years? What have you gained?" He also blasted Western powers for threating Iran of economic sanctions in case Tehran refuses to surrender to their demands. "Whom are you talking with? How long do you intend to talk and collaborate with the world in this way?" the president asked, and urged the West to change its attitude and stone-age policies. "Today, nations have matured. You should speak with nations from the standpoint of justice, equality and respect." Turning to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, he said Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states have unanimously expressed support for the Iranian nation's right to access nuclear technology. He was referring to a statement issued by NAM after its foreign ministerial conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia this week. "How is it that the view of 114 NAM members is not considered that of the global community while the decision of four countries (that sit to judge Iran's nuclear case) which do not have popular support is considered the decision of the global community?" the president asked. President Ahmadinejad said: "On the one hand, they say they want to negotiate, but on the other hand they make threats." He stressed that Iran's policies are based on justice and worship of one God (monotheism). "We want peace and calm to reign founded on justice and monotheism. The Iranian people will not tolerate injustice and tyranny and will act with the force of a storm at sea against any tyranny, crushing any aggressor." He said "global justice means making global arrangements on the basis of justice." "The great Iranian nation will not countenance force, tyranny and aggression, neither will it be denied its rights." Describing the Iranian nation as a nation of "peace and friendship," he said it had always favored peace, calm and security for all nations. He predicted the Iranian nation would, in a short period of time, rise up to become a model for all Islamic states from its own soil. "Today, the world needs a model society for states to emulate and Iran will be this model, setting the example of a pure Islamic way of life." He said to become a model society, Iranians had to practice discipline, unity, solidarity, collaboration, wise and gallant cooperation and hard work. "We should all join hands for this cause." Further in his address, President Ahmadinejad urged the Iranian nation to pool efforts to ensure progress in all fields, particularly in the economic, social, cultural, agricultural and industrial domains. He said the whole the world was pinning its hope on Iran to rid it of paganism, tyranny and colonialism. "No power would be able to impede the Iranian nation's monotheist path," he concluded. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: Iran will not discuss its right to enrichment - Ahmadinejad - by Siavosh Ghazi Sun Jun 4, 1:11 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> will not discuss its "absolute rights" to nuclear technology, notably the enrichment of uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised address. Referring to an announcement that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will deliver to Tehran a new proposal for ending the nuclear standoff, Ahmadinejad said: "We will wait to see these proposals before taking a decision that is in our national interests. "But we say to them that nuclear technology, particularly the production of nuclear fuel, is part of our absolute rights, and we will not discuss these rights with anyone," he said in a speech at the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. According to Ahmadinejad, "negotiating our absolute right would be like accepting to negotiate on our independence. We will not negotiate our independence with anyone." Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday played down comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declaring that Iran's right to nuclear technology is not negotiable. "My understanding is the presentation of EU three, and the United States and Russia and China has not yet been made to them specifically," Rumsfeld said. "So clearly they are not in a position to respond until such time as they have had an opportunity to see what the proposal is," he said. Rumsfeld spoke to reporters here after meeting with Malaysian Defense Minister Najib Razak on the sidelines of an international security conference. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany on Thursday agreed to present Tehran with a package of incentives and the prospect of fresh multilateral talks on the condition that Iran first suspends uranium enrichment. That activity is at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel -- and not bombs -- and that enrichment is a right enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Solana is expected in Tehran in the coming days to formally hand over the offer. In Brussels, Solana's spokeswoman confirmed plans for a visit to Tehran, but said the timing had yet to be fixed. But if Iran rejects the proposal it faces the risk of tough Security Council action -- including possible sanctions. "On the one hand, they say they want to negotiate, and on the other hand they make threats," Ahmadinejad complained, saying that any future talks had to be "without conditions." But he also asserted that the Islamic regime would carefully look at the proposal before passing judgement. "We will not judge their proposals in advance. We will wait and see what their attitude is," he said in the speech, part of events marking the anniversary of Khomeini's death in 1989. Ahmadinejad's speech was greeted with the habitual chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and "nuclear energy is our absolute right." The hardline president also revealed that in a telephone conversation earlier Saturday with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> , he had been asked "to examine the proposals and not act hastily." "I said that we will not act hastily and that we will examine the proposals," he said, adding that he had also agreed with Annan not to make the contents of the proposals public. The United States has insisted that Iran freeze its sensitive atomic activities before negotiations. In Kuwait, the top US Middle East envoy, David Welch, called on Iran to "make the right choice". "We want to see the success of the diplomatic avenue ... We are not hungry to see the alternative ... We have no thirst for a military option," the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs said. Military action "is not a good idea, especially for the Iranians. We hope they make the right choice, so we are left with the positive track and not the negative track," Welch told a news conference. Meanwhile, the Vatican" /> said the crisis must be resolved "by diplomacy" and that every effort should be made to reach a negotiated solution. "The current difficulties can and must be resolved by diplomacy, using all means that diplomats have at their disposal," spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said, stressing the need for "open and constructive dialogue" that considered "the honour and sensitivity of each country". "In that way, we will be able to reach an agreement," he said. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> said Friday that Iran had only weeks to respond to the proposal. Crucially, the US has also promised to join the talks if Iran agrees -- paving the way for what could be the most substantive talks between the two arch-enemies since they severed diplomatic ties 26 years ago. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 32 AFP: Iran's supreme leader stands by nuclear programme by Aresu Eqbali Sun Jun 4, 4:39 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> 's supreme leader rejected international demands that his country suspend sensitive nuclear work, vowing the Islamic republic would not buckle in the face of "threats and bribes". Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also gave the United States a strong warning that any "mistake" in its dealings with oil-rich Iran would lead to consequences for global energy supplies. "We have achieved a lot of scientific goals," Khamenei said in a speech marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Iran's Islamic revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "This is an historic investment. It represents our political independence and national self confidence. We should not sell out this precious resource because of the enemies' threats and we should not be fooled by enemy bribes," he said. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are poised to present Iran with an offer of incentives and the prospect of fresh multilateral talks -- involving the United States -- on the condition that Iran first suspends uranium enrichment. That activity is at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel -- and not bombs -- and that enrichment is a right enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected in Tehran in the coming days to present the proposals, and Iran has been given just weeks to make up its mind -- or else face robust Security Council action including possible sanctions. But Khamenei added to indications that the offer could end up being dead on arrival by shrugging off any fear of the consequences. "You threaten Iran. You say you want to direct energy in the region. If you make a single mistake about Iran, the supply of energy will definitely be put in serious risk," Khamenei said of the United States. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> swiftly brushed off the warning. "I think we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind," she told Fox News. "I think something like 80 percent of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue, and so obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were disrupted on the market." Diplomats in Vienna revealed that the new package of incentives to be presented to Iran in the next few days included a US offer to lift some of its unilateral sanctions. But Rice said the deal struck with other major powers also included a promise of tough action if Tehran rejected the package. "We are absolutely satisfied with the commitments of our allies to a robust path in the Security Council should this not work," she said. Speaking at Khomeini's mausoleum on the southern outskirts of Tehran, Khamenei insisted that "Iran is no threat to anyone". "They accuse us of developing nuclear bombs. This is an absurd lie. We do not need nuclear weapons and bombs. We don't have any target to use them on. Using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules," he said. He also asserted that the United States had been weakened -- and his speech was frequently interrupted by chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and "We are ready!" from the thousands of faithful packed into Khomeini's huge mausoleum. "In Iraq" /> , you failed. You say you have spent 300 billion dollars to bring a government in office that obeys you. But it did not happen. In Palestine, you made all attempts to prevent Hamas from coming to power and again you failed. Why do you not admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt," he insisted. "We do not want war... but you should know that whoever threatens our interests, they will see the sharpness of our wrath." On Saturday, hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed that in a telephone conversation earlier Saturday with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> , he had been asked "to examine the proposals and not act hastily." "I said that we will not act hastily and that we will examine the proposals," Ahmadinejad said. But the president has also ruled out halting enrichment, saying that "negotiating our absolute right would be like accepting to negotiate on our independence." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: Iran's supreme leader stands by nuclear programme Sunday June 4, 09:39 PM [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's supreme leader rejected international demands that his country suspend sensitive nuclear work, vowing the Islamic republic would not buckle in the face of "threats and bribes". Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also gave the United States a strong warning that any "mistake" in its dealings with oil-rich Iran would lead to consequences for global energy supplies. "We have achieved a lot of scientific goals," Khamenei said in a speech marking the 17th anniversary of the death (Advertisement) [ src=] of Iran's Islamic revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "This is an historic investment. It represents our political independence and national self confidence. We should not sell out this precious resource because of the enemies' threats and we should not be fooled by enemy bribes," he said. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are poised to present Iran with an offer of incentives and the prospect of fresh multilateral talks -- involving the United States -- on the condition that Iran first suspends uranium enrichment. That activity is at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel -- and not bombs -- and that enrichment is a right enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected in Tehran in the coming days to present the proposals, and Iran has been given just weeks to make up its mind -- or else face robust Security Council action including possible sanctions. But Khamenei added to indications that the offer could end up being dead on arrival by shrugging off any fear of the consequences. "You threaten Iran. You say you want to direct energy in the region. If you make a single mistake about Iran, the supply of energy will definitely be put in serious risk," Khamenei said of the United States. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly brushed off the warning. "I think we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind," she told Fox News. "I think something like 80 percent of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue, and so obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were disrupted on the market." Diplomats in Vienna revealed that the new package of incentives to be presented to Iran in the next few days included a US offer to lift some of its unilateral sanctions. But Rice said the deal struck with other major powers also included a promise of tough action if Tehran rejected the package. "We are absolutely satisfied with the commitments of our allies to a robust path in the Security Council should this not work," she said. Speaking at Khomeini's mausoleum on the southern outskirts of Tehran, Khamenei insisted that "Iran is no threat to anyone". "They accuse us of developing nuclear bombs. This is an absurd lie. We do not need nuclear weapons and bombs. We don't have any target to use them on. Using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules," he said. He also asserted that the United States had been weakened -- and his speech was frequently interrupted by chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and "We are ready!" from the thousands of faithful packed into Khomeini's huge mausoleum. "In Iraq, you failed. You say you have spent 300 billion dollars to bring a government in office that obeys you. But it did not happen. In Palestine, you made all attempts to prevent Hamas from coming to power and again you failed. Why do you not admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt," he insisted. "We do not want war... but you should know that whoever threatens our interests, they will see the sharpness of our wrath." On Saturday, hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed that in a telephone conversation earlier Saturday with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, he had been asked "to examine the proposals and not act hastily." "I said that we will not act hastily and that we will examine the proposals," Ahmadinejad said. But the president has also ruled out halting enrichment, saying that "negotiating our absolute right would be like accepting to negotiate on our independence." + - AFP ***************************************************************** 34 AFP: US urges Iran to make the right choice Sat Jun 3, 12:46 PM ET KUWAIT CITY (AFP) - A senior US official called on Iran" /> to "make the right choice" over proposals on its nuclear program, saying Washington has no "thirst for a military option." "We want to see the success of the diplomatic avenue ... We are not hungry to see the alternative ... We have no thirst for a military option," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch said. Military action "is not a good idea, especially for the Iranians. We hope they make the right choice, so we are left with the positive track and not the negative track," Welch told a press conference. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agreed Thursday to offer Iran incentives. In exchange, they are insisting that Tehran first suspend uranium enrichment, which is at the centre of fears the country could acquire nuclear weapons. European Union" /> foreign policy chief Javier Solana is to visit Tehran in the coming days to officially submit the proposals. The United States has insisted that Iran freeze its sensitive atomic activities before negotiations, while Tehran has refused to suspend uranium enrichment. Welch arrived in Kuwait late Friday at the start of a tour that will also take him to Qatar, Egypt, Israel" /> and the Palestinian territories. He said he had discussed the Iranian nuclear issue with the emirate's leaders. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 35 AFP: Iran says awaiting nuclear proposal, but won't halt enrichment - by Aresu Eqbali Sat Jun 3, 7:23 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it was awaiting a new international proposal to ease a crisis over its disputed nuclear programme but stuck by its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment work. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was expected in Tehran in the coming days to officially submit the proposal for fresh multilateral talks and a package of incentives. But the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, who agreed on the package on Thursday, say the offer is conditional to Tehran first halting enrichment -- at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. "Negotiations must be without preconditions," Mottaki said of the demand. "No condition for negotiations is acceptable, especially the condition that has been set." But he nevertheless said Saturday Iran "needed to examine these proposals" before giving its formal response. "Javier Solana will be in Tehran in the next two days to submit the new proposals to Iran," Mottaki was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency, adding that Iran had agreed to his visit. European diplomats confirmed that Solana was set to travel to Tehran, but said the timing had yet to be fixed. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid Friday that Iran had only weeks to respond to the proposal of trade, security and technology incentives if Iran agrees to a moratorium on enrichment. Crucially, the United States has also promised to join the talks if Iran agrees -- paving the way for what could be the most substantive talks between the two arch-enemies since they cut off diplomatic ties 26 years ago. "There is no kind of ultimatum deadline, although I think we are talking about several weeks," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said. Russia opposes the use of force against Iran and believes it is "early" to discuss the possibility of sanctions, President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinechoed Friday. The United States, however, has said independently that no option -- including military action -- is off the table in dealing with Iran. US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said in London Friday that Iran appeared determined to make nuclear weapons and could develop such an arsenal as early as 2010. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also repeated late Friday that Iran would not back down to pressure. "Pressure by certain Western countries aiming to make us abandon our rights will not show results," he said. "Unfortunately, some countries that possess nuclear weapons arsenals... want to deprive us of our absolute rights." Ahmadinejad was to give a speech later Saturday for events commemorating the death in 1989 of Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran insists it only wants to generate electricity, and that fuel cycle work is therefore a right enshrined by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has been investigating Iran for more that three years but says it is still not in a position to say whether the Islamic republic's nuclear drive is purely peaceful. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 36 IRNA: Muslims back Iran's peaceful nuclear plan - Lebanese merchant - June 4, IRNA A Lebanese merchant, Mohammad Ajami who is here to take part in ceremonies to mark the anniversary of the demise of the Founder of the Islamic Republic the late Imam Khomeini said that the Muslim World supports Iranian peaceful nuclear program. In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he referred to the immense and lasting influence of the late Imam Khomeini on the political opinion of world Muslims and said his teachings affected the Muslims' attitudes towards the US scheme for Greater Middle East which is being strongly confronted by Muslims in the region. He said the US administration, when introducing its foolish plan of Greater Middle East, was ignorant of the impact of the true teachings of the Holy Islam on the political attitudes of Muslim people. Ajami further dismissed the US version of 'democracy' and its interpretation of 'democratic practices' and said it was exactly due to wrong notions of this kind that the US scheme for Iraq proved to be a failure. He said the US presence in Iraq actually resulted in chaos and lack of stability in the country. ***************************************************************** 37 AFP: Iran will not discuss its right to enrichment - Ahmadinejad - by Siavosh Ghazi Sat Jun 3, 7:39 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> will not discuss its "absolute rights" to nuclear technology, notably the enrichment of uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised address. Referring to an announcement that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will deliver to Tehran a new proposal for ending the nuclear standoff, Ahmadinejad said: "We will wait to see these proposals before taking a decision that is in our national interests. "But we say to them that nuclear technology, particularly the production of nuclear fuel, is part of our absolute rights, and we will not discuss these rights with anyone," he said in a speech at the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. According to Ahmadinejad, "negotiating our absolute right would be like accepting to negotiate on our independence. We will not negotiate our independence with anyone." The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany on Thursday agreed to present Tehran with a package of incentives and the prospect of fresh multilateral talks on the condition that Iran first suspends uranium enrichment. That activity is at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel -- and not bombs -- and that enrichment is a right enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Solana is expected in Tehran in the coming days to formally hand over the offer. In Brussels, Solana's spokeswoman confirmed plans for a visit to Tehran, but said the timing had yet to be fixed. But if Iran rejects the proposal it faces the risk of tough Security Council action -- including possible sanctions. "On the one hand, they say they want to negotiate, and on the other hand they make threats," Ahmadinejad complained, saying that any future talks had to be "without conditions." But he also asserted that the Islamic regime would carefully look at the proposal before passing judgement. "We will not judge their proposals in advance. We will wait and see what their attitude is," he said in the speech, part of events marking the anniversary of Khomeini's death in 1989. Ahmadinejad's speech was greeted with the habitual chants of "Death to America", "Death to Israel" and "nuclear energy is our absolute right." The hardline president also revealed that in a telephone conversation earlier Saturday with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> , he had been asked "to examine the proposals and not act hastily." "I said that we will not act hastily and that we will examine the proposals," he said, adding that he had also agreed with Annan not to make the contents of the proposals public. The United States has insisted that Iran freeze its sensitive atomic activities before negotiations. In Kuwait, the top US Middle East envoy, David Welch, called on Iran to "make the right choice". "We want to see the success of the diplomatic avenue ... We are not hungry to see the alternative ... We have no thirst for a military option," the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs said. Military action "is not a good idea, especially for the Iranians. We hope they make the right choice, so we are left with the positive track and not the negative track," Welch told a news conference. Meanwhile, the Vatican" /> said the crisis must be resolved "by diplomacy" and that every effort should be made to reach a negotiated solution. "The current difficulties can and must be resolved by diplomacy, using all means that diplomats have at their disposal," spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said, stressing the need for "open and constructive dialogue" that considered "the honour and sensitivity of each country". "In that way, we will be able to reach an agreement," he said. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> said Friday that Iran had only weeks to respond to the proposal. Crucially, the US has also promised to join the talks if Iran agrees -- paving the way for what could be the most substantive talks between the two arch-enemies since they severed diplomatic ties 26 years ago. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 38 AFP: US sweetens offer to Iran: diplomats by Michael Adler Sun Jun 4, 4:32 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The United States has offered to lift some of its trade sanctions against Iran" /> Iranas part of a package of benefits the EU will deliver to get Tehran to guarantee it will not make nuclear weapons, diplomats told AFP. The United States is proposing "lifting sanctions partially, not only waiving sanctions but actually lifting them," in an agreement to be worked out in multilateral talks that would start once Iran suspended uranium enrichment, said a senior Western diplomat, who requested anonymity. Washington, which considers Iran a sponsor of terrorism and now fears it is covertly developing nuclear weapons, has since the mid-1990's banned most US trade and investment with the Islamic Republic. Lifting sanctions would allow sales to Iran of things like agricultural technology and commercial planes to replace the country's dilapidated fleet. US officials have said they want to keep the details of the proposal secret in order to avoid the appearance of threatening Iran. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday that his country, which claims its nuclear work is part of a peaceful program to generate electricity, would not buckle in the face of "threats and bribes". The incentives offer from six world powers, which European Union" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana is to present in the coming days in Tehran, is accompanied by a threat of UN Security Council penalties if Iran fails to halt enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material. On the benefits side, which encompasses trade, security and technology benefits, the United States "is not only interested in allowing Europe to sell Airbus airplanes to Tehran but also supplying (US-made) Boeings," the diplomat said. And trade in agricultural fields, "where the United States is particularly competitive ... is important for Iran since Iran is still a rural country in lots of ways," the diplomat added. A second Vienna-based diplomat said sanctions would be lifted also to allow the sale of "dual-use technology which has peaceful but also military applications." Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday that Solana was expected in Tehran to submit the proposal from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany for fresh multilateral talks. The first diplomat said that during talks in Vienna Thursday on a draft of the package that had been drawn up by EU negotiators Britain, Germany and France, "the Americans added something to the offer. The Americans beefed up the offer of benefits, which was a surprise." The draft proposal, which was seen by AFP before the final revisions, promises to "actively support ... Iran's civil nuclear plan, including the building of light water reactors in Iran through joint projects." The draft text also proposes "legally binding ... assurances" including letting Tehran be "partner in an international fuel cycle centre in Russia" to enrich uranium. It also said a nuclear fuel reserve would be set up to guarantee Iran supplies. The first diplomat confirmed that this offer was still in the text as "they did not water down the offer in the nuclear fields." In comments confirmed by other envoys, the diplomat said: "I don't think there were major amendments" to the draft, beyond the additions by the United States to make the benefits more attractive. The diplomat said that a list of limited, targeted sanctions, such as a travel ban on Iranians involved in the nuclear program, and pegged as "possible measures in the event that Iran does not cooperate," was still in the proposal. Iranian allies Russia and China "approved the sanctions paper, meaning they are not going to veto such a thing in the Security Council," where new resolutions would be required to levy such penalties, the diplomat said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 39 AFP: Iran must not give in to 'threats and bribes' - supreme leader - Sun Jun 4, 5:32 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared that the Islamic republic must not give up its "scientific goals" in the face of "threats and bribes". "We have achieved a lot of scientific goals, and this is a resource that our late imam had saved for us," Khamenei said in a speech marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Iran's Islamic revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "This is a historic investment. It represents our political independence and national self confidence. It is due to the bravery of our people and officials, and we should not sell out this precious resource because of the enemies' threats and we should not be fooled by enemy bribes," he said Sunday. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany on Thursday agreed to present Tehran with a package of incentives and the prospect of fresh multilateral talks on the condition that Iran first suspends uranium enrichment. That activity is at the centre of fears the country could make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel -- and not bombs -- and that enrichment is a right enshrined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. "There is no consensus against Iran. It is only the Americans and some of their allies," Khamenei said, asserting that Iran had won support from members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. "This is all about a political monopoly of energy. They want others to beg for energy," he fumed. "American and Zionist propaganda claims that Iran is a threat to the world. But everyone knows that Iran is no threat to anyone. We have friendly relations with all the region and Asia. We have good and healthy relations with Europe, and in the close future, because they need our gas, these relations will become even better," Khamenei reasoned. "They accuse us of developing nuclear bombs. This is an absurd lie. We do not need nuclear weapons and bombs. We don't have any target to use them on. Using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules," he said. "We will not impose the costs of building and maintenance of nuclear weapons on our people. Our explosive source is the power of our faith." He also fired off a staunch warning against the United States. "You threaten Iran. You say you want to direct energy in the region. If you make a single mistake about Iran, the supply of energy will definitely be put in serious risk," added Khamenei. Iran is OPEC" /> OPEC's second producer. "In Iraq" /> Iraq, you failed. You say you have spent 300 billion dollars to bring a government in office that obeys you. But it did not happen. In Palestine, you made all attempts to prevent Hamas from coming to power and again you failed. Why do you not admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt," he insisted. "We do not want war... but you should know that whoever threatens our interests, they will see the sharpness of our wrath." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 40 AFP: US echoes Gulf fears of pollution from Iran's nuclear program - Sun Jun 4, 5:58 PM ET DOHA (AFP) - A US official said Gulf Arab states were worried about the ecological fallout from Iran" /> Iran's nuclear program, reiterating Washington's offer of talks if Tehran freezes sensitive nuclear work. "I can understand when people mention that they are concerned about the Gulf" as a result of Iran's nuclear activities, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Welch said after talks with Qatari officials. "The Gulf does not have water resources. They get desalinated water. They will be worried about possible pollution," he said. Emirati Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said during a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Riyadh Saturday that the six GCC states feared a potential "radioactive leak from an Iranian nuclear power plant, which could cause an enormous ecological catastrophe by polluting the waters of the Gulf." Welch said the row over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington suspects hides an attempt to develop an atomic weapon, should be resolved through talks. "I think the only way to address it is by direct negotiation ... Of course, (negotiations) have to take as a starting point that there would not be any suspicious nuclear activities," he said. The United States has offered to enter European-led negotiations over Iran's disputed nuclear program if Tehran verifiably suspends uranium enrichment. World powers subsequently agreed on a package of incentives and penalties to get Iran to suspend nuclear fuel work, which are to be presented to the authorities in Tehran in the next few days. Welch said the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas could not ask for Israel" /> Israelto return customs duties and in the same breath reject accords with the Jewish state providing for the funds' return. "I find it very strange that members of Hamas say Israel owes us this money ... The agreement that obliges Israel to return the money to the Palestinians is made under Oslo (a peace deal signed with the PLO in 1993). And the Hamas government refuses Oslo," Welch said. The European Union" /> European Unionand United States suspended direct aid after Hamas took office in March, citing its refusal to renounce violence, recognize Israel or abide by previous peace agreements. Israel has suspended the payment of customs duties, worth around 60 million dollars a month, to the Palestinian Authority" /> Palestinian Authorityon goods that transit through its territory, compounding a deep financial crisis in the Palestinian territories. Welch, who arrived from Kuwait, said he would hold further talks in Doha Monday before leaving for Jordan. He is also due to visit Israel, the Palestinian territories and Egypt. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 41 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Reproaches U.S. Over War Killings From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday June 4, 2006 7:16 AM AP Photo NYET740 SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea criticized the United States on Sunday over the mass killing of South Korean refugees during the Korean War and demanded that U.S. troops withdraw from the South. The comments come after the revelation of a 1950 letter from the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, informing the State Department that American soldiers would shoot refugees approaching their lines. The letter, dated the day of the U.S. Army's mass killing of refugees at the South Korean village of No Gun Ri during the 1950-53 Korean War, is the strongest indication yet that such a policy existed for all U.S. forces in Korea. The United States ``should apologize to our people, and withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea,'' the North's Minju Joson newspaper said in a commentary Sunday, denouncing the No Gun Ri killings as a ``systematic criminal act.'' ``If it fails to do that, the U.S. will be denounced on the international stage as a devil country ... and our people will be swept by the stronger fire of anti-U.S. struggle,'' said the commentary carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. ``It is as clear as seeing a fire that South Koreans will be brutally murdered by U.S. devil troops ... and the people will suffer the ravages of nuclear war'' unless the U.S. pulls out its troops from the South, the commentary said, accusing Washington of plotting to attack the North. North Korea often makes such accusations, but the United States it intends to invade the communist nation. American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz discovered the letter at the U.S. National Archives and discussed it in a new book. It was declassified in 1982. A 1999 Pulitzer-Prize winning story on the No Gun Ri killings by The Associated Press prompted a 16-month Pentagon inquiry. The Pentagon concluded in 2001 that the shootings were ``not a deliberate killing.'' However, the letter detailed decisions made at a high-level meeting in South Korea on July 25, 1950, the night before the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment shot the refugees. Estimates vary on the number of dead at No Gun Ri. U.S. soldiers' estimates ranged from under 100 to ``hundreds'' dead. Korean survivors say about 400, mostly women and children, were killed at the village 100 miles southeast of Seoul. Hundreds more refugees were killed in later, similar episodes, survivors say. Some 32,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a legacy of the Korean War, which ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty. The two Koreas remain technically at war. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 42 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Demise of reactor project 2003-11-18 ±è´ë¸® ¼öÁ¤ The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization announced last week the official termination of a project to build two civilian nuclear reactors in North Korea. The international consortium's decision to scrap the $4.6 billion project had been anticipated, but we still cannot but feel a strong sense of dismay and frustration. Above all, the collapse of the project once again demonstrates that an agreement on paper with North Korea is one thing, and its actual implementation is quite another. This bitter experience teaches us yet another lesson that any such premature initiative toward North Korea must not be repeated. The project to build two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors was conceived in a U.S.-North Korea agreement in 1994, called the "Agreed Framework." Construction began in 1997, but since then the project has been drifting largely due to the lack of trust between North Korea and the United States. In 2002, Washington accused the North of running a secret uranium-based atomic program. It suspended the supply of fuel oil to the North, which was another key element of the Agreed Framework. Pyongyang reacted by bolting from the Nonproliferation Treaty the following year, which then forced the U.S.-led KEDO to suspend the reactor project. Hence, what's left is nothing but $1.5 billion in wasted money and rusting piles of junk. What's more painful is that South Korea, which has covered $1.1 billion of the bill, has to bear another $200 million in "liquidation expenses." Seoul officials insist that what remains in Sinpo is worth more than $800 million and that they have little to lose. Then why were they so persistent in demanding the other key members of KEDO - the United States, Japan and the European Union - share the liquidation money? Our government officials also say that they will seek financial compensation from the North. This sounds hollow too, given that the North is demanding KEDO make up for the loss it suffered. As things stand, it will already be difficult to recover reactor-related facilities and construction equipment from the site. A bigger cause for concern is that the demise of the reactor project is highly likely to have a negative impact on international efforts to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear development program. Blame shifting between Washington and Pyongyang over who should bear the responsibility for the failure of the reactor project will certainly add another stumbling block to their negotiations that have been stalled since last September. The disastrous end of KEDO and the deadlocked six-party talks on the North's nuclear ambitions show how hard it is to stop Pyongyang from using the proliferation card to sustain its regime and wrest economic aid from the outside world. What we have to learn from the dealings with the North is that we should not repeat the same mistake of giving the North something in return for only a verbal promise. For instance, the Seoul government's plan to provide the North with 2 million kilowatts of electricity is too risky. 2006.06.05 ***************************************************************** 43 Reuters: Rail links focus of fresh inter-Korea economic talks Sun 4 Jun 2006 3:42 AM ET By Lee Jae-won SOGWIPO, South Korea, June 4 (Reuters) - South Korea urged the North on Saturday to reverse its decision to scrap test runs of trains across the heavily militarised border, officials said. Economic officials from the two Koreas also discussed requests for Southern aid to help the North's poor industrial and mining sectors, but Seoul did not immediately agree while talks on the rail link continued, a South Korean official said. North Korea called off the test runs just a day before they were to have taken place on May 25, triggering an exchange of harsh words. Each side blamed the other for scuttling the plan. "We urged a prompt undertaking of test train runs and the opening of the railways," the South Korean official, Kim Chun-sik, told reporters after Sunday's first formal session on the southern resort island of Cheju.. South Korea expressed "strong regret" that the North had unilaterally put off the test runs, he said. While Pyongyang initially blamed Seoul for cancellation of the plan, its representatives at the Cheju talks did not repeat the strong comments that had appeared in official media and did not appear to want to engage in fingerpointing, Kim said. The train runs would have been a deeply symbolic step in generally warming ties between the two Koreas. The last train ran across the border 55 years ago during the Korean War, carrying wounded soldiers and refugees to the South. South and North Korea remain technically at war because the 1953 truce that halted the conflict never gave way to a full peace treaty. Military tension remains high despite warming commercial and political ties in recent years. The North Korean delegation arrived on Cheju on Saturday for the four days of meetings. The talks follow remarks by South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who said Seoul was willing to make "many concessions" and give "unconditional assistance" to the North to speed up progress in ties with the communist neighbour. On Saturday North Korea asked the South to build fertiliser plants in the North, the South Korean official said. While North Korea has pursued a nuclear weapons programme and says it has a missile stockpile, it cannot feed its 23 million people. Aid workers say it lacks resources to make fertiliser. Seoul has been providing it with 300,000 to 350,000 tonnes of fertiliser each year on top of 400,000 to 500,000 tonnes of rice. North Korea repeated a request, first made last year, for raw materials needed to make clothing and shoes and investment in its mining sectors, the official said. For more than six months now, North Korea has boycotted six-country nuclear talks aimed at devising a massive aid package and improving diplomatic ties for the North in return for a promise to end its weapons programmes. (Additional reporting by Jack Kim in Seoul) © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 44 TIME TO DUST OFF THAT OLD 'NO NUKES!' BUTTON Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:53:49 -0500 (CDT) Hello friends, I hope this finds all well. As some of you know, there is a renewed push by the Bush administration and the nuclear power industry to bring about what they call a "nuclear revival" and many of us regard as a "nuclear relapse." Here in Missouri, AmerenUE, the state's largest utility and the operator of our sole nuclear plant, has announced that they are actively considering ordering a new nuclear plant that they would build on the site of the Callaway plant here in mid-Missouri. Locally, we have done what many are doing around the nation, organizing, or reorganizing grassroots groups to oppose any new nukes. We have revived the name Missourians for Safe Energy and have organized a group that is working on this issue as a Peaceworks educational project. Our sense is that our best chance of stopping a new Callaway II is being able to demonstrate to the decision makers at Ameren and to our elected officials that Missourians reject this flawed technology. We need to act now, while we still have the potential to nip this in the bud. Ameren is much more likely to make the decision we are working for if we can reach them before any contracts are signed or any money or prestige is committed. I would encourage any of you getting this who are out of Missouri to investigate what your state's utilities are up to and see if there is need to get the ball rolling where you are. If you are here in Missouri in a part of the state other than the Columbia/mid-MO area, our Missourians for Safe Energy group would love to work with you. We'd be happy to provide a speaker and presentation and share insights on local organizing. I am also pasting in below the forwarded article a set of suggestions for action that is geared to Missouri, but adaptable to your situation anywhere. The article I'm sending is by Peter Montague, an eminent environmentalist and director of the Environmental Research Foundation, publisher of "Rachel's Environment & Health News." It gives a pretty good summary of what's going on right now and does a fine job of countering the pro-nukers arguments. As we were in the habit of saying about thirty years ago: Better active today than radioactive tomorrow. All the best, Mark Haim REQUIRED READING: TIME TO DUST OFF THAT OLD 'NO NUKES!' BUTTON Rachel's Democracy & Health News, May 25, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_making_nukes_seem_green.060525.htm [Rachel's introduction: The "powers that be" have begun a new campaign to convince you that we must build hundreds of new nuclear power plants to avert global warming. Campaign partners include the Cheney/Bush administration, the nuclear power corporations, and the New York Times.] 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 (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_bush_says_more_nukes_needed.060525.htm), the nuclear power corporations, and most recently the New York Times. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_greening_of_nukes.060516.htm) The campaign has two official mascots -- Christine Todd Whitman, (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-24-10.asp) the failed former head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Patrick Moore, the widely-mistrusted (http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/) 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. (http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-0393328317-1) 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 (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_iran_enriching_uranium.wp.20030220.htm) 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 (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_nuke_plants_are_leaking.060317.htm) or spill (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_u.s._allows_flawed_reactor_to_start.05011 1.htm) or other glitch. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_texas_leak_shakes_industry.enn.20030505.h tm) Hydrogen is the leading candidate for energy storage. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_hope_for_hydrogen.040401.htm) So now let's listen to the New York Times editorial staff as it tries to convince us (May 13, 2006) 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." Rachel's: 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. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/nrdc_position_on_nukes.050601.pdf) 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." Rachel's: 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." Rachel's: 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." Rachel's: 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. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_time_ticking_on_radwaste_problem.050206.h tm) 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." Rachel's: 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. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_reprocessing_reborn.051227.htm) 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." Rachel's: 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).[NRDC, pg. 5] 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 (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_nuke_comeback_planned.050622.htm) -- 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 (http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/specialtyVehicles/environmental/fuelCell/de fault.htm) and General Motors (http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html) -- 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 (http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm) energy program. Today the environmental-health-and-justice movement is bogged down bickering over individual projects like Cape Wind on Nantucket Sound. (http://www.capewind.org/) 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 (June 24, 2005) (http://www.precaution.org/lib/hydrogen_fuel-cell_vehicles.050624.pdf) 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 is 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," (http://livingeconomies.org/) 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. Lester Brown, pg. 191.) 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. (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_history_of_govt_surveillance_gone_awry.06 0525.htm) Only nuclear power with its unbreakable link to A- bombs "requires" the President to declare habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) null and void, and to declare that he and Mr. Rumsfeld will torture anyone they choose to torture (http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_how_torture_went_mainstream.060524.htm) any time it suits them, thus commencing the Great Unraveling of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) 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! (http://www.ejcc.org/) No nukes! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION: Make your concerns heard: ** Contact Ameren to share your thoughts Send e-mails to webmaster@ameren.com, make the subject line "Attn: Resource Planners in Corporate.Planning" and ask that your comments be sent to the appropriate people. Or you can send a letter by postal mail to: Susan Gallagher, P.O. Box 66149, Mail Code 100, St. Louis, MO 63166 ** Write letters to the editor Visit www.mosafeenergy.org/papers to get a list of links to submit letters to papers all around the state. ** Write your elected officials Visit www.mosafeenergy.org/officials for a list of elected officials to communicate your safe energy concerns to. ** Arrange for an MSE speaker to come to your organization, house of worship, class, etc. Reply to this e-mail or call us at 573-875-0539 ** Host an MSE house PartyReply to this e-mail or call us at 573-875-0539. ** Offer financial support to our work. For more info visit www.mosafeenergy.org Mid-Missouri Peaceworks 804-C E. Broadway Columbia, MO 65201 573-875-0539 E-mail: peacewks@coin.org Web site: http://peaceworks.missouri.org "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" --Thomas Jefferson ***************************************************************** 45 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Warns U.S. About NATO Expansion From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 7:31 AM AP Photo MOSB118 By THOMAS KENT Associated Press Writer NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) - He didn't go overboard with praise for Washington, but he didn't repeat his comment that the United States is ``Comrade Wolf,'' ready to eat up its enemies. Vladimir Putin spoke in measured tones Friday night about the relationship between Russia and the United States, saying there were more pluses than minuses. But he warned Washington about NATO expansion and signaled that Russia won't blindly follow the Americans into sanctions against Iran. Overall, the Russian president's remarks at a dinner for news agency executives from the Group of Eight countries were among his warmest in recent times about the United States. In his annual address to Parliament on May 10, Putin called for Russia to build up its armed forces and sounded warnings over U.S. policy. ``We are aware what is going on in the world,'' he said. Borrowing from a Russian fairy tale, he said, ``Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, he eats without listening, and he's clearly not going to listen to anyone.'' Friday night, however, he said he was ``satisfied with the level and quality'' of U.S.-Russian relations. He said disagreements between the two powers are ``tactical,'' while ``the things that unite us are of a strategic character.'' In combatting terrorism, ``we are more than partners,'' he said over scallops, quail and rack of lamb at his residence outside Moscow. He said other foundations of the U.S.-Russia relationship are growing U.S. investment in Russia and joint efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. He praised the United States for its readiness to join talks with Iran over its nuclear program, though he said it's too early to talk about sanctions that Washington has promoted if Iran doesn't stop uranium enrichment. There is no lack of strain in U.S.-Russian ties. Moscow wants NATO to stop expanding into the former Soviet bloc, and wants Washington to end Soviet-era laws that bar the Russians from importing products that could be used for military purposes. Vice President Dick Cheney accused Putin's government in May of rolling back democracy inside the country and strong-arming its ex-Soviet neighbors. Russia's focus at the moment, however, is on the G-8 meeting opening in six weeks in St. Petersburg. Putin will host President Bush and the leaders of the other industrialized nations in a session that the Russian leader wants to focus on energy security, infectious disease and education. Other topics will be nuclear non-proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism and Africa's social and economic problems. Putin repeated Friday his wariness about NATO's expansion to states that once belonged to the Soviet bloc. He also questioned its involvement outside Europe. NATO now leads a multinational force in Afghanistan. ``When the military structure of NATO comes close to our borders, we react. Why should this happen in this world? It's no longer a world of two systems,'' he said. ``Before you go with missiles and more weapons you should work on credibility,'' he added. He said Russia still cooperates with NATO on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The World Association of Newspapers opens its annual congress in Moscow on Sunday, a meeting likely to spotlight claims that Putin's government sharply restricts press freedom. Putin asserted Friday that Russia's press offers a wide variety of points of view, and that in the digital age, he couldn't control information if he wanted to. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 46 AFP: Top US military official in India to boost strategic ties - June 4, 09:30 PM NEW DELHI (AFP) - General Peter Pace, Washington's highest-ranking military official, was due to arrive in India for a three-day trip aimed at boosting strategic ties, a US official said. "The focus will be US-India bilateral relations," United States Embassy spokesman David Kennedy said on Sunday. "He will be discussing strategic issues, our operations, our exercises and how we can build that partnership and promote regional stability," he said. The official said that Pace, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was scheduled to hold talks with Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, and other top Indian military officials. Pace is the first Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to visit India since a July 2003 trip by General Richard B. Myers. Last June, the Indian and US defence ministers signed a 10-year accord paving the way for joint weapons production and cooperation on missile defence. Ties between the two countries have been warming up since they signed a landmark civilian nuclear deal during a visit by US President George W. Bush to New Delhi in March. The deal seeks to lift a decades-old ban on transfer of advanced nuclear technology to India, but still has to be approved by the US Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The US official said discussions on the nuclear deal were also on the agenda during Pace's visit. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: In Advance of G-8, Putin Mixes It Up From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday June 3, 2006 5:46 PM AP Photo MOSB501 By THOMAS KENT Associated Press Writer NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) - Sometimes he cracked jokes. Sometimes he was dead serious. Sometimes he made fun of himself. He spoke in bureaucratic formulas that could have come from an old-time Soviet leader. He used salty turns of phrase that would make most statesmen blush. He was uncompromising. He was flexible. In a meeting with foreign newsmen last week, Vladimir Putin switched easily among the many personalities he can muster, something foreign leaders are likely to see when he hosts the Group of Eight summit next month. Putin will need all his diplomatic skill for the meeting. Officially, the agenda focuses on education, health and energy supplies. Other sessions, however, will deal with the far more sensitive issues of terrorism, regional conflicts and weapons of mass destruction. Putin will be under pressure to guarantee that Russia won't try to use its oil and gas exports as a tool of political pressure. By the summit, it may also be time to make decisions on economic sanctions or other action against Iran. Putin's voice in those talks will be critical. As part of Russia' run-up to the G-8, Putin invited executives of six international news agencies to dinner Friday night at Novo-Ogaryovo, his official residence on a heavily wooded estate west of Moscow. Built in the style of an old Russian palace but buzzing with computers and flat-screen TVs, it was a fitting place to see the different sides of Putin: a former KGB agent shaped by the old communist system who now studies English, surfs the Internet and masters the details of world energy markets. Putin's initial welcome was a formulaic recitation of the importance of mass media. But within minutes, he switched - as TV cameras rolled - to an earthiness not seen in a Kremlin leader since Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s. Asked whether Russia would favor sanctions against Iran if it failed to stop enriching uranium, Putin mocked the ``what-if'' nature of the question. ``What if my grandmother had certain sexual attributes?'' he snapped. ``Then she would be my grandfather.'' Apparently recognizing that this did not fully explain Russia's position, he added that the world was still a long way from deciding if sanctions would be needed. The dinner - with the TV cameras gone - had none of the long, vodka-soaked toasting for which official Russian occasions have long been famous. Putin, 53, showed yet another side of his personality: an all-business leader, thoroughly briefed on the issues and not shy about reacting sharply to comments he didn't like. He took one newsman to task for supposedly suggesting that Russian Muslims might be easy for terrorists to recruit. Muslims in Russia are ``not some alien part of society - they're not immigrants,'' he said indignantly. He said they are law-abiding Russians because ``they are full citizens. This is their native land.'' But he also showed extreme politeness, apologizing profusely to a Japanese guest for forgetting to mention Japan in a major speech to parliament May 10, where he cited Russian partnership with countries ranging from the United States to the nations of Africa. He made a vociferous warning to the United States not to try extending NATO membership to more of the former Soviet bloc. He added, for an American audience, that ``before you go with missiles and more weapons'' to the Middle East, the West needs to work on its own credibility there. But he stressed that there are more ups than downs in Russian-U.S. relations. While Russian leaders once violently objected to any foreign ``interference'' in internal affairs, Putin said ``we are ready for discussions'' with Washington on Russian internal policy, including human rights. A man tightly in control of himself, Putin paused at each question, apparently deciding whether to reply directly, with a joke or by skirting the issue. Asked whether Russia's heavily pro-government press carried enough open debate to support a democracy, he answered simply that it did, and that his job was to be the guardian of press freedom. He offered no reply to the second part of the question: whether he supported Russia's law - sometimes used against journalists - that makes insulting the president a criminal offense. His only comment about his plans after he leaves office in 2008 was to joke that he might form an opposition party. Putin, president since the last hours of 1999, was asked what he liked most about his job. He at first answered only with gestures, as if acknowledging his feelings aloud might sound like he wasn't a serious leader. He grinned and pointed to the food: He had dined on artichoke salad with avocado and Parmesan cheese, sorrel soup with quail egg and Far Eastern scallops. He waggled his hand under his chin to suggest he liked giving speeches. With a thumbs-up, he confirmed all this was the good part of being president. Then, in a second, the official Putin was back. ``The most complex and difficult part about being president is the responsibility for the decisions we have taken,'' he said. ``When a person cannot do that, he'd better find another job.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 USNews.com: Hungry for fuel, China emerges as a leader in alternative energy Solar water heaters are common even in remote villages. China's Renewal By Bay Fang 6/12/06 BEIJING--At first glance, the Tian Pu factory looks like a typical warehouse on the outskirts of Beijing. The bright sun glints off the building's blue-tiled facade, and the surrounding fields are reflected in the smoky glass windows. But upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that this is a vision of the future. Each tile is actually a solar panel, generating 50 watts of power. The windows up top are covered with higher-capacity panels, a darker, muted blue. Farther down, thick metallic tubes lean at an angle against the building. This factory, which produces solar water heaters, is a pilot project of China's Academy of Sciences--a fully self-sufficient facility run entirely on solar power. While China is most commonly known as a voracious consumer of energy with a spotty environmental record, the emerging industrial giant is quietly becoming a world leader in developing renewable energy sources and technology. With its energy needs growing exponentially and the price of oil near record highs, Beijing is using every possible means to eke out extra kilowatts--and this means not only cutting oil deals with rogue regimes and building nuclear reactors but also putting into place some of the most aggressive renewable-energy policies in the world. A new Renewable Energy Law took effect January 1, and the government announced a goal of having 10 percent of the country's gross energy consumption be renewable by 2020--a huge increase from the current 1 percent. Renewable energies such as wind, solar, and biofuels are expected to grow into a $100 billion market over the next 15 years in China, making it a global powerhouse in renewables. "China is rapidly moving into a world leadership position in the industry," says William Wallace, an adviser to the United Nations Development Program in Beijing. "The government knows the limited oil supply is a situation it needs to pay attention to, from both an energy security and a development point of view. Its goals for the next five and 15 years are very aggressive." The need for new energy sources is apparent everywhere in China. The streets of its major cities are crammed with cars driven by the new middle class. Gasoline shortages prompted massive lines at the pumps in the southern province of Guangdong late last year. More than two thirds of the country's provinces were hit by blackouts in 2004 because of disruptions in the supply of coal, which now generates 70 percent of China's energy. The country's economy has expanded at an average annual pace of almost 10 percent for nearly three decades. While 20 years ago China was East Asia's largest oil exporter, today it is the world's second-largest importer--accounting for 31 percent of the growth in the world's demand for oil. "China is taking the growth that the U.S. had over the past 100 years and compressing it into 20," says Mike Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. "It is adding cars at such a rate that by 2030, it will have the same number of cars as the United States. Twenty-five years from now, the country will be in a real serious situation." Boosting output. In response, the government has pursued diplomatic relationships with oil-rich countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. It has funded railways in Nigeria and sold weapons to Iran for the right to buy oil from these regimes. Domestically, China just completed construction of the main wall of the Three Gorges, the world's largest hydroelectric dam (whose output is not counted toward the renewable-energy goals). It has also been drilling oil wells, developing coal-fired power plants, and building nuclear reactors along the coast. The new emphasis on renewables, by contrast, is a relief for those who worry about the environmental impact of China's energy consumption. The country is already the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and some Chinese cities have been called "invisible" because they cannot be seen on satellite images. According to the World Bank, China contains 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities. But the Kyoto Protocol came into effect for China last year, aiming to control greenhouse gas emissions. The country's new renewable-energy law specifies tariffs that favor nonfossil energy sources such as wind, water, and solar power. Beijing has promulgated building codes mandating that all new construction dramatically improve energy efficiency. "We need everything--natural gas, nuclear, coal, renewable energy," says Li Junfeng, secretary general of the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association. "But for the long term, renewable is still the most important." China began tapping into renewable energy in the late 1980s because of worries that pollution and associated health and environmental issues caused by industrialization could cause popular unrest. In 2004, an estimated $5.5 billion was invested in renewable energy in China. The rest of the world spent a total of $30 billion. "There is no renewable-energy law in the U.S.," says Eckhart. "We fund research and development, and give incentives. China is giving directives--getting right to the point." Small solar panels can already be seen across the rooftops of major Chinese cities like Beijing. These supply power to solar water-heating systems, of which China is already both the largest producer and consumer in the world. At least 10 percent of all households in China (that's 30 million households) have them--and the market is growing by 20 percent to 25 percent a year, according to Eric Martinot, a leading researcher on renewable energy at Beijing's Qinghua University. This is partly because the relative cost of systems is so much less than in other markets. Someone in China can buy a solar water heating system for less than $200, a fraction of the cost of a comparable system in Europe. In the Chinese countryside, farmers whose houses are not connected to an electricity grid will pump water up to their roofs from their own wells to heat using solar power. "At first, in the countryside, they just had barrels that they painted black and put in the courtyard," says Cao Zhifeng, an engineer with the science academy. "But over time the systems became more sophisticated, and now ... they use insulated pipes." In a country that is still largely agrarian, one obvious strategy is making biofuels and biogas out of the vast amount of agricultural and animal wastes, which can be used as a substitute for imported oil. In the past, farmers would burn corn or rice stalks directly, or decompose them into a gas that could be used as a substitute for natural gas in boilers or generators. Now China is looking at industrial-scale production of biogas, using agricultural, forestry, and municipal wastes. One biogas project on the outskirts of Beijing takes the waste from the 60,000 pigs on a farm and converts it into methane by adding anaerobic bacteria. Alcohol factories that once made China's famous fiery rice wine, or baijiu, are now shifting to making ethanol for use in cars. China's ambitious renewable-energy projects are about to gain a higher profile. The Summer Olympics, to be held in Beijing in 2008, are on track to be the greenest games ever. The main venue, Beijing's Bird's Nest stadium, will be fitted with a 130-kilowatt solar energy system installed by Suntech Power, a Chinese solar company that listed on the New York Stock Exchange in December. The Beijing government has also pledged to build 160 geothermal wells in the city by 2008 to provide space heating for the games, and at least 20 percent of the electricity needs of Olympic Park will be supplied by wind power. Off the grid. In the most remote areas, the government has harnessed wind and solar energy for the Township Electrification Project, which aims to provide electricity to tens of millions who live in the 29,000 villages that are not hooked up to the national grid. The plan is to build a huge solar photovoltaic station in the desert as well as smaller stations. Across the plains of Inner Mongolia, new wind farms dot the landscape. Though the country currently ranks behind the United States and Europe in using wind energy, the only other developing country that uses more is India. An important benefit to using renewables instead of coal-fired power is that it increases employment by relying on manufacturing rather than China's notoriously dangerous mines. China is on track to be the world leader in making and exporting renewable-energy equipment, making wind turbines, solar cells, solar water heaters, and hydro turbines. Still, as in the West, renewable energy costs more in China than traditional energy sources do. In Germany, Japan, and the United States, government subsidies have helped make renewable energy affordable, through tax credits and favorable pricing for users of renewable power. China's new law follows suit by requiring utilities to purchase power from approved renewable-energy facilities at a set price and spreads the cost differential across all grid customers. It also offers tax incentives and discounted loans for developing renewable-energy projects and imposes penalties for failing to meet production targets. Back at the Tian Pu factory, engineer Cao shows a visitor the wall of converters that enable the solar power to be connected to the city's power grid. Cao used to work on control systems for computers, but in the past few years he changed jobs to focus on solar photovoltaic systems. "I thought it was a better career move," he says. "After all, this is the wave of the future!" Copyright © 2006 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All ***************************************************************** 49 HindustanTimes.com: N-deal clearance two months away Indo-Asian News Service Kolkata / New Delhi, June 3, 2006 The Bush administration is making every effort to ensure the passage of the civil nuclear deal between India and the US within the next two months, says a senior US diplomat. "We hope to get the legislation moving and pass it in the next two months. Our Congress is independent but our administration is working on it," said Robert O Blake, deputy chief of mission of the US embassy in New Delhi. Blake was participating in a video conference from New Delhi with the American Centre in Kolkata on Bush's visit to India and 'New Directions in US-India Relations'. "We have tried for many years to hold back our nuclear technology. But because of your brain power you still succeeded in becoming a nuclear power. So we have lifted all those nuclear sanctions and the signing of the civil nuclear deal is historic. It is a departure from our over 30 years of policy," Blake said. "We want high technology trade between the two countries," Blake said. The deal was given a concrete shape during the visit of US President George W Bush to New Delhi in March. When passed by the Congress, it will end a ban on trade with India in nuclear technology and material. Blake said America's closeness with India was not driven by any ulterior motive but was because of the US foreign policy shift to Asia from Europe owing to issues like democracy, trade, trafficking and terrorism. "You are one of the big stories of 21st century. Your economy is growing at eight per cent and you have a growing middle class," said Blake, urging India to keep the reform process going to meet the challenges. ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: Govt accused of secrecy over nuclear power station plans. 04/06/2006. ABC News Online The Opposition says most Australians do not want nuclear power. The Federal Opposition has accused the Prime Minister of keeping secret the potential future sites for nuclear power stations. An inquiry into nuclear power will be announced within days. Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane has told the ABC's Insiders program that the details of the nuclear power inquiry will be finalised as early as this week. "The Prime Minister will bring a proposal forward to Cabinet this week and following that discussion we will then see the best path forward," he said. Deputy Labor leader Jenny Macklin says most Australians are opposed to nuclear power and uranium enrichment. "It's only John Howard that's having this debate, it's only John Howard that wants us to think about nuclear power," she said. Ms Macklin says the Government should state where it would build nuclear power stations. The Australian Greens has accused the Prime Minister of misjudging community concerns about nuclear power. The Greens climate change and energy spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, says John Howard must reveal what he has been discussing with the United States and where reactors and nuclear waste dumps could be set up in Australia. Senator Milne says it is clear that Mr Howard already has a plan. "Prime Minister is talking about nuclear power for Australia - he never launches a debate of this kind without having a plan in place," she said. "It's quite clear the Government has done some preliminary assessment of where sites for reactors might be suitable from their perspective. "The fact is we wouldn't be having this debate about nuclear if we weren't in the middle of a resources boom." A leaked Cabinet document from 1997 lists 14 potential sites for a nuclear reactor including Lucas Heights, Goulburn, Holsworthy, and Broken Hill in New South Wales, as well as Adelaide, Darwin, and Perth and Mt Isa in north-west Queensland. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he would fight any plans to build a nuclear reactor in the state. Mr Beattie says he does not want nuclear energy to compete with the coal sector. "I know it was considered by Federal Cabinet, the State Government does not support it. "We have the power to block them and we will block them." ***************************************************************** 51 AU ABC: Nuclear list earmarked for research, says Govt. 04/06/2006. ABC News Online [The Govt says the document shows a list of potential research sites.] The Opposition says most Australians do not want nuclear power. The Federal Government says a leaked shortlist of sites for a nuclear research reactor has no connection to the debate about nuclear power in Australia. Labor is using the document to claim that Prime Minister John Howard is keeping potential nuclear reactor sites a secret. The nine-year-old document includes sites in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth, but Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says it was a study on locations for a nuclear research station, not a reactor. "So it was a different debate in a different time frame," she said. But Labor's Jenny Macklin says the document sets a precedent. "They kept it secret then, and they're keeping it secret now," she said. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he would consider having a nuclear reactor in his Queensland electorate. "Providing the studies show it's safe and it doesn't affect the environment, then why not?" he said. "I mean you can't be a nimby in this situation." But Queensland Premier Peter Beattie is opposed to the building of such a facility in his state. Wake up West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has accused the Commonwealth of trying to encroach on the rights of states over nuclear power. Mr Carpenter says the debate is being used to weaken the resolve of the states. He says it is possible the Commonwealth will try to impose legislation on the states to force them to accept nuclear facilities. "The present Commonwealth Government seems to think that it can override the rights and responsibilities of state governments in a whole range of areas, and look what's happening," he said. "People should wake up." On Tuesday, Mr Howard will take to Federal Cabinet his plans for an inquiry covering health, safety, and environmental aspects of nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 52 AU ABC: Carpenter urges nuclear wake-up call. 04/06/2006. ABC News Online The West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has accused the Commonwealth of trying to encroach on the rights of states over nuclear power. The comment comes after a leaked Federal Cabinet document from 1997 revealed a list of 14 possible sites for nuclear reactors in Australia. The Federal Government is due to announce an inquiry into nuclear power within days. Mr Carpenter says the debate is being used to weaken the resolve of the states. He says it is possible the Commonwealth will try to impose legislation on the states to force them to accept nuclear facilities. "The present Commonwealth Government seems to think that it can override the rights and responsibilities of state governments in a whole range of areas, and look what's happening," he said. "People should wake up." ***************************************************************** 53 AU ABC: PM reveals plans for 'full-blooded' nuclear debate. 05/06/2006. ABC News Online Mr Howard wants to explore whether or not Australia is suited to nuclear power. The Prime Minister has unveiled details of his inquiry into nuclear power, ahead of formal approval of the review at tomorrow's federal Cabinet meeting. But critics say it will be a waste of time. John Howard's "full-blooded debate" will examine the economics of nuclear power, and whether Australia has the skilled workers to sustain it. It will look at the health and safety implications, and the impact on the environment. Mr Howard says the review will investigate whether nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He says since an an oil production crisis is approaching, alternative energy sources must be investigated. His Science Minister Julie Bishop says several experts will conduct the inquiry. "I would imagine it would take some time, could be a matter of months, could be throughout the course of this year," she said. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) chairman Don Henry says it could be a waste of time and money. He says the debate must consider the broader issue of climate change. "Well if the inquiry is just about nuclear power it will be a waste of taxpayers' money because nuclear power is too dangerous, too dirty, and too slow to tackle climate change," he said. "If the inquiry is going to be fairdinkum, it needs to look at that issue: what can we do right now to tackle climate change in Australia?" Mr Howard will take his plan to Cabinet tomorrow. [Related Video] Related Video The Prime Minister, John Howard, has revealed details of his inquiry into nuclear power, which he will present to federal cabinet tomorrow. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win The chief executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Ian Smith, says nuclear power is a viable alternative to coal-fired power plants in Australia. [RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3] Any decision to proceed with nuclear power would require a new regulatory body to oversee the industry. One experts says problems between state and federal governments will make it almost impossible to get the idea off the ground. [RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3] [Related Stories] Related Stories ***************************************************************** 54 SNA: Bulgaria Signs NPP Builder "in 2006" 4 June 2006, Sunday. By the end of the year Bulgaria will sign a constructor for the Belene nuclear power plant, a top official says. The head of the National Electricity Company (NEC) Lyubomir Velkov has said that preparations for the start of the building were advancing according to schedule. Czech company Skoda Alliance and Russia's Atomstroiexport are the two bidders for the design and construction of the Belene plant. The winning bidder for the project, estimated to cost about EUR 2 B, should be announced by August 1. The Belene project was first launched in 1986, but was suspended in 1991, due to financial problems and pressure from environmental groups. Belene's first reactor should become operational over 2013-2015. Until 2018, the second reactor should be switched on. All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy ISO 9001:2000 Certified Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News ***************************************************************** 55 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate 'not an issue' - From: AAP June 04, 2006 NEW South Wales Opposition Leader Peter Debnam has dodged questions about locating a nuclear power plant in his electorate, saying the nuclear debate is not an issue. Four sites in NSW were all considered nine years ago as possible sites for a nuclear power plant, according to cabinet papers reported in a Sydney newspaper. They include Broken Hill, Goulburn, and Holsworthy and Lucas Heights in Sydney, among 14 possible sites nationwide. Mr Debnam, the member for Vaucluse, in Sydney's eastern suburbs, was asked today if he would volunteer his electorate to host a reactor. He said there were other, more pressing issues on his agenda. "Nothing's a wasted debate, but for now it has no impact on NSW in the short-to-medium term," Mr Debnam said. "I suggest that NSW get back to business in dealing with the real issues, which is resolving the rundown of the economy in NSW, kick-starting the housing sector and rescuing the state budget." Despite Prime Minister John Howard pushing for a debate on nuclear energy, Mr Debnam said the discussion should be left for a later date. "Mr Howard has decided to start a debate on nuclear energy, I'm sure a lot of people will engage in that debate, but it's a long-term issue," Mr Debnam said. "It's a long-term debate which will engage a lot of people and they'll have fun with it, but in the short-term, I'd say to everybody in NSW, it's not an issue." Search for | | | | Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + ***************************************************************** 56 NEWS.com.au: WA rejects nuclear power plant - WA - From: AAP June 04, 2006 A LIST of 14 possible sites for a nuclear power plant in Australia were a facade to soften up the West to accept a nuclear waste dump, the West Australian premier Alan Carpenter said today. A submission to federal cabinet nine years ago reportedly lists a number of sites for a nuclear power plant. The document was obtained by a Sydney newspaper. "People would not only be surprised but stunned to learn that the federal cabinet considered possible sites ... without disclosing them to any state government," Mr Carpenter said today. In a statement issued afterwards, Mr Carpenter said the leaked submission named sites in the electorate of O'Connor held by Wilson Tuckey, Brand held by Kim Beazley, Canning held by David Johnson and Pearse held by Judi Moylan. Mr Carpenter says the document specifically mentions a site near Perth airport. "People should wake up to what's happening around Australia, particularly in WA," said Mr Carpenter. "Only a few weeks ago, we had three prominent WA Liberal MPs supporting a nuclear waste dump in WA," he said. "This is all a facade in the Howard Government's push to soften up West Australians for a nuclear waste dump." ***************************************************************** 57 The Australian: Cabinet documents show nuke sites This story is from our network Source: AAP June 03, 2006 THE Sydney suburb of Holsworthy, Queensland's Mt Isa and south Darwin were all considered nine years ago as possible sites for a nuclear power plant, a cabinet submission reveals. The document named 14 possible sites nationwide, which also included the south-western New South Wales city of Goulburn, Perth, Adelaide and Woomera. The existing nuclear site at Lucas Heights, in Sydney's south, was also considered, as was Broken Hill in western NSW. The document also detailed which Coalition MPs would be affected by having a reactor built in or near their electorate and canvassed locations for nuclear waste dumps. Then science minister Peter McGauran approved the document outlining the sites for cabinet discussion on July 8, 1997. The details come after Prime Minister John Howard last month called for a national debate on nuclear power in Australia. But Mr Howard had refused to name possible locations for a nuclear reactor. Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said it was time the Government told the public where the reactors would be built. "There's nothing new about a nuclear debate," he said. "What's new is the prime minister's assertion that we can have a hypothetical debate without naming sites for reactors." Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 58 The Australian: Nuclear plan 'irrational' | | + NEWS.com.au This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP June 03, 2006 FOREIGN Minister Alexander Downer's push for a nuclear power station in South Australia is irrational, the opposition said today. Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd today slammed Mr Downer's call for a nuclear-powered desalination plant to curb demand on the Murray River. Mr Downer told an Energy Supply Association of Australia conference in Adelaide yesterday that the project would stem the drain on the river's water by nearly 75 per cent, and fears of radiation leaks were not based on fact. However, Mr Rudd today said the claims were "completely irrational". "So would Mr Downer like the nuclear waste from the plant put in his back yard?" Mr Rudd said. "If this goes ahead, there are likely to be nuclear power stations in all of our capital cities shortly." The ALP remained firmly opposed to a domestic nuclear industry and, "'Nuclear Alex' needs to cool down", Mr Rudd said. Prime Minister John Howard last month called for a national debate on the nuclear industry. [»] Print Friendly Version [»] Email this story Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 59 The Australian: Three N-plants 'would reduce emissions' Samantha Maiden June 05, 2006 AUSTRALIA would need to build several nuclear power plants to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and ensure the viability of any industry. As John Howard prepares to announce a wide-ranging inquiry into nuclear energy, the head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ian Smith, has confirmed "at least three" power plants would be required. The Australian understands the Prime Minister is preparing to appoint chief scientist Jim Peacock, a supporter of nuclear power, to the inquiry panel. Dr Peacock and John Zillman, president of the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, wrote to Mr Howard last year, offering to lead a fact-finding inquiry into the nuclear power option. "We've got to explore these things," Dr Peacock said. Cabinet will tomorrow consider the inquiry's terms of reference, which are expected to include an examination of economic viability and environmental dangers. "Are they affordable? Are they safe? What technological developments have been made and what methods are being worked on for the disposal of waste?" Mr Howard said yesterday. "Concerns about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the rising costs of energy and the possible availability of a cheaper source of fuel, will form the basis of our arguments for this debate," he said. "Naturally, health, safety and proliferation issues will be crucial." Despite calling for an open debate, government ministers yesterday dismissed a submission to cabinet made nine years ago by then science minister Peter McGauran that lists 14 possible sites for a nuclear reactor, including the southwest Sydney suburb of Holsworthy, Mount Isa in northwestern Queensland, south Darwin, Adelaide and Perth. Mr Howard said the ANSTO report, prepared by international energy consultant John Gittus, challenged the view that the cost of nuclear power was prohibitive. But Opposition science spokeswoman Jenny Macklin seized on an admission by ANSTO executive director Dr Smith, who told a Senate estimates hearing last week that Australia would require "multiple power stations to make the industry viable". "John Howard wants to start a debate about nuclear power in this country, but he won't come clean on where any nuclear power stations will be," Ms Macklin said yesterday. The Weekend Australian reported that Foreign Minister Alexander Downer had called for a nuclear-powered desalination plant to be built in his home state of South Australia to curb pressure on the Murray River. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the nuclear energy inquiry, which is expected to report by the end of the year, would include consideration of nuclear enrichment plants. And And Mr Macfarlane said he would consider proposals for a nuclear power plant in his own Toowoomba-based electorate of Groom in southeast Queensland. However, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie pledged that he would not jeopardise the state's coal industry by supporting a nuclear power plant. Privacy Terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 60 The Observer: Nuclear costs to hit £90bn, warns Brown [UP] Price of cleaning up UK's ageing reactors will be £20bn more than forecast, Chancellor tells cabinet Oliver Morgan, industrial editor Sunday June 4, 2006 The Observer Chancellor Gordon Brown has told ministers that the cost of cleaning up Britain's nuclear facilities stands at £90bn, considerably higher than figures produced by the government agency overseeing the task. The Chancellor's warning came at a cabinet meeting last month and is being seized on by ministers opposing plans to approve a new generation of atomic stations. Energy minister Malcolm Wicks is due to hold one-to-one meetings with cabinet ministers in the coming weeks to brief them on the progress of the government's energy review and sound out their concerns. The review is intended to look at a range of technologies that can deliver 'carbon-free' and secure energy in the future, as the 20 per cent of generation capacity supplied by Britain's current nuclear facilities declines steeply. The review does not report until later in the summer, but Tony Blair has indicated he believes nuclear should be part of the solution. Several cabinet ministers - thought to include Margaret Beckett, Peter Hain and Hilary Benn - have deep reservations about nuclear power. One said: 'Gordon Brown told the cabinet that the combined clean-up costs would be £90bn, not the £70bn that has been stated. That is a massive cost.' The Treasury is known to have serious misgivings about a new nuclear building programme because the cost of constructing and decommissioning stations constantly rises. Independent experts say these concerns are justified, and that the £90bn figure is entirely plausible. One senior official said that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which published the £70bn figure, had itself warned that the total could rise. On top of that, there is an additional £14bn needed to dismantle the eight second-generation stations owned by British Energy and the eventual costs of a deep underground store, estimated at between £15bn and £20bn. 'These numbers make a future programme look very unattractive,' said a minister. Stations would be financed, built and operated by private consortia of energy companies, backed by banks. However, these companies will demand that the government addresses the risks they face: lengthy planning inquiries, the possibility that electricity price could slump, forcing nuclear operators into insolvency (as happened to British Energy), and escalating decommissioning costs. The Nuclear Industry Association has demanded that the review deliver a streamlined planning system, a mechanism to support the price of nuclear power by forcing all suppliers to buy it at above a certain price, and a cap to decommissioning liabilities. Opponents are determined to extract concessions if a pro-nuclear decision is taken. 'We will argue that if there is some kind of preferential treatment for nuclear, there must be a level playing field with other carbon-free technologies,' said one. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 61 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's nuclear secret - www.smh.com.au By KERRY-ANNE WALSH POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT June 4, 2006 + Graphic: Planned reactor sites HOLSWORTHY and Goulburn were pinpointed by the Howard Government as NSW sites for nuclear reactors nine years ago, an explosive confidential cabinet submission obtained by The Sun-Herald reveals. Warning ministers that the release of 14 shortlisted spots across Australia would "unnecessarily alarm communities", then science minister Peter McGauran also canvassed locations for nuclear waste dumps. The highly political document, detailing which Coalition MPs electorates could be affected, was approved for cabinet discussion by Mr McGauran on July 8, 1997. He scrawled "good work" on the cover of the document. The Goulburn site was identified south-west of Mittagong and north-east of Goulburn. It contained the alarming observation that "appropriate engineering works would be necessary to ensure there was no risk of contamination to either the Shoalhaven or Wollondilly river catchment areas, both of which provide Sydney's water supply". Prime Minister John Howard has ignited debate on the need for a home-grown nuclear industry, but has refused to speculate where nuclear reactors would be built. In a keynote address to the Minerals Council of Australia on Thursday night he slammed as fearmongers those who raised the question of locations. "This will be a debate that will attract the usual fear campaign," he said, pointing to a list of possible areas drawn up by think-tank The Australia Institute. "I thought the institute's efforts in publishing all of those potential sites was sort of a down payment and instalment on that". Mr Howard said the Government would pursue an inquiry into nuclear energy "irrespective of reactions of that kind". But Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese leapt on the document to again challenge the Prime Minister to say where reactors would be situated. "If John Howard thinks nuclear energy is inevitable, as he's said, then he should say where he'll put the nuclear reactors," Mr Albanese said. "There's nothing new about a nuclear debate. What's new is the Prime Minister's assertion we can have a hypothetical debate without naming sites for reactors." The sensitive submission, drawn up as cabinet considered whether to overhaul Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor or build one elsewhere, noted that sites needed to be 100 hectares to 250 hectares for the nuclear facility and for an exclusion zone around the reactor. The sites needed to be close to airports "for the delivery of radiopharmaceuticals". Apart from Holsworthy, Goulburn and Lucas Heights, Mr McGauran shortlisted Broken Hill as another potential NSW site because it could be insulated from urban or mining development. South Darwin, Mount Isa, east Perth, Woomera and Adelaide sites were shortlisted in other states. The submission noted that one possible South Australian site would fall in the electorate of Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer, about 90 minutes from the airport. Mr Albanese challenged Mr Howard to reveal why the Government had considered "in secret" where to put nuclear reactors and why they hadn't consulted the community. | | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 62 Australian Financial Review: Don't endanger energy debate June 5 2006 letter The report on nuclear energy commissioned by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and authored by British nuclear expert John Gittus appears to be an alarming example of vested interests corrupting the energy debate in Australia. As revealed in your "Atomic power author in conflict" (June 1) Gittus's report may have been compiled under the guiding influence of commercial interests, but has, much more significantly, damaged the real case for nuclear power in the media. It should also be noted that true costs of alternative power generation should be considered over the long term and not just in the context of the next 10 years. Future Directions Australia (FDI) conducted a study which was launched in federal parliament on October 6, 2005 entitled Australia's Energy Options, which outlined the possibilities for nuclear power generation within Australia and was conducted from a bipartisan, objective and strategic perspective, notably deficient of commercial interest. Where other reports, such as the ANSTO report, gain widespread media attention for their claims, they do not raise critical issues surrounding nuclear power generation. The FDI study revealed that there are benefits in the use of thorium, not just uranium, in generating nuclear power that includes potential for thorium reactors to use spent uranium fuel rods as a dual fuel source, thus reducing the half-life of waste. Australia's proven, large resources of both thorium and uranium could give the country a major strategic advantage. Also, critical to the energy debate is the subject of biomass, which FDI recommended requires further discussion and development to become a key part of our future energy mix. As long as the energy debate remains focused on uranium and dominated by commercial interest, Australia's energy security could be compromised. Energy generation must be considered from a strategic perspective, which includes the role of new nuclear technology, to ensure that Australia's energy mix supports priorities of energy security. Craig Lawrence, Executive director, Future Directions International, Perth, WA. ***************************************************************** 63 Sydney Morning Herald: Cabinet set to approve nuclear review www.smh.com.au June 4, 2006 Prime Minister John Howard will take his plan for an expert review of nuclear power to federal cabinet this week. The government has released a report suggesting nuclear energy could be affordable - if it was subsidised by taxpayers. But it was a nine-year-old report that grabbed attention after a 1997 submission to cabinet listing 14 possible sites for a nuclear reactor was leaked to a newspaper. Sites considered included Holsworthy in Sydney, Mt Isa in Queensland and south Darwin. Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin says Mr Howard must come clean and tell Australians where he was planning to put any nuclear power stations. Mr Howard, who has called for a "full-blooded" debate on the nuclear issue, has outlined some of the areas his expert review will consider - but a potential site was not among them. © 2006 AAP ***************************************************************** 64 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard sees the light, and it's a nuclear one - www.smh.com.au Ross Gittins June 5, 2006 MONDAY COMMENT HEAVEN be praised. John Howard, the great climate change procrastinator, has experienced a road-from-the-White-House conversion. In a blinding revelation, he now realises we must embrace our inevitable nuclear future. Mr Howard has suddenly discovered that climate change is much worse than we thought - very worrying, in fact - and nuclear power is the obvious answer. And this from the man who, while never actually coming out of the closet to reveal himself as a climate-change denier, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saw no need for serious measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and was perfectly happy with his ineffective Australian Greenhouse Office and its you've-got-to-be-joking voluntary targets. So, starting tomorrow, we need to have a full debate about the merits of switching to nuclear power and find out if it's economically feasible. Trouble is, in a country where coal is so readily available, we already know it isn't. Take the latest report, prepared by a British scientist for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. As Peter Martin summarises its findings on the New Matilda website, the report finds that a privately owned nuclear power plant could make money only if the government contributed 14 per cent of the cost of building it and then paid 21 per cent of the electricity bills for the first 12 years. Apparently, the knowledge that nuclear power could only be introduced with heavy public subsidies hasn't deterred Mr Howard from spruiking it. So here we have the self-proclaimed father of economic rationalism, happily flirting with the notion of picking winners in a big way. Mr Howard's economic rationalism extends only as far as refusing to contemplate any kind of leg-up for renewable energy (always excepting ethanol, of course). So what gives? One minute climate change is a beat-up and in no way urgent, the next we're really worried about it. One minute we're not wasting the taxpayers' hard-earned on renewable energy, the next we're happy to contemplate establishing an industry that could only survive in a government-provided iron lung. The conventional wisdom is that Mr Howard's only interest in the nuclear debate is to use it as a diversion and a way to drive a wedge through the ranks of the Labor Party. I'm sure those benefits wouldn't have escaped his attention. But, when you think about it, there is a logical connection between these two apparently contradictory positions: both fit the interests of the mining industry. Who would hate to see us ratify Kyoto or introduce a carbon tax or give renewable energy an advantage over coal-fired electricity? The miners. Who would love to see a softening of the restrictions on, and general public disapprobation of, uranium and nuclear power - so much so they'd be prepared to use climate change as their cover? The miners. Of course, a local nuclear power industry would take years to get going and even then wouldn't take much uranium. So establishing a local nuclear industry isn't likely to be a serious objective. What's more likely is that all the earnest chat about what a problem the world has with climate change and what a perfect solution nuclear is will be used to soften the public up for what Mr Howard and the miners really want: greatly increased uranium production to supply dubious customers such as China and India, and introduction of waste-stream processing back in Oz. If you need to get up to speed on the re-emergence of the Indian economy, the easy way to do it is to listen to Mark Thirlwell of the Lowy Institute over lunch at a meeting of the Australian Business Economists at the Swissotel on Wednesday, June 14. Cost: $100 (members, $80). Phone 9299 2610. Ross Gittins is the Herald's Economics Editor. | | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 65 AU: The Age: Nuclear energy the 'elephant in the lounge' www.theage.com.au June 5, 2006 JON Stanford's article "Sharing the vision for a nuclear future" (Business, 29/5) is instructive but like so much written on energy and greenhouse gas emissions, fails to address the "elephant in the lounge room" issue. That is, that humankind's ever-increasing consumption of energy is unsustainable. Nuclear energy has become topical because of concerns about global warming. However, it offers us no more than a brief respite. Known world reserves of economically recoverable uranium are about 3.5 million tonnes. Using current fission processes, this would yield a net energy of 500 exajoules (one exajoule = 10 to the power of 18 joules). Current world nuclear generation (15 per cent of total electricity production) is about eight exajoules a year. Therefore existing reserves will last for about 60 years. If nuclear generation increases, then obviously the reserves will run out sooner unless more discoveries are made. If Australia embarks on a nuclear power program to help reduce emissions, how effective will this be? Let us assume we aim at the world 15 per cent nuclear level. This will require about 4500 megawatts of generation or two power stations the size of Loy Yang A and B combined. Electricity generation represents 33 per cent of Australia's emissions, so reducing this by 15 per cent cuts our total emissions by about 5 per cent. Certainly this is a step in the right direction, but current energy growth forecasts of 2.1 per cent a year mean this will be wiped out in less than three years. Energy pricing policies that discourage growth in consumption must be implemented globally, if the reduction of 50 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 (which the climate scientists state is necessary to arrest climate change) is to be achieved. Unfortunately, privatisation of Victoria's power industry was exactly the wrong policy if we are to do our part in addressing climate change. There is now a vested interest in continuing and even expanding polluting power generation, nuclear energy notwithstanding. Perhaps a wiser policy is to divert investment in nuclear power, to instead subsidise industry restructure to reduce demand and to hasten the development of renewable energy sources, the only truly sustainable option. Michael Hassett, Blackburn Transport black holes show Government is on wrong line AS ELLIOT Fishman (Business, 30/5) points out, it is essential that the Government start preparing now for the inevitable peak in oil production, which is likely to occur in the next few years if it hasn't already. The rapidly rising petrol prices that will result will most hurt low-income, outer-suburban communities with poor public transport. When it comes to meeting the challenge of peak oil, the Government's recently released transport plan "Meeting Our Transport Challenges" has failed miserably. The $1.3 billion that the Government is planning to spend on expanding the Monash and Westgate freeways is illogical when looked at in the context of rapidly rising fuel prices. Who'll be able to afford to drive along these freeways when petrol is $10 a litre? Instead the Government should be future-proofing Melbourne, by investing in much-needed rail extensions to public transport black holes such as Rowville. Louise Sales, sustainable transport campaigner, Environment Victoria Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 66 AU The Age: Energy debate must include nuclear option - Opinion - www.theage.com.au By John Howard June 5, 2006 Too often politicians are criticised for taking short-term decisions and ignoring long-term needs. That is usually because the decisions that look to the long term are often the most difficult. But I have always taken the view that if people are given the facts, and can be persuaded that the policy is in the national interest - as with the GST - they will respond positively. So it is with nuclear energy. It is the debate we must have. I will shortly be announcing a review of our approach on nuclear energy. Concerns about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the rising costs of energy and the possible availability of a cheaper source of fuel, will form the basis of our arguments for this debate. The arguments of our opponents, meanwhile, defy logic. First they say it is OK to mine uranium from three sites but not from others. Then they say it is OK to sell uranium, but not to enrich it. And then they say, well, maybe it is OK to enrich it, but we shouldn't use it to power our towns and cities. It is policy anachronism piled on contradiction, capped by inertia. These are arguments driven by emotion and by factional rigidities rather than facts, and not by any consideration of the needs of Australians in 10, 20 or even 100 years' time. These are arguments driven by fear, which would have meant the first fires being snuffed out or the first wheels left in the paddock. Surely we have more confidence in ourselves today and in our ability to tackle difficult issues and find their solution than we did decades ago when this debate surfaced. A comprehensive debate, and a review, will help inform our thinking. In 1996, my Government abolished Labor's illogical no-new-mines policy. In 2005, Australian uranium exports were a record 12,360 tonnes, valued at $573 million. Uranium mining is carried out under stringent environmental requirements and exports are subject to companies holding valid export permits and passing stringent safeguards assessments on a shipment by shipment basis. But we need to be informed on how much further we can, or should, go. A review will help establish whether uranium enrichment or nuclear power plants are viable options for Australia. Are they affordable? Are they safe? What technological developments have been made and what methods are being worked on for the disposal of waste? What are the potential benefits for consumers, the environment and the economy? If nothing else, the high petrol prices of the past few months show that we are approaching a crisis in oil production and consumption. We have entered an environment of high global demand and limited spare capacity for the production and refinement of crude oil. We need to ensure access to diversified sources of power and energy. The debate on alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy, or we run the risk of denying Australians an affordable power source that will not pollute the environment, or put a brake on the economy. The report by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, released yesterday, dissects the costs of nuclear power compared with that of coal and gas-fired electricity generation. This report, prepared by international energy consultant Professor John Gittus, challenges the view that the cost would be prohibitive. Renowned British scientist, and environmentalist, Sir James Lovelock, argues that the green movement needs to take a more scientific approach on climate change and has argued strongly in favour of nuclear energy. The facts, not emotion, need to guide this debate. The expert review that I am considering will examine the economics of nuclear energy in Australia, and the circumstances in which it could be competitive with other existing electricity generation technologies, including any implications it would have for the national electricity market. Naturally, health, safety and proliferation issues will be crucial, including the potential of "next generation" nuclear energy technologies to meet safety, waste and proliferation concerns; the waste processing and storage issues associated with nuclear energy and current world's best practice; and any security, safety or health issues emanating from nuclear energy. Environmental factors will also be a major consideration, including the extent to which nuclear energy could help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions to 2050 and beyond. We have an obligation to look at these issues and we will engage in a full public debate. | | Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 67 AU: The Age: Bite the atomic bullet or face blackouts - National - www.theage.com.au [Professor John Price.] Photo: Melanie Dove Geoff Strong June 5, 2006 VICTORIA will probably need to accept nuclear power within a decade if it wants to avoid blackouts, big electricity price rises and a blow-out in greenhouse gas emissions, according to a Monash University power generation expert. Professor John Price, who has been involved in designing almost every form of power technology from wind and wave to nuclear, said proposals to store carbon dioxide underground could triple or quadruple the cost of power. He said he believed Prime Minister John Howard and other Government leaders knew this and that was the reason they had reopened the debate on nuclear power. Underground storage, known as geosequestration, has in the past been touted by Mr Howard, and on Saturday by state Treasurer John Brumby, as a means of reducing greenhouse gas from coal-fired power stations. Victoria gets more than 80 per cent of its energy from burning greenhouse-intensive lignite (brown coal) and the ageing Hazelwood station in the Latrobe Valley has been nominated as one of the worst polluters in the world. Mr Brumby has ruled out nuclear power, saying Victoria had vast underground sites where carbon dioxide could be stored, such as the voids left by former oil wells under Bass Strait. But Professor Price said geosequestration was possibly decades away from being proven as a viable technology, and alternative energy sources, such as wind farms, produced costly power needing government subsidies, were often unreliable and unable to realistically meet more than a small portion of demand. "No matter what the Government does, we are adding 300 megawatts of demand every year in Victoria, much of it because of the uptake of air-conditioners," he said. "In a decade, that is the equivalent of the Loy Yang A and B power stations in the Latrobe Valley. "If the Government is serious about reducing carbon dioxide, it will have to stipulate that reduction in any new power stations built. But because all Victorian power generators are private companies, no private operator is likely to be willing to build a station that costs three or four times more to run." Professor Price said that at present Victorian power was cheap because brown coal was provided to the operators for virtually nothing. But once they started to include the cost of zero-emission technologies, the price was likely to make nuclear the cheapest means of producing large amounts of electricity. "I don't know why they are talking about unproven technologies like geosequestration when they have a proven technology in nuclear that has been safe for 50 years, and produces virtually no greenhouse gas," he said. Professor Price said that waste was nothing like the problem nuclear opponents claimed. "Compared with the waste generated by coal, you can store the entire waste from the life cycle of a nuclear power station in a space the size of an average house." A spokesman for state Energy Minister Theo Theophanous denied Victoria would need nuclear power, saying Professor Price's predictions on future power use were higher than the Government's. "We are committed to a range of options such as sourcing power from interstate, clean coal technologies, renewable energy and finding more gas deposits." Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 68 AU The Age: Cabinet to order nuclear inquiry - www.theage.com.au Katharine Murphy June 5, 2006 THE Howard Government will decide early next year whether to proceed with uranium enrichment or even nuclear power plants after a wide-ranging inquiry reports on whether they are viable options for Australia. Federal cabinet is set to approve the inquiry tomorrow, with Australia's chief scientist Jim Peacock to be given a pivotal role in recommending whether Australia should become a much bigger player in nuclear energy. The Age believes Dr Peacock, a strong supporter of nuclear power, will be asked to co-ordinate the work of an expert panel to be appointed by cabinet this week. He will also assess and separate technical material from the Australian Academy of Sciences and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences. The Government is considering a number of high-profile names to serve on the inquiry, including the former Telstra boss and nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski and Macquarie Bank executive Paul McClintock. Dr Switkowski is on the board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. He is also on a separate expert panel which is examining low emission fuels. An overseas expert is also being considered. The wide-ranging public inquiry, undertaken by three or four experts will examine the economics of nuclear energy, health, safety, environmental and proliferation issues as well as waste and storage. The panel will be supported by a secretariat in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, made up of bureaucrats from the major policy departments and the CSIRO. The taskforce will take submissions and is expected to prepare a report to Government within four or five months, with the Government's response early in 2007, an election year. The report could recommend a range of options, from Australia simply expanding uranium mining, to developing a new "enrichment" industry, which would see Australian companies manufacturing fuel rods, to the construction of nuclear reactors in Australia, or even nuclear power stations. Prime Minister John Howard yesterday insisted he would not be deterred by the unpopularity of nuclear power, saying: "We have an obligation to look at these issues. We will engage in a full public debate." He repeated that nuclear energy was a debate Australia had to have, and blasted the Federal Opposition for its "well-practised ostrich impersonation" on the issue. Federal Labor has been intensifying its attacks on the Government's desire for a nuclear debate by demanding the Government reveal where it intends to build nuclear reactors. The Opposition yesterday circulated a leaked cabinet submission from 1997 suggesting possible sites for research reactors, with the shadow science spokeswoman Jenny Macklin declaring the Government should "come clean". But Mr Howard argued Labor's stance was "policy anachronism, piled on contradiction, capped by inertia". "I have always taken the view that if people are given the facts, and can be persuaded that the policy is in the national interest — as with the GST — they will respond positively," Mr Howard said in a column in today's Age. "So it is with nuclear energy — it is the debate we must have," he said. "The debate on alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy, or else we run the risk of denying Australians an affordable power source which will not pollute the environment, nor put a brake on the economy." Yesterday, a leading expert on nuclear fuel, Melbourne industrialist John White told The Age Australia could ultimately choose not to build power plants, but it must seriously consider nuclear fuel leasing. Fuel leasing involves uranium -rich countries such as Australia mining and enriching uranium to produce fuel rods, which are exported and then returned to Australia for disposal to combat the risks associated with rogue states obtaining large amounts of excess nuclear material. Mr White is the head of the Howard Government's Uranium Industry Framework, a group appointed by Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane to advise Canberra on uranium mining policy. Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 69 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power need not be high risk, says Bishop - www.smh.com.au Mark Metherell June 5, 2006 AUSTRALIA will consider joining international research projects aimed at developing low-risk nuclear power technology. The Science Minister, Julie Bishop, said Australia had been approached to join the development of "clean green" nuclear power as the Government came under Opposition fire over the disclosure that it had secretly considered 14 sites for a nuclear research reactor nine years ago. Ms Bishop said yesterday that modern nuclear power had become far safer since the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island meltdowns. Fourth-generation nuclear technology now under development would also mean there would be no toxic waste, as all radioactive matter would be reprocessed or recycled and there was no risk of meltdown. She said Australia had been approached by the United States and Britain to join the research and development effort. While the Government was yet to decide, Ms Bishop said: "I would be keen for us to consider being involved in that research." The federal cabinet is expected to discuss plans tomorrow for a wide-ranging review of the potential for nuclear power and uranium enrichment. The Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday stepped up his campaign for a nuclear power debate, saying petrol prices "show that we are approaching a crisis in oil production and consumption". "The debate on alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy, or else we run the risk of denying Australians an affordable power source which will not pollute the environment, nor put a brake on the economy," Mr Howard said. The Federal Opposition seized on a leaked cabinet document which identified possible sites for a nuclear research reactor, including at Holsworthy in Sydney's south-west, near Goulburn and at Broken Hill. The reactor has since been installed at Lucas Heights. The deputy Opposition Leader, Jenny Macklin, attacked the Government for keeping the proposed sites secret. Ms Bishop dismissed concerns about the secret list as "scaremongering" and said that Australia had to explore whether nuclear power was cleaner, greener, safer and cheaper. Ms Bishop yesterday released the full version of a report on the economics of nuclear power which found that under some circumstances it could generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power stations. The report, commissioned by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and produced by Professor John Gittus, said nuclear power was "demonstrably the safest way of generating electricity". Asked on Channel Nine's Sunday program whether she would be happy to have a reactor in her Perth electorate, Ms Bishop said "it might be little bit difficult". Asked a similar question on the ABC's Insiders, the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, said there were coal-fired power stations near his home town of Toowoomba and if nuclear power was shown to be safe, "then why not?" | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 70 AU: The Age: Nuclear power 'cheaper, safer' than coal and gas www.theage.com.au Brendan Nicholson June 5, 2006 NUCLEAR power could be cheaper than electricity produced by coal and gas, says a report commissioned by the Australian nuclear research and development body. Nuclear power will also do less environmental damage and will be much safer, it says. The report, by a British nuclear power specialist, John Gittus, was released in full yesterday by Science Minister Julie Bishop, who said it demonstrated that nuclear energy was a very safe alternative to traditional forms of power. The report calculates that if Australia waits for about a decade — until nine modern power stations have been built overseas — the cost will drop to the point where nuclear power is competitive with gas and coal. Building a power station immediately would cost about $3.5 billion, but that would gradually come down to about $2.5 billion as more were built around the world. If Australia pushed ahead sooner, a nuclear power station would need significant taxpayer subsidy, the report says. But there would be an enormous saving in production of greenhouse-inducing carbon dioxide, it argues, and says nuclear power is much safer than traditional forms of generation. The report, prepared for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, says there have been accidents involving coal, oil and gas power stations, and hydro-electric stations that dwarf even the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. But it does not say when or where they were. It says the Chernobyl power station was irrelevant to the safety of Western designs because the reactors it used were intrinsically unstable and could not reach acceptable safety standards. The Chernobyl reactors were not designed to generate electricity but to provide military-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons. They had been hurriedly designed for that purpose, the report said. It said that in proportion to the amount of power produced, power stations fuelled by coal and oil or driven by hydro power had caused 1000 times as many deaths as nuclear stations, and gas-fired stations had caused 15 times as many casualties as nuclear ones. Substituting one nuclear reactor for a coal-fired power station would save 7 million to 9 million tonnes of greenhouse-inducing carbon dioxide gas. Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin said the emergence of a 1997 cabinet document showing that the Government had considered 14 possible sites for a research reactor reflected the secrecy with which the Government considered nuclear issues. "They kept it secret then and they're keeping it secret now," she said. Ms Macklin said the ANSTO report indicated that Australia would need three nuclear power stations. Greenpeace Australia's chief executive, Steve Shallhorn, said the whole report was "ludicrous" and it would be at least two decades before enough nuclear power plants had been built across the world to make Australia's feasible under the ANSTO model. In an Ipsos McKay poll reported on Channel Ten yesterday, 40 per cent of those interviewed said they favoured using nuclear power to cut greenhouse gases, 45 per cent said they did not and 15 per cent did not know.With AAP | | Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 71 Times of India: 3 NSG members still won't back India on N-tech- Indrani Bagchi [ Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:38:45 pmTIMES NEWS NETWORK ] NEW DELHI: Norway, Sweden and Ireland remain among the last of the prominent naysayers in the powerful 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which will have to exempt India from its stringent provisions to let this country access nuclear technology and systems for its energy sector. At the plenary meeting in Rio de Janeiro over the past few days, NSG members, for the first time, took up a discussion on the India nuclear file, though it stayed out of the main plenary discussions. This was a big step forward, particularly since the last meeting in March in Vienna barely discussed the issue at all. The upshot of the discussions was that the NSG would wait for the US Congress to vote on the resolution before taking its own decision. This was no surprise to the ministry of external affairs, which got a similar feedback from different countries during bilateral meetings. The Indian ambassador to Brazil, Hardeep Puri, was briefed by the NSG troika after the meeting. India expected - and received - support from the P-5 countries, though China is yet to reveal its stand. Countries like France, keen to showcase their own support of the India nuclear exemption, which senior French officials say predated the US, have given greater priority to the NSG clearance. But other countries prefer to let the US lead the way in this particular initiative. The agreement is delicately poised in the US Congress, where the Bush administration will have to agree to a two-step process - a first approval of the deal and a second one on the 123 agreement. However, if Indian and US negotiators manage to tie up the bilateral nuclear agreement before the Congress votes on it, then the two votes could be bundled together. If there is an urgency to see the deal through in the US Congress, there is an equal urgency on India to start work on the safeguards agreement. But India is hesitant to submit itself to detailed negotiations until an NSG exemption is nigh. Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 72 AU ABC: Vaile holds off naming nuclear reactor sites ABC Darwin 105.7FM Sunday, 4 June 2006. 10:45 (AEDT)Sunday, 4 June 2006. 09:45 Prime Minister John Howard says there is a need for debate on a domestic nuclear industry. Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile says the future location of nuclear reactors is an issue that would be addressed during a debate on nuclear power in Australia. The Federal Government has reportedly already drawn up a list of possible sites for nuclear reactors. The locations were shortlisted nine years ago, and include: Lucas Heights, Goulburn, Holsworthy, and Broken Hill in New South Wales, as well as Adelaide, Darwin, and Perth. This week the Federal Government is expected to announce an inquiry into nuclear power, as foreshadowed by Prime Minister John Howard on his recent overseas trip. Mr Vaile has told Channel 10 it is too early to talk about possible locations. "Well, I'd like to have the debate and get hold of all the scientific facts before I answer that question," he said. "That's all we should be doing, science has moved on from 30 years ago, technology has moved on." Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop has told Channel Nine the list of possible sites is irrelevant, because it was drawn up for a research reactor which has since been built. "Different considerations will apply, a nuclear power station has different requirements than a nuclear research reactor," she said. "So the research reactor at Lucas Heights and the new reactor, the Opal reactor, have different environmental considerations to a nuclear power station, and so it was a different debate and different considerations applied." Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he has not seen a Federal Cabinet submission listing 14 possible sites for a nuclear reactor. Mr Macfarlane has told the ABC's Insiders program that the document is probably outdated. "It's a list that I'm not familiar with and I'm really just guessing that someone's just dredged it out of a bottom drawer," he said. "It could be 20 or 30-years-old even, and using it as we saw last week as part of the scare campaign against what is only a debate on what Australia's future energy needs are." ***************************************************************** 73 AU ABC: Nuclear power costing report to launch debate Sunday, 4 June 2006. 13:00 (AEDT)Sunday, 4 June 2006. 12:00 The Government is set to announce an inquiry into nuclear power. The Prime Minister's promise of a debate on nuclear power is expected to take form this week when Federal Cabinet considers the terms of an inquiry. To coincide with the debate, the Government has released a report suggesting nuclear power is affordable. Science Minister Julie Bishop has told Channel Nine the terms of reference for the inquiry will be announced soon. "A debate needs to be started sooner rather than later," she said. Ms Bishop has launched a report which says nuclear power is cost competitive. "Nuclear power is economically competitive with coal or gas," she said. Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has seized on a leaked Cabinet document from 1997 listing 14 potential sites for a nuclear reactor including Sydney, Adelaide, Darwin and Perth. "The Prime Minister simply isn't being honest with the Australian people," he said. Ms Bishop says the document was used to find a site for a nuclear research reactor, since built at Lucas Heights. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he would fight any plans to build a nuclear reactor in the state. The leaked Cabinet document also lists Mt Isa in north-west Queensland as a possible site. Mr Beattie says he does not want nuclear energy to compete with the coal sector. "I imagine the people of Mt Isa are excited - not," he said. "Uranium mining is one thing, having a nuclear reactor is another. "I know it was considered by Federal Cabinet, the State Government does not support it. "We have the power to block them and we will block them." ***************************************************************** 74 AU ABC: Govt accused of secrecy over nuclear power station plans ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story Sunday, 4 June 2006. 16:32 (AEDT)Sunday, 4 June 2006. 15:32 The Opposition says most Australians do not want nuclear power. The Federal Opposition has accused the Prime Minister of keeping secret the potential future sites for nuclear power stations. An inquiry into nuclear power will be announced within days. Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane has told the ABC's Insiders program that the details of the nuclear power inquiry will be finalised as early as this week. "The Prime Minister will bring a proposal forward to Cabinet this week and following that discussion we will then see the best path forward," he said. Deputy Labor leader Jenny Macklin says most Australians are opposed to nuclear power and uranium enrichment. "It's only John Howard that's having this debate, it's only John Howard that wants us to think about nuclear power," she said. Ms Macklin says the Government should state where it would build nuclear power stations. The Australian Greens has accused the Prime Minister of misjudging community concerns about nuclear power. The Greens climate change and energy spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne, says John Howard must reveal what he has been discussing with the United States and where reactors and nuclear waste dumps could be set up in Australia. Senator Milne says it is clear that Mr Howard already has a plan. "Prime Minister is talking about nuclear power for Australia - he never launches a debate of this kind without having a plan in place," she said. "It's quite clear the Government has done some preliminary assessment of where sites for reactors might be suitable from their perspective. "The fact is we wouldn't be having this debate about nuclear if we weren't in the middle of a resources boom." A leaked Cabinet document from 1997 lists 14 potential sites for a nuclear reactor including Lucas Heights, Goulburn, Holsworthy, and Broken Hill in New South Wales, as well as Adelaide, Darwin, and Perth and Mt Isa in north-west Queensland. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he would fight any plans to build a nuclear reactor in the state. Mr Beattie says he does not want nuclear energy to compete with the coal sector. "I know it was considered by Federal Cabinet, the State Government does not support it. "We have the power to block them and we will block them." ***************************************************************** 75 Border Mail: Cabinet to clear nuclear review 05/06/2006 FEDERAL Cabinet this week will approve an expert review of nuclear power following the release of a report suggesting nuclear energy is affordable if subsidised. But the Government has been accused of secrecy after a nine-year-old submission to Cabinet listing 14 possible sites for a nuclear reactor was leaked to a Sunday newspaper. Sites considered included Holsworthy in Sydney, Mt Isa in Queensland and south Darwin. The submission warned about releasing the information publicly as it may unnecessarily alarm communities in the broad areas under consideration. Deputy Opposition Leader Jenny Macklin said Prime Minister John Howard must come clean and tell Australians where he was planning to put any nuclear power stations. Mr Howard, who has called for a full-blooded debate on the nuclear issue, has outlined some of the areas his expert review would consider. But potential locations for power stations were not among them. John Howard wants to start a debate about nuclear power in this country but he wont come clean on where the nuclear power stations will be, Ms Macklin said. What this document shows is that nine years ago the Howard Government was prepared to look at 14 different places around Australia, in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, and other parts of Australia to put a nuclear reactor. They kept it secret then and they are keeping it secret now. Science Minister Julie Bishop released a report commissioned by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which found that nuclear power was economically competitive with gas and coal as long as taxpayers contributed to either the cost of building the plant or of underwriting its risk. She said the nine-year-old cabinet submission was referring only to a research reactor and the same sites would not necessarily be considered for a nuclear power station. The review will help establish whether uranium enrichment or nuclear power plants are viable options for Australia. © 2006 The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 76 Border Mail: We must explore options on future energy needs Mon, 5th June, 2006 BY JOHN HOWARD TOO often politicians are criticised for taking short-term decisions and ignoring long-term needs. That is usually because the decisions that look to the long term are often the most difficult. But I have always taken the view that if people are given the facts, and can be persuaded that the policy is in the national interest — as with the GST — they will respond positively. So it is with nuclear energy. It is the debate we must have. I will shortly be announcing a review of our approach on nuclear energy. Concerns about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the rising costs of energy and the possible availability of a cheaper source of fuel, will form the basis of our arguments for this debate. The arguments of our opponents, meanwhile, defy logic. First they say it is okay to mine uranium from three sites but not from others. Then they say it is okay to sell uranium, but not to enrich it. And then, they say well, maybe it is okay to enrich it, but we shouldn’t use it to power our towns and cities. It is policy anachronism piled on contradiction, capped by inertia. These are arguments driven by emotion and by factional rigidities rather than the facts, and certainly not by any consideration of the needs of Australians in 10, 20 or even 100 years’ time. These are arguments driven by fear that would have seen the first fires snuffed out or the first wheels left in the paddock. Surely we have the confidence in ourselves today and in our ability to tackle difficult issues and find their solution than we did decades ago when this debate surfaced. A comprehensive debate, and a review, will help inform our thinking. In 1996, my Government abolished Labor’s illogical no new mines policy. In 2005, Australian uranium exports were a record 12,360 tonnes, valued at $573 million. Uranium mining is carried out under stringent environmental requirements and exports are subject to companies holding valid export permits and passing stringent safeguards assessments on a shipment by shipment basis. But we need to be informed on how much further we can, or should, go. A review will help establish whether uranium enrichment or nuclear power plants are viable options for Australia. Are they affordable? Are they safe? What technological developments have been made and what methods are being worked on for the disposal of waste? What are the potential benefits for consumers, the environment and the economy? If nothing else, the high petrol prices of the past few months show that we are approaching a crisis in oil production and consumption. We have entered an environment of high global demand and limited spare capacity for the production and refinement of crude oil. We need to ensure access to diversified sources of power and energy. The debate on alternative energy sources has to include nuclear energy, or else we run the risk of denying Australians an affordable power source that will not pollute the environment, nor put a brake on the economy. The expert review I am considering will examine the economics of nuclear energy in Australia, and the circumstances in which it could be competitive with other existing electricity generation technologies, including any implications it would have for the national electricity market. It will also consider the measures that are necessary to provide the skilled workforce to support a domestic nuclear energy industry. © 2006 The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 77 RIA Novosti: Russia to build energy unit at north-west NPP - nuclear chief 04/ 06/ 2006 TVER REGION, June 4 (RIA Novosti) - The head of Russia's nuclear power agency said Sunday that a fourth energy unit would be built at the nuclear power plant in the Tver Region in the country's north-west. "I consider the decision to build the fourth energy unit at the Kalininskaya nuclear power plant to be correct. The energy unit will be built by 2011. The construction project is worth more than $1 billion," Sergei Kiriyenko said. The country's nuclear power chief said the new generating power capacities in the Tver Region were required to meet regional needs and the energy needs of Moscow. "The task is to maximally ensure the energy security of the country's major cities, including Moscow, St. Petersburg and Tyumen. The launch of the fourth energy unit at the Kalininskaya nuclear power plant by 2011 will be the nuclear power sector's contribution to the energy security of Moscow," Kiriyenko said. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 78 POAC: NRC approves transfer of Salem County nuclear licenses to Exelon [PressofAtlanticCity.com] By DANIEL WALSH Staff Writer, (856) 794-5111 Published: Saturday, June 3, 2006 Updated: Saturday, June 3, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a transfer of licenses for the Salem County nuclear plants. Public Service Enterprise Group's licenses on the Salem and Hope Creek reactors in Lower Alloways Creek Township will go to Exelon as part of a merger. The transfer went into effect Tuesday and the NRC announced the move Wednesday. The transfer is just one regulatory move necessary for the two companies to complete their proposed merger. They are still awaiting several approvals on the merger, most notably from New Jersey and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In their review, NRC staff considered issues including financial viability and the maintenance of decommission funds, according to the NRC. Exelon currently owns or operates 17 nuclear plants, including the Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township, Ocean County. The company runs the three reactors in Lower Alloways Creek Township for PSEG. The proposed merger would give Exelon control of more than half the power generation in the East, according to New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, one of many to criticize the merger with claims it would drive up electricity costs. Exelon claims more than $100 million in savings would be realized from the merger and passed to customers within four years ***************************************************************** 79 Green Left Weekly: Environment groups unite against nukes The Australian non-government environment sector is united in its opposition to all aspects of the nuclear industry including uranium mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear power, nuclear weapons and the creation and disposal of radioactive waste. Every aspect of the nuclear industry is dirty, dangerous and enormously costly: costly to workers and communities; to the environment and future generations; as well as financially. There are no adequate safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation, or to contain radioactive waste for the thousands of years required, or to prevent the use of nuclear facilities and materials as terrorism targets. The Australian non-government environment sector reaffirms its conclusion that nuclear power offers no solution to the unfolding global warming crisis. The nuclear industry and some politicians have seized on climate change to try to resuscitate the nuclear industry, but are ignoring fatal flaws inherent in nuclear energy that rule it out as an effective or ethically acceptable response. By continuing to hold up nuclear as an effective response to global warming, proponents distract attention and resources away from existing effective, safe and affordable solutions to rising greenhouse emissions and consequent climate change. We call on all political parties to reject uranium mining, nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons and radioactive waste dumps in Australia and to work towards their elimination globally. The creation of more high-level radioactive waste must cease and existing stockpiles must be stored as safely as possible in surface facilities close to the site of production. We call on all political parties to seriously combat global warming by adopting policies in support of the rapid expansion of the renewable energy sector and a concerted Australia-wide program of energy efficiency. These programs and technologies should also be exported widely around the world to help other countries, especially developing nations. We acknowledge the strong and growing concern of the Australian community over global warming and the community’s strong support for real measures to combat global warming, and commits to working with and for the community to ensure governments of all persuasions take responsible and timely action to prevent both catastrophic climate change and contamination of the planet by radioactive waste and nuclear weapons. [The signatories to this statement, issued on May 8, include the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia-Pacific, the Nature Conservation Council NSW, the Total Environment Centre, the Conservation Council of SA, the Conservation Council of WA, Friends of the Earth, the Environment Centre North Territory, AID/WATCH, Environs Kimberley, the Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra, the Queensland Conservation Council, the Australian Toxics Network, Environment Victoria and the Australian Marine Conservation Society.] From Green Left Weekly, June 7, 2006. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 80 SF Chron: U.S. court puts PG nuclear permit on hold until terror review Utility seeks to store radioactive waste from Diablo Canyon [San Francisco Chronicle] Saturday, June 3, 2006 The federal government must consider the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack before it approves a new nuclear waste storage site at the Diablo Canyon power plant near San Luis Obispo, an appeals court ruled Friday. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco set aside a permit that federal regulators had granted to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to install a storage facility for spent radioactive fuel at the nuclear plant. The court ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct a new review of the potential effects of a terrorist assault and consider measures to limit the environmental hazards. The court said the Bush administration's main argument in favor of upholding PG's permit -- that the threat of terrorism was too remote to include in environmental planning -- was undermined by the administration's post-Sept. 11 statements that it was upgrading security at nuclear plants. "We find it difficult to reconcile the (Nuclear Regulatory) Commission's conclusion that . . . the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility is 'speculative and remote' with its stated efforts to undertake a 'top to bottom' security review against this same threat,'' Judge Sidney Thomas said in the 3-0 ruling. He also cited the Department of Homeland Security's warnings that the United States "remains at an elevated risk . . . for terrorist attack.'' PG's plan to store high-level radioactive wastes in metal casks in a new structure at the plant was challenged by the local anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace. The group argued that the plant was vulnerable to an aerial attack that would release radiation over a wide area and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had failed to require PG to take protective measures. "The court ruled in favor of the safety of the people of California's coast rather than corporate convenience,'' said Jane Swanson, a spokeswoman for Mothers for Peace. The organization said the federal agency should consider ordering PG to strengthen the metal casks, put them in bunkers or scatter them around the site. The appeals court ruling requires the agency to study those proposals and others from the public, although Thomas noted that the review may involve national security issues that would call for "sensitive treatment.'' State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who filed arguments on behalf of California, Washington, Utah and Massachusetts supporting environmental review, said the court recognized that "the Bush administration ignored its own experts, who have warned that further terrorist attacks are inevitable and nuclear facilities are likely targets.'' The storage facility, designed to accommodate wastes generated at Diablo Canyon through 2025, is still scheduled to be ready for operation by the fall of 2007, said PG spokesman Jeff Lewis. But he said the utility has temporary storage space available that would carry the plant until at least 2010 if necessary. "We feel the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has put security requirements in place that are appropriate,'' Lewis said. He said PG had not decided whether to appeal the ruling. David McIntyre, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said it was reviewing the decision. E-mail Bob Egelko at . Page B - 3 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 81 ABC: Australia to debate nuclear power 04/06/2006 21:14:16 AEST Australia to debate nuclear power Australia The Australian Government says a leaked shortlist of sites for a nuclear research reactor has no connection to the debate about nuclear power in Australia. Labor is using the document to claim the Prime Minister is keeping potential nuclear reactor sites a secret. The nine year old document includes sites in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth, but the Science Minister Julie Bishop says it was a study on locations for a nuclear research station, not a reactor. But Labor's Jenny Macklin says the document sets a precedent. The Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane says he'd consider having a nuclear reactor in his Queensland electorate, providing the studis show it's safe doesn't effect the environment. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister will take to cabinet his plans for an inquiry covering health, safety, and environmental aspects of nuclear power. ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia ***************************************************************** 82 The Olympian: Decades later, nuclear towers unused but standing - - Olympia, Washington Sunday, June 4, 2006 John Dodge Soundings Images of the cooling tower at the decommissioned Trojan nuclear power plant being demolished in a cloud of dust and heap of rubble two weeks ago near Rainier, Ore., brought back a flood of memories about my own experiences with nuclear plant cooling towers. From 1978 to 1984, my main assignment as a reporter at The Daily World in Aberdeen, Wash., was to chronicle the construction and eventual termination of the two partially built Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear plants atop Fuller Hill south of Elma - Satsop Projects Nos. 3 and 5. It's been more than 14 years since the "Whoops" board of directors pulled the plug on Project 5, which was only 16 percent complete when it crumbled under the weight of skyrocketing construction costs, schedule delays and growing regional uncertainty over the need for the power. By June 1981, the handwriting was on the wall. Project 5 was headed for at least a two-year construction delay, if not full-blown termination. At that time, the cooling tower was about 110-feet-tall, well short of its scheduled height of 496-feet and, unlike the completed twin tower of Project 3, still obscured from vision by the trees. In a move that WPPSS critics said defied logic, the board gave Zurn Industries Inc. permission to complete the $16 million project, claiming the language in the contract required the supply system to pay the full price of the cooling tower, whether it was completed or not. So construction of the behemoth concrete and steel rebar cylinder continued on at a clip of about 20 feet a day until Oct. 26, 1981, when concrete encrusted workers made the final pour on a cooling tower that lacked a useful purpose. I was there that gray drizzly day, hoisted along with Daily World photographer Jim Bates - he's now a photographer for The Seattle Times - to the top of the tower in a swinging bucket attached to a towering crane. It was not an assignment for someone afraid of heights. I remember a commanding view of the Chehalis River Valley and a somber scene amidst about two dozen workers. A few hooped and hollered as the final glob of concrete was poured. But there were no balloons, firecrackers, flag-waving or speeches by Satsop bosses as there had been a year before when the Project 3 cooling tower was topped off and WPPSS was still spending borrowed money like there was no tomorrow. A couple of employees paused to pay their respects to the two co-workers who plunged 70 feet to their deaths when a tower form collapsed March 9, 1981. Others recalled a work stoppage caused by 50 mph winds Oct. 5, winds that knocked reinforcing steel around and caused the gangways to sway violently. No doubt about it, this was dangerous, tedious work. Today, the two cooling towers remain as testimony to the failed Satsop project. Project 3 joined Project 5 on the termination list in 1994 after nearly a decade in mothballs. The only people allowed to the top of the towers these days are the workers who change out the $600 light bulbs that ring the tops. The flashing lights are a Federal Aviation Administration requirement, and also help international flights from Australia and the Far East mark their approach to Seattle-­Tacoma International Airport. The highly visible reminders of a failed nuclear power project tower over what, since 1999, has been the Satsop Development Park, a public development authority whose job it is to attract businesses and employees to the former WPPSS site. With more than a dozen companies and 400 employees, the business park managers embrace the cooling towers as part of the park's heritage. They have no intention of packing them with dynamite and lighting the fuse vis-a-vis Trojan. "For one thing, there are people up here, implosion is not an option," said Satsop Development Park chief executive officer Tami Garrow. Plus the cost to bring down the cooling towers would run in the millions of dollars, which would be a lousy business investment at a site with a history of questionable investments. The Project 3 cooling tower actually operates on occasion, taking hot water from a manufacturing plant and recycling it into cool, reusable water. "It's a potential resource that we maintain," Garrow said. The Project 5 cooling tower is another story. It's just a shell, lacking the plumbing and holding pond of its sister cooling tower. Over the years, there have been some ideas for use bandied about that range from fanciful to outrageous - a water slide park, a giant compost bin, even a prison. Musicians and film crews have used the huge echo chamber to record "music" and sound effects. The cooling tower has even served as a backdrop for a marriage proposal. In the years ahead, Garrow and others envision the cooling tower shell as part of a park or sculpture garden with walking and biking paths around it. The dreams of the future for the ill-fated cooling tower seem surreal to me, in sharp contrast to the deadly serious and controversial decision to complete it in the first place all those years ago. John Dodge is a senior reporter and Sunday columnist for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5444 or jdodge@theolympian.com. Web Links: History of the Washington Public Power Supply System History of the Satsop cooling towers Join the Reader Network Do you want The Olympian to keep you in mind when we canvass the community for opinions? MAP: TheOlympian.com ***************************************************************** 83 SciGuy: More education = more likely to favor nuclear power? A science blog with Eric Berger June 03, 2006 Apparently so. Bearing in mind that the results below are being by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy group, I still think there's probably some validity to the polling numbers. If that's the case, I find the results at least mildly surprising. [Clipboard01.jpg] Nuclear Energy InstitutePublic opinion survey conducted by Bisconti Research Inc., with Gfk NOP. I'm going to guess the questions were slanted in favor of the nuclear energy industry, but that doesn't change the fact that, across the board, college-educated people were more in favor of nuclear than the general population. As much as some of you global-warming non-believers dismay over climate change concerns -- you might term it hysteria -- I think the results of this survey are largely attributable to a desire by some to find energy that produces fewer carbon emissions. In other words, you can thank global warming. Posted by Eric Berger at June 3, 2006 12:42 AM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.chron.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/8438 Comments Edumacation also tends to point folks away from beliefs in magic and mythology. Rational folks are imperative for our survival. Adults who believe in magic are scary. How many people have died in coal mines? In nuclear power plants? Posted by: Stan at June 3, 2006 04:56 AM That is an interesting piece. If - big if- the survey was done as an actual surveyand not a push poll, it is very interesting. The most striking thing about it is not that college educated people are more in favor of nuke energy. The most striking thing in the survey is the massive, broad based support for building more nuke energy plants. This support exists despite the near zero promotion for the plants over the last 30 years. The support exists in the face of Chernobyl. The support exists inspite of the anti-nuke loby having unchalleneged access to the public square for decades. That must be very disheartening to the antinuke extremists. But in America, a large majority of people wanting an energy solution that is reasonable safe and environmentally clean seldom means we will get that energy source. A majority of people want ANWR drilled, and have for decades. Is it happening? While nuclear energy is still the only proven energy source that is zero emission on CO2 that is not enough. While nuke energy has been the cleanest energy source, with the least environmental impact, since it was developed, that has not helped us much. If this survey is correct, and I hope it is, it means that once again on a major policy issue a tiny minority of people have succeeded in having the Congress deny us a policy solution we want. As to global warming, I am genrally noting that people who do not believe in the algore school of global warming like nuke energy because they see it as proven and efective, unlike the claims of the algores. In other words, I bet if you surveyed people and compared their stand on global warming, you would find the skpetics of the algore gospel to be more largeley in favor of nuke energy than his true believers. Posted by: hunter at June 3, 2006 07:17 AM What is the statistical accuracy? It seems to me the differences are not statistically significant. Posted by: J Ellenberger at June 3, 2006 08:16 AM If something goes wrong in a coal mine only the workers die. Meltdowns are a little bigger deal. And in the final numbers I would like to see what the basis was for the people polled. Were there more caucasians. Are these college people on scholarships versus Sallie Mae. Is the general public the people who only live in the suburbs or trailer parks...If they took equal number of people in all these different categories then maybe I'd believe the numbers. Numbers can be manipulated to see one's own point of view. For an example see our own government. Posted by: at June 3, 2006 10:08 AM I don't see any significance to this poll. For one thing, the margin of error is plus/minus 3 points. Three categories in this poll show a difference of 2 points and the fourth a difference of 3 points. No real difference at all. And anyway, how does 2 points show any significant preference for college-educated people versus "general public" people [whatever that means]? Secondly, the survey was conducted by Bisconti Research, Inc. (BRi), a company which conducts surveys almost solely for the nuclear industry. Ann Stouffer Bisconti, president of BRi, was previously a vice president with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for 13 years, was elected for a second term on the Board of Directors of the American Nuclear Society two years ago, and continues to provide NEI's public opinion and communications research [according to BRi's website, www.bisconti.com/background_bisconti.htm] To me that makes this survey worthless. I'm not anti-nuke, nor am I particularly in favor of nuke plants, though I think because they are less polluting they probably are preferable to coal-burning plants. Anyway, back to the point. College-educated people may well be more in favor of nuclear energy than those without the education, but this survey certainly doesn't prove it, or anything else. Posted by: Mark R at June 3, 2006 01:42 PM Mark, Thanks for the clarification about BRI, I didn't know that. Eric Posted by: at June 3, 2006 02:39 PM General Electric is one of the major players in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. General Electric is very good at everything they do! While we sit here wringing our hands about global warming, the problems with fossil fuels, high energy prices, being at the mercy of people who hate us and technologies that are not yet ready for prime time like hydrogen powered automobiles, the Chinese are building 30 nuclear power plants and we are not building any. We are looking at the Brazilians and their ethanol intense alternative to gasoline. Nice. But we are not competing with Brazil for economic dominance. We are competing with China. We keep waiting for some kind of magical, technical breakthrough that may simply not be out there anytime soon. Probably, we are going to need to go with electric cars in a major way. This means power plants and that means nuclear power plants. It is time to get serious. This is more important than immigration reform. And the government is perfectly able to ignore a vocal minority when it comes to doing the right thing. If having gone to college is directly related to understanding all of this then we should be pleased that most members of Congress did finish their schooling. Posted by: at June 3, 2006 02:56 PM Forest, you bring up an interesting point: We are suffering from magical thinking, letting the imagined possible good drive away the present reality. If we don't wake up and soon, we will find ourselves, ironically, worse off than France. France is at least serious about nuclear power. Posted by: hunter at June 3, 2006 07:22 PM Although it is true that nuclear power produces less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, it also produces extremely radioactive waste. Thus far, no country has permanently disposed of this waste. No state is willing to accept even interim storage of this extremely hazardous material Posted by: Susanne Vandenbosch at June 3, 2006 09:18 PM You think there is "probably" some validity in the numbers, but even accounting for the lack of statistical significance in nearly all the data, no info is provided about how the samples are chosen, and you didn't even bother to look at the questions. Unbelievable. I know this is "just a blog" and all that, but (1) you are supposed to be a journalist and (2) this appears in the online version of the main daily newspaper in the nation's fourth largest city. By the way, I am in favor of nuclear power for environmental reasons. Posted by: SD at June 3, 2006 10:15 PM I suspect any "poll" numbers until 1) a possible agenda of the agent or agency doing the polling is identified properly 2) if the subject is important enough to warrant it, an in-depth analysis of the demogtaphics is included. Other points to be considered: Many people, especially the college-educated, give answers which reflect what they consider should be said from an intellectual stand-point, rather than what they really FEEL. Ask those same individuals to sign a petition which would permit a nuclear power plant in their near vicinity, region, or even in their STATE. The poll-takers would likely elicit a much different response. Irrespective of the educational level of the petitioned, their answer is sure to be NIMBY! Posted by: Marylee at June 4, 2006 03:29 AM An inherent problem with nuclear power is that it emerged as a peaceful power source after it was displayed as an awesome weapons system. Had it been the other way around who knows what type of attitudes may have developed. Now we are seeking to establish in view of the increasing cost of marine related fuel, whether nuclear power can again be employed in response to the ever increasing size and speed of oceangoing commercial ships requiring inordinate propulsion power.In view of ongoing politics, where do we see the issue of spent fuel recycling headed? Posted by: Stan at June 4, 2006 02:21 PM Susanne, The amount of 'extremely radiozctive' waste produced by nuke power is tiny compared to the amount of waste produced by coal fired power plants. Nuclear power produces on the order of ounces and pounds of wate per year per consumer, vs. tons per year per consumer of coal power plants. France has been successfully managing nuclear power waste for some time. I believe there are technologies ready to use involving the vitrification of waste into glass-like rods that cannot chemically react with water or other solvents, and can be buried in deep mines or ocean trenches for geologically significant periods of time. One of the major successes of the American anti-nuke extremists has been to make responsible management of nuclear power waste products in the USA nearly impossible, and then to claim nuke power should not exist because the waste cannot be managed; a self-fulfilling curse. Posted by: hunter at June 4, 2006 03:01 PM For more details on the survey in question, click here: It should answer many of the questions you have about the survey's methodology. Posted by: at June 4, 2006 05:57 PM ***************************************************************** 84 globeandmail.com: Nuclear cleanup plan would store waste in caves near Ottawa River DENNIS BUECKERT Canadian Press OTTAWA -- A $520-million plan to clean up nuclear research sites in Canada includes a proposal for underground waste disposal in caverns near the Ottawa River. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said yesterday previous governments have failed to deal with the legacy of radioactive waste from nuclear research and development dating to the 1940s. "Today as part of the government's plan to deliver clean air, water, land and energy to our citizens, we are making a funding commitment of $520-million over five years to clean up the waste from past activities," he said at a news conference. "This plan will reduce risks and liabilities over the long term and is consistent with international best practices." The initiative is intended to clean up Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. facilities at Deep River, Ont., the Whiteshell Laboratories at Pinawa, Man., and three prototype reactors in Quebec and Ontario. The waste is considered to be at the low or intermediate level in terms of radioactivity. It does not include highly radioactive spent fuel from Candu power reactors. Mr. Lunn announced the plan at AECL's Chalk River Laboratories near the town of Deep River, Ont. The small community is situated next to the Ottawa River. Mr. Lunn did not mention the potential use of underground caverns beside the large river. However, Bill Kupferschmidt of AECL confirmed that underground storage of low-to-intermediate level nuclear waste is being considered. "We certainly have in the late 1980s and 1990s been looking at the Chalk River site to determine whether it is an appropriate site for that very purpose. Preliminary studies were very positive and it's certainly one of the options." People in the Deep River area are worried about the proposal, said Ole Hendrickson of the group Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County. "This is a site that's got fractured bedrock, high rates of water movement right next to the river and it's seismically active. This is not the place for permanent disposal of nuclear waste." Mr. Hendrickson is calling for a full-scale review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. z AECL is promising public consultations, but has not committed to a review under the act. Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a campaigner with environmental group Greenpeace, said the Chalk River site is not appropriate for nuclear waste disposal. "These toxins need to be isolated from the environment for thousands and thousands of years and there's no guarantee that a man-made structure buried on the banks of the Ottawa River can stop that from entering the environment." Some of the waste was generated before the formation of AECL and other material comes from universities, medical facilities and industry. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 85 AU ABC: Downer's SA nuclear power idea ridiculous, says Labor. 03/06/2006. ABC News Online Federal Labor has seized on comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer that South Australia should consider building a nuclear power station. Mr Downer reportedly told a conference that building one, and using it to power a desalination plant, could help overcome electricity and water supply problems in South Australia. But Labor's Kevin Rudd says the idea is ridiculous. "I think Mr Downer has looped out completely on this one," he said. "Nuclear power plants just outside of Adelaide - I mean, what planet is Mr Downer on at the moment? Nuclear Alex, that's who we've now got as a Foreign Minister." South Australia's Premier, Mike Rann, says comments by the Foreign Minister have highlighted divisions within Federal Cabinet on the issue of nuclear power generation. Mr Rann says Mr Downer appears to be at odds with the Federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin, who has previously said the costs of nuclear power would rule it out. Mr Rann says South Australia, for one, will not allow nuclear power. "For once I'm agreeing with Nick Minchin," he said. "I think Nick Minchin is right that a nuclear power plant isn't necessary and won't happen and I think that Alexander Downer is having a bit of a lend of him." ***************************************************************** 86 AU ABC: Vaile holds off naming nuclear reactor sites. 04/06/2006. ABC News Online [Prime Minister John Howard says there is a need for debate on a domestic nuclear industry.] Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile says the future location of nuclear reactors is an issue that would be addressed during a debate on nuclear power in Australia. The Federal Government has reportedly already drawn up a list of possible sites for nuclear reactors. The locations were shortlisted nine years ago, and include: Lucas Heights, Goulburn, Holsworthy, and Broken Hill in New South Wales, as well as Adelaide, Darwin, and Perth. This week the Federal Government is expected to announce an inquiry into nuclear power, as foreshadowed by Prime Minister John Howard on his recent overseas trip. Mr Vaile has told Channel 10 it is too early to talk about possible locations. "Well, I'd like to have the debate and get hold of all the scientific facts before I answer that question," he said. "That's all we should be doing, science has moved on from 30 years ago, technology has moved on." Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop has told Channel Nine the list of possible sites is irrelevant, because it was drawn up for a research reactor which has since been built. "Different considerations will apply, a nuclear power station has different requirements than a nuclear research reactor," she said. "So the research reactor at Lucas Heights and the new reactor, the Opal reactor, have different environmental considerations to a nuclear power station, and so it was a different debate and different considerations applied." Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he has not seen a Federal Cabinet submission listing 14 possible sites for a nuclear reactor. Mr Macfarlane has told the ABC's Insiders program that the document is probably outdated. "It's a list that I'm not familiar with and I'm really just guessing that someone's just dredged it out of a bottom drawer," he said. "It could be 20 or 30-years-old even, and using it as we saw last week as part of the scare campaign against what is only a debate on what Australia's future energy needs are." ***************************************************************** 87 ContraCostaTimes.com: Regulators told to review nuclear facility terrorist threat 06/03/2006 | Appeals court rejects security findings at power plant in San Luis Obispo County used to store radioactive waste By David Kravets ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court blocked regulatory approval to store radioactive waste at a nuclear energy installation in Central California, ruling Friday that federal regulators must first consider the likelihood of a terrorist attack. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the first ruling of its kind, disagreed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 2003 finding that an attack was "remote and speculative" and therefore the possibility need not be seriously considered. The challenge to the NRC's permit allowing the storage of more radioactive spent-fuel at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo County was brought by the local group San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace. The plant is building new stainless steel and cement storage facilities because the current waste repository at the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. site is filling up. The court said the regulatory commission could not justify its so-called "top to bottom" security review of the nation's nuclear installations, while it simultaneously declared that the risk of a terrorist attack cannot be quantified, Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the three-judge panel. The decision comes as the Bush administration and Congress are renewing their interest in nuclear power as one avenue to avoid reliance on oil from the Middle East. A broad energy bill Bush signed last summer provides incentives for building nuclear reactors, and last week, Bush declared the nuclear power industry an overregulated business that needs a jump-start from Washington. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the decision was a victory for California and residents in the shadow of the twin-reactor facility along the Pacific in San Luis Obispo County, about halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. "President Bush and administration officials make constant public statements about the terrorist threat," Lockyer said. "Yet the NRC in this case concluded the danger of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility is so minimal that the environmental effects of an attack did not have to be considered." The Mothers for Peace group's attorney, Diane Curran, said the lawsuit was not intended as a tactic to shutter the facility. "The whole purpose of this lawsuit, before they build a facility, they would have to protect it, they would have to look at ways they could protect it from a potential attack," Curran said. Jeff Lewis, a PG&E spokesman, said the agency has enough existing space to store spent fuel, the radioactive byproduct of generating nuclear power, until 2010. NRC spokesman David McIntyre said the agency was reviewing the decision "to determine its exact impact and our response to it." Since 1986, he said, 38 operating and decommissioned power plants nationwide have won approval for new waste storage facilities. Fourteen more have said they want to add more capacity, he said. The Department of Energy in 1998 was to have begun assisting utilities remove nuclear waste to a central repository, but the proposed location at Nevada's Yucca Mountain has been mired in litigation. ***************************************************************** 88 AU ABC: Radiation vaccination may be possible, say scientists. 04/06/2006. ABC News Online [It may be possible to vaccinate emergency workers against the effects of radiation.] Scientists in the United States say it may soon be possible to vaccinate emergency workers against the effects of a nuclear explosion. The researchers have found that a form of gene therapy appears to protect mice from the effects of exposure to radiation. Ever since the September 11 attacks on the United States, there have been growing concerns that terrorists may attempt to explode a crude nuclear device, called a "dirty bomb". Experts say that such a bomb, made up of nuclear waste wrapped around a conventional explosive, could disperse large amounts of radiation over a city area and that significant numbers of people would die within 30 says of exposure. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have been trying to develop a treatment that would protect emergency workers and others who respond to the scene of such an explosion. In experiments with mice they used a tiny artificial sac to deliver a protective compound to every cell. Twenty-four hours later the mice were exposed to doses of whole body radiation. Those that had been given the gene therapy survived. -BBC ***************************************************************** 89 Deseret News: Utahns on their own in wake of disaster? [deseretnews.com] Sunday, June 4, 2006 By Brice Wallace Deseret Morning News It's a disaster waiting to happen. ['Photo'] Associated Press; Greg EliasonA tornado causes massive damage in Yuma, Tenn., on April 7. Inset: Two tornados touch down near Aberdeen, S.D., in June 2002. No, it's not the big one, the monster earthquake destined to hit the Wasatch Front. It's what happens in the hours and days just afterward, when even the best-laid plans of government, business and others are laid waste — at least initially — if a big enough cataclysm hits. A recent legislative committee meeting gave some indication of what might be in store. While representatives of business and industry spoke of ways they are working to improve disaster preparedness, one bottom-line conclusion was that the typical Utahn will be on her own, to one degree or another, in the immediate wake of a natural disaster. A scenario cobbled from testimony at the recent meeting of the Business and Labor Interim Committee paints a sobering picture of the aftermath of a huge earthquake hitting the "spaghetti bowl" of I-80 and I-215: • Utahns being trapped, or worse, in the rubble that once was a sea of unreinforced masonry buildings along the Wasatch Front. • Ground shifts shearing utility lines, leaving people without natural gas, water and electricity — a condition exacerbated if the tragedy hits during winter. • Utahns seeking supplies at grocery stores, only to find quickly depleted shelves and credit card transactions paralyzed because of telecommunication troubles. • Potential devastating long-term effects on the Utah economy and various levels of government's dependence on it to provide needed revenues for services. "When it comes to you and me as a business owner, if we're operating our business and something occurs, the sad and simple truth is we're pretty much on our own if it's a catastrophic event," said Renee Murphy, program director for private sector and critical infrastructure for the Division of Homeland Security in the Utah Department of Public Safety's Office of Emergency Services. "Certainly we as public officials have the responsibility to care for and shepherd the state of Utah and all the people who reside here," said Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove. "But the primary response in all this is the individual — not just the individual in the family, but this takes on a whole flavor if the communication lines are down and we don't have access to the basic needs that we've discussed here today. "If we don't prepare ourselves as individuals and families to take care of this, no insurance plan, no banking plan, no homeland security plan is going to do us a darn bit of good. But I would suggest that that's important, but we need to, as individuals, focus on how we're going to be the front-line and the first-line response to all these potential tragedies." Preparing for the worst Still, with recent news stories focusing on the anniversary of the big San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and the onset of hurricane season, government and business officials at the local, state and federal level are doing what they can to prepare for the big one, or any other disaster. Often it involves shoring up communications among agencies and associations, considering all contingencies, sharing best practices, learning from lessons at tragedy sites from the past or working on ways to help the public — either businesses or individuals — prepare. That can be difficult when the scope is so large. Ron Harris, a professor at Brigham Young University, described a large earthquake as being "like 50 Hiroshima bombs being buried underneath the intersection of I-215 and I-80 and then having them all go off at the same time." Many industries are working with the Utah Division of Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Services to make sure their plans are up to speed. That office already has conducted workshops, seminars and conferences to raise awareness in the business community about potential disaster risks, and the "Be Ready Utah" campaign launched in April will continue to focus on disaster preparedness in coming months. The contracting industry figures it will be among the first to respond after a disaster hits — helping clear debris, aiding in rescue and recovery efforts, clearing water channels. Richard J. Thorn, president and chief executive officer of Associated General Contractors of Utah, said his group is updating an inventory of members' available inventory that would be mobilized when disaster strikes. Among other concerns in the immediate aftermath of a crisis is access to money for recovery. While Michael Jones, chief examiner at the Utah Department of Financial Institutions, suggests having a reserve supply of money that can be accessed within 72 hours to help pay for emergencies, the department's own recovery plan — first put into writing in anticipation of Y2K troubles — is being updated, and that plan and a business continuity plan will be provided to Homeland Security. Jones said the biggest woes could be in recovering data, but the department is using old laptop computers stored off-site and would have alternative work sites available to help financial institutions recover from a disaster. Banking on a response Financial institutions are required to have off-site backup data storage, he said. And Howard Headlee, president of the Utah Bankers Association, said disasters are among many potential problems for which bankers must prepare. One that regulators are focusing on now is pandemic flu, he said. "So this is daunting, but there's a lot of daunting scenarios that we're wrestling with all the time. . . . So I believe we're going to be very prepared, but how do we communicate that to the public, and that's what we're really working on aggressively right now," Headlee said. Getting information to the public is important "so that they can feel comfortable that they have access to their resources when they need them the most," he said. Arthur Frank of Zions Bank said the UBA is developing a mission statement and policy statement that will be the foundation for a business continuity plan that likely will include dependable means of communication, emergency operation sites such as mobile branches with satellite communications and contingency plans with the Federal Reserve Bank to provide currency. The Utah Department of Commerce likewise is updating emergency preparedness plans. Executive director Francine Giani said that involves coordination between the Division of Public Utilities and utility companies, ordering satellite radios that can communicate with Homeland Security officials and being ready to issue temporary licenses or temporary exemptions that would allow experts from outside the region to come to Utah and help post-disaster. "We believe that we will probably need people from other places to come in and help us rebuild," Giani said, noting construction workers and medical staffers of all types can be granted exemptions to handle emergencies. Construction quandary Other elements of disaster preparedness involve more than coordination or putting plans in writing. A main one involves building construction. While building materials and construction techniques have improved, "I think there's no silver bullet here," Thorn said. It's a matter of risk and reward that private-sector owners, architects, engineers and contractors have to consider, he said, "all the while keeping in mind that whatever the standard is is going to cost a fair amount of money — probably more than a fair amount of money." "Do we want to build every building in the state of Utah to withstand a 7.5 (magnitude earthquake)? I don't know the answer to that, but we need to probably raise the bar, and I think through the efforts of this (legislative) committee, you're on your way," he said. "We don't want to tighten that down to the point that we'll be able to withstand a nuclear holocaust at the expense of having our entire economy suffer. That balance is what I'm talking about." Barry Welliver, chairman of the Utah Seismic Safety Committee, said unreinforced masonry buildings, in particular, could sustain a lot of damage in a major earthquake. Those are quite common in the Salt Lake Valley, he said, as many were built before more stringent building codes of the past two decades. Thorn suggested many buildings can be retrofitted. "It's not a picture that we want to paint that says, 'Oh, my! The sky is falling!' In fact, we should all be about the business of how do we make this a manageable situation for our state," Thorn said. "We have lots of examples — in California, Washington, Oregon — of things, small steps, that we can take now to help us understand and appreciate recovery." Planning for retail Whatever the disaster, if it's large enough, the effects would be myriad, both short-term and long-term. Harris said the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, Calif., resulted in $49 billion in damage. A quake a year later in Kobe, Japan, did $200 billion in damage and sparked an economic crisis that continues today. The Kobe quake was in January. "If we had a Jan. 17 earthquake along the Wasatch Front, it would exacerbate the disaster potential because there would be no gas, there would be no water, there would be no power for quite some time, and that's what happened in Kobe. . . . Salt Lake City would be a different place for a while," Harris said. But summer or winter, individuals and businesses looking to retail stores for help may find only trouble. Unlike financial institutions facing heavy regulation regarding preparedness, "our industry is totally unregulated," said Jim Olsen, representing the Utah Food Industry Association and Utah Retailers Association. "We have really no incentive to do this kind of planning other than our own business well-being and continuity." Consumers often view retail stores as "kind of their stockpile or warehouse" that can be accessed in case of an emergency, he said. "The truth of the matter is that the average grocery store carries a two-week inventory in that store," he said. Many stores no longer have back rooms stocked with pallets of products. "Today's model in many retail companies is, we don't even put a back room in. The product comes off the truck and rolls directly onto the sales floor. So when you're looking at this and consumers are under the misguided notion that they're going to be able to run to the store and pick up whatever they need, which we've come to expect as consumers, the truth of it is it's not going to be there." Perishables such as dairy, meat and produce typically can be in only a three-day supply. "So if we get a run, we're cleaned out in a matter of hours. Other products, it's a little more," Olsen said. While Utah has more than its fair share of food warehouses, "we're in serious trouble" if the interstates and other major roads are impassible and thus keeping food from getting to retail shelves, he said. Ripple effect And even if products are available, downed telecommunication lines will thwart attempts to buy with credit cards or checks, he said. "Just think about how much money you have in your pocket and how far that's going to go if you can't transact with credit card or checks or other type of means to pay for those products," he said. The associations are working with Homeland Security officials on employee training focusing on having workers take care of basic needs at their homes so that they can be available at their workplace after a disaster, he said. Without those workers, "we're not going to be able to get them to the store to open up and operate," he said. The long-term economic ramifications of a disaster likewise can take many forms. Harris noted that Kobe was once a busy seaport for car exporters, but many car companies simply switched to other ports. Three rail lines took time to rebuild and put into operation. Many people left Kobe and did not return, further hampering its economy. Utah Insurance Commissioner Kent Michie noted the ripple effect an earthquake could have on the state's economy and government's ability to provide services. "Ultimately you're going to see a lot of local governments, for example — cities, counties, school districts — go into bankruptcy. I think, frankly, that the state of Utah is going to be very hard-pressed from a revenue point of view. Largely the revenues are based on incomes and the sales tax, and if your economy largely dis-integrates, the sales tax is going to go way down," he said. "For local governments, it's based largely on the property tax and . . . people's property will just be wiped out largely. . . . In a disaster where your tax base is largely wiped out or very large chunks of it are going to be wiped out, you are going to see bankruptcies in counties, cities, school districts. So the ability to have police, fire and schoolteachers and the ability to continue to pay your (government) debt is going to be very, very hard-pressed." Government's role State legislators spent nearly three hours listening to testimony during their committee meeting and seemed encouraged by the planning activities under way. "Honestly, at this point, Louisiana's bankrupt, and we can't afford to be another Louisiana," Rep. Curtis Oda, R-Clearfield, said in referring to Hurricane Katrina's devastation last year. "We've got the second-best economy in the country right now — we used to be No. 1 but it's great to be No. 1 or 2 — and the economic loss will continue to climb if we don't do anything and let the time element continue to drag on." Oda proposed tiers of responsibilities for local and state government for dealing with a disaster's aftermath. "Businesses, we have to help them work out their own needs and how to get back in business," he said. "I don't know that we can rebuild for them, but at least empower them with knowledge on how to prevent severe economic loss." Harris sees the need for education as well as preparedness, which he said can help minimize human loss and damage. "And we have the expertise, we have the knowledge and we have the resources to do something about that, which is something that most countries don't have. So they will continue to be wiped out by these (disasters), but we can reverse that trend here. We can make a difference by preparation. It's not a futile effort," Harris said. Olsen, for one, believes Utah is ahead of the game. "I've talked to my counterparts throughout the United States, and they're not even talking about these kinds of things," he said. "And to the credit of Utah . . . we are, and now is the time to be talking about them rather than after the emergency." E-mail: bwallace@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 90 Las Vegas SUN: Tribal leaders lead protest Nevada Test Site's `Divine Strake' June 03, 2006 By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - Tribal leaders were among about 50 protesters who rallied Saturday against an experiment at the Nevada Test Site they fear will produce a massive explosion that will spread radioactivity across the West. The protest is aimed at the federal government's proposed "Divine Strake" project, the detonation of 700 tons of explosives in an experiment designed to study ground motion and shock waves set off by bombs. "There is nothing divine about something that is built for destruction of life," said Carrie Dann, a member of the Western Shoshone tribe who maintains the test site's property belongs to her people. "It is just another weapon of destruction. We need to all stand up and say `Hell no, we don't want this stuff around here.' We don't need it. We have enough weapons," she told fellow demonstrators in front of the federal courthouse in Reno. Several carried signs that read "Nevada is not a nuclear wasteland," "War Industries Don't Care" and "Blessed are the Peacemakers." "The weapons designers have been chomping at the bit to make a new type of weapon, although the U.S. is supposedly `committed' to not developing new nuclear weapons in the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation," said John Hadder of Citizen Alert the statewide anti-nuclear organization. The test originally planned for June 2 but has been postponed indefinitely. Officials said delaying the explosion would allow time to answer legal and scientific questions about whether it would kick up radioactive fallout left from nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Concerns first were raised when James Tegnelia, director of the federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said the blast "is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons." He later retracted the statement, saying it was inaccurate. Designers said the blast would be of the same material but some 280 times larger than the bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Lee Dazey of the Western Shoshone Defense Project said the explosion will create a plume 10,000 feet in the atmosphere and be carried downwind. She's especially concerned about the lack of data National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) to determine the radioactive contamination in the soils surrounding the blast area that will be lifted by the plume. "Western Shoshone bore the brunt of the Cold War nuclear weapon program receiving doses of radiation from 100 aboveground tests estimated to be six times that of other non-Indian downwind populations," Dazey said. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 91 MiamiHerald.com: A first-hand account of nuclear ruin 06/04/2006 | EDUCATION Cypress Bay students got a real-life history lesson from a former Air Forces mechanic who witnessed the destruction of Hiroshima after the bomb. BY JULIE LEVIN Special to The Miami Herald Even 61 years later, Harold Sloane will never forget the damage done when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Sloane was an Air Forces mechanic during World War II and says he was one of the first to fly over the devastated city after the bomb was dropped. ''I still don't forget what I saw,'' he said. ``I couldn't believe what it did.'' The Weston grandfather relayed his experiences to a ninth-grade class at Cypress Bay High School in Weston April 26. Stationed on Tinian, a Pacific island with several air bases in the Mariana Island chain, Sloane spent his days working on aircraft used in the war effort. While he had no role preparing the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber used to deliver the bomb, Sloane remembers everyone on the base knew a major event was being planned. ''We knew they were going to drop the bomb. We knew it was there because the place was infested with government agents,'' he said. The bomb, known as ''Little Boy,'' was dropped on Hiroshima Aug. 6, 1945. It was followed by another bomb, ''Fat Man,'' on Nagasaki three days later. Two weeks afterward, Sloane said he was part of a crew that flew over Hiroshima. ''Everything was gone for miles,'' he said. ``All you could see was the shape where buildings were that was burned into the ground.'' First and foremost a mechanic, Sloane also talked to the class about the planes. He said 15 B-29s had been modified to deliver the huge nuclear bombs. When the Enola Gay returned from its mission, Sloane was stunned to see the damage inflicted on the plane. ''The bottom of the plane was singed,'' he said. ``It loosened all the rivets.'' Every semester, world history teacher Glen Wolff asks his students if they have family or friends who have served in the military. ''It brings a face to match the history,'' he said. ``It is always more informative and they get more out of it by hearing it from someone firsthand.'' Student Victoria Heda arranged for her grandfather, Sloane, to talk to the class, which recently finished studying World War I and was moving into the World War II era. Student Kara Goldman, of Weston, agreed experience brings the lessons to life. ''We are lucky we get to learn firsthand instead of reading out of a book,'' the 15-year-old said. Sloane, witness to one of the world's most catastrophic events, had his own thoughts on what he would like the students to learn from his experience with the atomic bomb. ''Don't use it willingly. You've got to be doubly sure before you use it, because it will destroy,'' he said. About Herald.com ***************************************************************** 92 reviewjournal.com: Court ruling creates concern Jun. 04, 2006 Whistle-blowers fear limits on their ability to expose wrongdoing By SEAN WHALEY and KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL Earle Dixon describes what he called public health threats from the former Anaconda copper mine at a December 2004 community meeting in Yerington. The former federal employee says a Supreme Court ruling limiting the free speech protections of government whistle-blowers will have a chilling effect. Photo by The Associated Press. Government whistle-blowers in Nevada and their supporters are both disappointed and concerned over last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits their ability to expose government wrongdoing. Interviews with a number of employees and others involved in calling attention to the questionable actions of government agencies suggest that the ruling will lead to less reporting of misconduct. "I think employees need to think carefully now about whether they should blow the whistle internally," said Jeff Dickerson, an attorney representing a University of Nevada, Reno professor in a whistle-blower case. "A lot of bad things happening in government will now not be exposed due to this decision." Dickerson is representing professor Hussein Hussein, who raised questions about animal mistreatment at the institution. His case is ongoing. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who filed a now-resolved whistle-blower complaint while working at the Community College of Southern Nevada, said there will always be "bad apple" employees who falsely raise issues about the agencies where they work. "But you have to err on their side if they are reporting government wrongdoing," she said. "The public wants more transparency in government, not less." Giunchigliani sought protection after she told college administrators of unauthorized trips that Topazia "Briget" Jones, a college employee, had taken to the 2003 Legislature to assist former Assemblyman Wendell Williams, D-Las Vegas. Jones also sought whistle-blower protection in the scandal. Giunchigliani no longer works for the college. Now a candidate for the Clark County Commission, Giunchigliani pointed to allegations of special privileges being granted in the Clark County recorder's office and the questions raised about McCarran International Airport land exchanges as examples of why government misconduct must be brought forward. Despite the ruling, Giunchigliani said the state's whistle-blower law does provide some protections that could limit the impact of the high court ruling. The 5-4 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos issued Tuesday said that the First Amendment's free speech protections do not protect government employees from being disciplined for raising concerns in the workplace about possible wrongdoing. The case involved a lawsuit filed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos, who said he was disciplined after writing internal memos suggesting that a police officer may have lied to obtain a search warrant. The opinion overturned a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Ceballos. "We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," said the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Earle Dixon, a former federal employee who was helping to lead the cleanup of a contaminated Nevada mine, said the ruling will have a chilling effect on public employees. "It makes the workers feel insecure about bringing up problems that need to be solved," said Dixon, who maintains he was fired when he spoke out about the dangers at the toxic waste site. "A worker has to be real careful in taking up these kinds of initiatives." But Dixon's attorney, Mick Harrison, said any chilling effect should be muted because other protections exist in federal statute. The ruling won't affect Dixon's case, which is ongoing, because he sought whistle-blower status under federal environmental law, Harrison said. The whistle-blower protection act, which covers cases of waste, fraud and abuse, is also available to federal workers, he said. "I would hate for workers to think this ruling has a chilling effect when they still have the right to file whistle-blower cases," Harrison said. Department of Energy workers and contractors for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project and the Nevada Test Site also have whistle-blower safeguards that Nevada Sens. John Ensign and Harry Reid inserted in the 2005 Energy Act that President Bush signed last year. "Nevadans, and all Americans, have a right to know about problems in their government," Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday in a comment released through his spokeswoman, Sharyn Stein. "The best way to protect that right is to protect the government workers who know about problems and inform the public. Senator Ensign and I wrote an amendment to protect whistle-blowers for that reason, and that amendment has now been signed into law and won't be affected by the court ruling," Reid said. Ensign, R-Nev., said through spokesman Jack Finn, "It is important to note that the fundamental right of government workers to inform the public of misconduct is intact." Finn added that Ensign "believes we can and must protect the public's right to know while preserving a work environment in which every statement is not subject to litigation." Nevertheless, a Yucca Mountain Project contract worker who was consulted on the amendment said the ruling means DOE management "will certainly be emboldened in their fight against legitimate whistle-blowers." "This ruling appears to be the unintended consequence of government agencies continually rewarding bogus whistle-blowers," the worker, Kristi Hodges, said in an e-mail. She was referring to employees who are encouraged by lawyers to file whistle-blower claims and have their cases heard in administrative courts to reap out-of-court settlements even though their complaints are fabricated. "It's the consequence of organizations promoting blowing whistles above producing actual evidence of wrongdoing." She called the decision part of a "backlash that lessens the ability of legitimate whistle-blowers to expose corruption and achieve the justice they deserve." Stephen Schwartz, an independent writer and policy analyst, who is the former publisher and executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said from reading the ruling it appears supervisors could take actions against employees when they find a whistle-blower's comments to be "inflammatory" and contrary to the employer's mission. "That's awfully vague and subjective and gives too much power to the supervisor to quash legitimate complaints. After all, if everything could be resolved through official channels, if supervisors always paid attention when employees pointed out illegal or unethical behavior, whistle-blowers wouldn't have a special word to describe them and wouldn't need legal protection." Attorney Sangeeta Singal, who has represented a number of former Yucca Mountain Project and Nevada Test Site workers in whistle-blower cases, said she doesn't think the decision will affect rights of workers to file lawsuits with the Department of Labor under environmental whistle-blower acts. "However, this case does send a very chilling message to whistle-blowers and potential whistle-blowers indicating that they are not protected by the First Amendment for reporting legitimate safety concerns to their employer or to outside government entities who may regulate the employer (and) monitor the safety at the NTS and Yucca Mountain. "This case may be among the first in what appears to be an inevitable downfall of rights protections not only for employees, but for all citizens of this country, that the highest court of our nation may be bent on slowly but surely destroying piece by piece," Singal wrote in an e-mail. She represented Jim Mattimoe, a former quality assurance manager for a Yucca Mountain contractor. He reported to Energy Department officials that the employee concerns program, which was designed to field concerns about the project without retaliation, was corrupt. After exhausting his options to report corruption and misconduct of project officials through proper DOE channels including the project's top manager at the time, he was fired. The Department of Labor ruled in his favor that he was wrongfully terminated. He later sued the contractor but the case was settled out of court in 2003. Had last week's Supreme Court ruling been in place at the time, Mattimoe, of Las Vegas, said he probably wouldn't have backed off of his effort to expose corruption and misconduct. "Even with this rule I still would have gone forward," he said by telephone Thursday. "I do think it will discourage others though." Yucca Mountain Project spokesman Allen Benson noted that under the project's Safety Conscious Work Environment policy managers "expect and encourage employees to bring forward issues relating to safety or quality to be dealt with openly and without fear of retribution." Benson said in an e-mail the Yucca Mountain Project "works in an atmosphere where science and safety are paramount. Our reporting systems are set up so that a concern can be confidential and can reach the highest levels of the project's management. We wouldn't have it any other way." Benson was quick to note that project officials came forward and reported last year's controversy about e-mails from federal geologists that discussed falsifying documents to satisfy quality assurance requirements for their research on climate and water infiltration at Yucca Mountain. The problem was "self-identified," he said. Whistle-blowers who expose fraud and abuse of federal funds under the False Claims Act are allowed, as an incentive, to recover a percentage of the money at stake, a procedure that's been in place since the Civil War era, according to Vanderbilt University professor Bruce Barry, who is writing a book on free speech. But nonfederal whistle-blower laws apply differently from state to state, noted Barry, professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt in Tennessee. Last week's Supreme Court ruling, he said, "is not about whistle-blowing per se but about public employees' speech and when it's protected and when it's not." "It narrows the ability of (government) employees who engage in free speech," Barry said, referring to Ceballos. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 93 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear disaster drills staged Posted June 3, 2006 Facility housed at Interstate 43 Business Center By Nathan Phelps nphelps@greenbaypressgazette.com The building looks like most of the others in the Interstate 43 Business Center, but it houses a facility most people in Northeastern Wisconsin may not know exists. Nestled among other buildings sporting names of the businesses inside, the unmarked building on Voyager Drive houses the Emergency Operations Facility for Dominion Resources Inc. Dominion is the owner and operator of the Kewaunee Power Station, a nuclear plant located on Lake Michigan in the town of Carlton. On Thursday, about a dozen plant employees sat in front of four large screens on the wall showing simulated data from the plant. It was part of an emergency exercise in which operators dealt with several simulated issues simultaneously — ranging from a control rod/reactor fuel problem to ways to keep the reactor cool after three feed-water pumps were rendered unavailable following an earthquake and other events. In another part of the 10,000-square-foot building, other employees were busy gathering information about the event and preparing statements for the media as part of the exercise. "It'll be our headquarters for dealing with anything that has to do with an emergency out at the station," said Joe Reid, local affairs manager with the Kewaunee Power Station. The building, a $1.8 million investment for Dominion required by federal regulations, is designed to be a central gathering point for plant emergency teams, federal, state and local emergency officials, and the media. Part of the facility is leased to Point Beach Nuclear Plant — which falls under the umbrella of different owners and operators — to provide a known gathering point for both facilities in case of an emergency. Reid said Dominion anticipates having the facility operational by the end of the month. It has been renting space from Wisconsin Public Service in downtown Green Bay for its existing emergency facility. Leslie Hartz, vice president of the Kewaunee Power Station, said the building is part of the company's fundamental responsibility to protect the health and safety of the public. "Before we even closed on the plant (last summer) we bought this building because we knew we were going to need something like this," she said. "You can't take it for granted, which is why we spent $1.8 (million) on something we may never use — because it's that important." Hartz said the primary function of Thursday's exercise was to make sure the facility is ready to go live in about three weeks when staff activates the facility. Bob Host, an emergency planner with the state, was on hand for the drill. He said having all of the players from different agencies in one building helps communication, which in turn provides a smooth flow of information to the public. In late April the plant declared an alert — the first in about 20 years — while shutting down the reactor for planned repairs. That level of emergency is the second-lowest tier of emergency events. There was no radioactive release from the plant, and federal regulators said the company handled the situation properly. In training, situations can be pushed as far as in a general emergency, which is the highest-level emergency at a plant. Tom Webb, the power station's director of safety and licensing, said staff practices those situations to get people used to handling the decisions they could have to make in a real-time event. "We need to do that so people train for the worst and people have to get comfortable making protective active recommendations," he said. "The state and us don't really start communication heavily until we get into a general emergency where we're going to make recommendations to the state." Contact us at 920-435-4411. greenbaypressgazette.com is a Gannett Companywebsite. ***************************************************************** 94 Yahoo: [NukeNet] Court revokes radioactive storage permit (at Diablo) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:41:21 -0700 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_us/nuclear_power_1 A federal appeals court Friday revoked a permit allowing new radioactive waste storage structures to be built at a nuclear power plant, ruling that federal regulators must consider the likelihood of a terrorist attack more seriously. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the first ruling of its kind, unanimously disagreed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 2003 finding that an attack was "remote and speculative" and therefore unnecessary to consider. The case involves the storage of spent fuel at the Diablo Canyon power plant in San Luis Obispo County. A group calling itself San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace challenged the permit issued by the NRC. "The whole purpose of this lawsuit, before they build a facility, they would have to protect it, they would have to look at ways they could protect it from a potential attack," said the nonprofit group's attorney, Diane Curran. The new storage facilities are needed because the current waste repository at the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. site is filling up. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago": Sir George Porter, quoted in The Observer, 26 August 1973 "The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service": Albert Einstein "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph": Haile Selassie ***************************************************************** 95 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Court orders Diablo terror analysis 06/03/2006 | Appeals court sides with Mothers for Peace in a lawsuit over storage of nuclear waste on the grounds of the plant By David Sneed A federal court of appeals Friday ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission failed to adequately examine the possibility of a terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and its proposed dry cask storage facility. The court has ordered the agency to go back and correct the error. The NRC must do an additional analysis of the environmental consequences of an attack on the dry cask facility and may have to hold more public hearings. The ruling does not specify what steps the agency must take. "It is too early to say at this point what we may or may not do," said NRC spokesman David McIntyre. "I’m sure that’s one of the things the guys in the Office of General Counsel are poring over at this time." The dry cask facility is being built to store used but still highly radioactive fuel assemblies pulled out of the power plant. The spent fuel pools inside the plant are nearing capacity, and the proposed federal repository intended for used fuel, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is facing strong political opposition. Whether it will ever open is in question. Diablo Canyon officials said the ruling does not affect the operation of the plant and will not delay construction of the dry cask storage facility, which has already begun. Plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is building the project in phases and will fill storage casks as needed. "We are deciding whether we will appeal the ruling," said plant spokeswoman Sharon Gavin. Still, the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is seen as a victory by nuclear activists and state and local elected officials who have been urging the agency to do more to protect nuclear plants from a terrorist attack. The nuclear watchdog group, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, and others sued the agency over the matter in 2004. "If the SLO Mothers for Peace had not made this legal challenge of the regulatory authority, no other body or group would have made it, and the issue of possible terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon would have been ignored," said Jane Swanson, Mothers for Peace spokeswoman. "Our role as the citizen watchdog has paid off today." The NRC performed an environmental assessment of the project but did not do a more exhaustive environmental impact study. It is unclear whether the agency must complete such a review. The Mothers for Peace, the local chapter of the Sierra Club and former county Supervisor Peg Pinard sued the NRC for what they said was its failure to publicly address the terrorism risks posed by the above-ground facility. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer and San Luis Obispo County filed court briefs in favor of the lawsuit. The NRC decided that it did not have to consider the possibility of a terrorist attack because such an event was too "remote and highly speculative." The court concluded that decision was unreasonable and said it is confident the agency can conduct a proper evaluation without compromising security at the plant. "The NRC has dealt with our nation’s most sensitive nuclear secrets for many decades and is well-suited to analyze the questions raised by the petition in an appropriate manner consistent with national security," reads the ruling. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, renewed public debate about the safety of nuclear power plants and their vulnerability to such attacks. Plants are guarded by well-armed paramilitary police forces, and the NRC has required numerous improvements in security since 2001. The improvements include more guards, barriers to prevent car bombs from getting close to reactors and improved surveillance technology to detect approaching terrorists. Nuclear activists want the NRC to consider better fortifying the dry casks, putting them in bunkers, or scattering the cask storage pads over the site so that they would not present one big target. "These are all feasible alternatives for minimizing the impacts of a terrorist attack on the Diablo Canyon facility," said Diane Curran, the attorney who successfully argued the case. "The NRC had no lawful basis to ignore them." Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. News ***************************************************************** 96 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast: Wilma Subra's key findings 06/04/2006 | 1. According to Lockheed Martin Corp., Addendum 3 to the Site Assessment Report contains sufficient information for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to base an approval of the Site Assessment phase. Such an approval by the DEP will allow Lockheed to proceed with the preparation of a Final Remedial Action Plan. However, the latest report lacks key information and in some cases includes inaccurate information. It should not be the basis on which to proceed to a Final Remedial Action Plan phase. 2. DEP must require that the lacking information be generated, the inaccurate information corrected, and a fourth Addendum to the Site Assessment be issued and available for public comment, prior to consideration of allowing Lockheed to move to the Final Remedial Action Plan phase. 3. One of the objectives of the Site Assessment is to evaluate current exposure and potential risks of exposure to humans and the environment, including multiple pathways of exposure. The site assessment failed to include information on vapor intrusion and volatile organics being transported into homes in the residential areas, churches, businesses and the community center from Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) in the shallow groundwater. 4. The VOCs in the shallow groundwater pose a risk to human health through inhalation. That exposure pathway must be evaluated as an important part of the site assessment. 5. Lockheed has acknowledged that although VOCs in the groundwater are a potential concern, inhalation is not considered to represent a significant exposure pathway because air concentrations are presumed to be low. Presumption of low concentrations of toxic chemicals is not acceptable. 6. Lockheed used the low concentrations presumption to omit the study of groundwater vapor intrusion into homes. 7. Lockheed used the lack of human exposure to groundwater contaminates to justify not considering relocation of residents since the community supposedly no longer uses individual water wells. 8. Lockheed failed to evaluate the vapor intrusion pathway of the toxic off gassing of VOCs into residential homes. 9. If the FDEP does not require the vapor intrusion pathway and indoor air quality to be investigated as a part of the Site Assessment, the Remedial Action Plan will fail to address a critical human health exposure pathway and continue to allow the community to be exposed to the toxic chemicals of concern. 10. The groundwater table beneath the residential area is less than 5 feet below the ground surface. Toxic volatile organic chemicals in excess of criterion are present in the shallow groundwater beneath the residential areas at depths of 0 to 30 feet below ground surface in the Upper Surficial Aquifer System and 35 to 45 feet below ground surface in the Lower Surficial Aquifer System. 11. The Upper Surficial Aquifer System groundwater 15 to 20 feet below ground level in the residential areas contains 1,4-Dioxane, PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA in concentrations in excess of Screening Criteria. 12. The Lower Surficial Aquifer System groundwater 35 feet below the ground surface in the residential area contains 1,4-Dioxane, PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA in excess of Screening Criteria. 13. FDEP must require that the transport of volatile organic chemicals from the shallow groundwater beneath the residential areas into the homes of people living on top of the groundwater plume and the human exposure pathway be evaluated as part of the Site Assessment. 14. It is critical to evaluate this human health pathway during the Site Assessment phase and not allow the Remedial Action phase to proceed until the magnitude and extent of human health exposure is defined. 15. This evaluation could lead to an additional recommendation in Section 5.2 of the Site Assessment Report that would require an evaluation of groundwater off gassing impacts to human health that could result in relocation of residential areas over the groundwater plume. 16. One of the significant findings of the Site Assessment Report is that the horizontal and vertical extent of COCs above GCTLs in site groundwater has been delineated. But the vertical extent of the groundwater contamination plume has not been determined for the entire plume area. There are not adequate wells below groundwater strata exceeding GCTLs throughout the plume to define the vertical extent of the plume. 17. Two other significant findings of the Site Assessment Report are that the vertical extent of chemicals of concern or COCs above GCTLs in site groundwater is limited to within approximately 200 feet below ground surface water and in the Lower Arcadian Formation Sands and Floridan Aquifer System is not impacted with site COCs above groundwater cleanup targeted levels. 18. These findings fail to present the fact that chemicals of concern have migrated into the Lower Arcadian Formation Sands and Floridan Aquifer System as documented by testing of the minimal number of monitoring wells installed in the two water bearing zones. 19. Chemicals of concern including TCE and PCE are present in groundwater formations deeper than 200 feet below ground surface and have been detected in groundwater to depths of 365 to 385 feet below ground surface. 20. Chemicals of concern have impacted the Lower Arcadian Formation Sands and the Floridan Aquifer System. 21. Samples of private water wells were collected and analyzed as part of the Site Assessment process. Lockheed made a decision to not include some of the results in the Site Assessment report and will submit the data to the DEP under separate cover. This is not acceptable. 22. The 2006 Private Well Survey Data that was submitted to DEP under separate cover on May 22 indicates that samples from several wells to the north and east of the Booth well showed contamination, yet those wells, in particular Well 98 on Trey Desenberg's property, arenot within the plume. This indicates that both the horizontal as well as vertical extent of the plume has not been defined and needs further study. 23. Test results of private wells not included in the Site Assessment contained concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE in concentrations, in some cases, in excess of groundwater targeted cleanup levels. 24. Lockheed has suggested that these private wells were beyond the limits of site impacted groundwater and beyond monitoring wells which had non-detectable concentrations of the chemicals of concern found on the former American Beryllium Company site. 25. There are many individual plume maps for specific chemicals within the overall composite plume map. Examination of individual plume maps indicate that other plumes traced back to the plant may be contaminating those private wells. 26. The entire Private Water Well Data set must be required to be provided in the Site Assessment Report and the DEP must require that Lockheed do additional testing to delineate groundwater contamination outside the current plumes and determine if the source material for the plumes of the unreported private water wells are interconnected to the former beryllium facility plumes or originated from the former plant. 27. Only one on-site surface water sample has been collected and analyzed throughout the testing and evaluation phases of the former ABC facility site. No on-site or off-site sediment samples have been collected and tested for COCs. This constitutes a lack of data on which to fully characterize the former ABC facility site and the surrounding area known to be impacted by the contaminated groundwater plume. 28. Sediment sampling and analysis for COCs must be performed in order to complete the characterization needed to finalize the Site Assessment phase. 29. DEP should require a more proactive remedy than the cleanup strategies proposed by Lockheed in the site assessment. That proactive remedy should include: relocation, contaminated groundwater removal or bioremediation at hot spot areas in addition to the Interim Remedial Action, and removal of contaminated soil from on the industrial site and from the residential yards. SOURCE: Wilma Subra, Subra Company, "Comments on Site Assessment Report Addendum 3, Former ABC Facility, Tallevast, Florida, submitted to DEP by Lockheed Martin on April 26." ***************************************************************** 97 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume history | 06/04/2006 | Herald Staff Report Visioneering, a local machine shop, opened in Tallevast in 1948. By 1960 Visioneering had changed its name to American Beryllium Company. American Beryllium became a subsidiary of Loral Corp., a high-tech company with federal contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Energy. An important link in nation's defense and nuclear research programs during its operation from 1961 through 1996, the American Beryllium Company recruited top flight machinists from around the world to make parts for nuclear weapons and reactors as well as space projects. Lockheed Martin Corp. purchased the beryllium plant in 1996 in a corporate buyout of Loral. When Lockheed was preparing to sell the property in 2000, an environmental audit revealed a broken sump that had leaked cancer-causing chemicals and industrial solvents into surrounding soil and groundwater. Although Lockheed informed county and state environmental officials about the plume, as required by law, the defense giant was not obligated to tell residents. They did not learn of the toxins in their backyard in the fall of 2003 when drilling rigs began to sink test wells in the community. The toxic waste was later discovered in some private drinking water and irrigation wells. Lockheed never operated the plant after the 1996 acquisition and sold the facility in 2000, but as the former owner when the contamination was found, the defense giant is responsible for cleaning up the mess up. The Department of Environmental Protection is overseeing that process. In three site assessments submitted to DEP since February 2005, Lockheed data has revealed the estimated size of the plume has grown from five acres to more than 200 acres surrounding Tallevast. Residents have filed two lawsuits against Lockheed and other parties connected to the plant. Lockheed has repeatedly said its data reveals no health threat to the community. Residents do not accept Lockheed's conclusions and some have demanded relocation. Who is Wilma Subra? A nationally known chemist and pioneer in the environmental justice movement, Wilma Subra of New Iberia, La., has provided pro bono technical assistance to more than 500 fenceline communities, primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods threatened by discharges and pollution from nearby industry. She was one of the investigators in the Love Canal incident in New York and currently is helping to assess the health impacts resulting from the environmental damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In 2003, Subra won the Volvo for Life Award for her work on behalf of residents of Diamond, La., located next to a chemical factory. Her volunteer technical assistance helped to establish that dangerous emissions from the chemical plant caused respiratory illnesses and high rates of cancer among Diamond's 300 residents. Her efforts helped to relocate residents after receiving above-market-value compensation for their homes. Subra is president of Subra Co., an environmental testing firm in New Iberia, La. She has served on advisory committees for the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House and has given presentations to U.S. Senate and House committees. Her resume includes work for the National Cancer Institute, the Gulf South Research Institute and other academic institutions. She has taught at the secondary and university level. Subra has no connection to Tallevast or vested interests in any of the parties involved. DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST -- An independent scientist warns that Lockheed has failed once again to adequately define an underground plume of toxic waste. Nor has Lockheed properly assessed it's threat to the residents of Tallevast. Lockheed's own data shows the contamination has spread farther than its most recent composite 200-acre plume map shows, says Wilma Subra, a nationally known environmental activist. Subra reviewed latest report to DEP at the Herald's request. After studying Lockheed's third site assessment report as well as previous documents filed with the Department of Environmental Protection, Subra considers the plume to be dangerous to residents and that all efforts should be made to relocate the community. Subra is particularly concerned that the latest site assessment report dismisses vapor intrusion as a health hazard, a problem the Louisiana environmentalist believes could be a serious danger to Tallevast residents. That threat, says Subra, must be adequately explored prior to DEP signing off on the assessment phase of the plume investigation. While Lockheed is currently conducting a vapor intrusion study by placing special collection canisters in residents homes and buildings in Tallevast, the results will be presented in a health assessment report that will be issued later this year, according to Lockheed's May 26th newsletter. Subra says that data should have been gathered before and the results presented in Lockheed's recent site assessment. She also says that Lockheed's latest data shows the contamination has reached the Florida aquifer, a fact Lockheed acknowledges but dismisses as irrelevant because the degree of contamination found is below clean-up standards. Subra warned that if DEP accepts Lockheed's latest assessment as the final definition of the toxic waste stemming from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant, questions vital to the health and wellbeing of residents will not be answered. The defense giant will move to cleaning up the mess, Subra said, without having adequate data to address all of the concerns the plume poses. The Herald furnished copies of Subra's review to Lockheed; DEP, which is overseeing the clean-up; Tim Varney, a technical consultant for Tallevast residents; and Laura Ward and Wanda Washington, leaders of a community advocacy group called FOCUS. Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer took issue with Subra's conclusions. "It appears that Ms. Subra may not be familiar with all the work Lockheed Martin has done to characterize the nature and extent of the contamination associated with the former ABC site and reaches conclusions that are not based on all the facts," Rymer said in an e-mail statement. "If Ms. Subra is someone the Herald wishes to provide independent review, we welcome giving Ms. Subra a complete briefing on all the work that has been done and the health risk assessment, vapor intrusion testing and other work that continues to be performed. We will continue to work with the State in finalizing the site assessment and move quickly into developing the final remediation plan for the Tallevast community." Subra was provided with Lockheed's site assessment reports and also had access to Lockheed's web site, which the company has repeatedly said provides residents and the public with all data collected on the site as well as details on ongoing projects and future plans. Varney, who also reviewed Lockheed's report to DEP, said Subra's comments dovetail with his own conclusions. In a report hand-delivered to Bill Kutash, the DEP official overseeing the Tallevast clean-up on May 8th, Varney said that Lockheed's latest assessment of a toxic plume falls short of defining the of contamination under the historical community. Subra came to the same conclusion. Varney also said Lockheed's data failed to define the vertical depth of the plume and does not take into consideration how the groundwater is moving through the Tallevast area. More test wells are needed to under the geology and hydrology -- the factors that influence how groundwater moves -- before conclusions about the plume can be drawn, Varney said. Subra, too, reached those same conclusions. She is particularly concerned that Lockheed dismisses the presence of contamination in the Floridan aquifer -- the source of much of Florida's drinking water -- because the detection levels were below targeted clean-up standards. "The contamination is there," Subra said, "that's the important issue along with how that contamination is moving and it what direction it is traveling." Varney agreed. "Generally, I am in agreement in what she is saying," said Varney. "She is saying more wells are needed to define the extent of the plume, especially under the community in close proximity to the plant. That is something that I have expressed to DEP." Varney also agrees that the vapor or soil gas study must be completed before any conclusions about the plume's size and threat are drawn. "Certainly the soil gas study is vital," said Varney. "I have cautioned Lockheed and the regulatory agencies that none of us should jump to conclusions on the risks or the extent of the contamination until all of the tests and work is done." And that is precisely what Lockheed has done, Subra warned. She said the preliminary remediation plans Lockheed has put forth are premature. "The information in the Site Assessment Report Addendum 3 seems to be leaning towards and attempting to justify the following Remedial actions," said Subra: Contaminated Ground Water Source Control- Implemented as the Interim Remedial Action Plan. Natural Attenuation as the approach to addressing the large, multistrata (layer) contaminated ground water plumes. Contaminated Soil Source Removal or Capping at the two locations on the former American Beryllium Co facility. Long term monitoring of effectiveness of ground water remedy. No relocation due to the lack of definition of exposure pathway from the contaminated ground water to residential community. "I hope I am wrong and DEP requires a more proactive remedy such as relocation, contaminated ground water removal or bioremediation at hot spot areas in addition to the Interim Remedial Action, and removal of contaminated soil from on the industrial site and from the residential yards," said Subra. She is also concerned that Lockheed has failed to consider its own private well data when drawing the latest composite 200-acre plume map. That composite plume map excludes known areas of contamination identified by their own tests of private wells and monitoring wells, Subra said. Yet, those areas are not included in plume boundary as published in the latest site assessment submitted April 26 by Blasland, Bouck &Lee Environmental Services, Inc., the engineering firm working for Lockheed. "What gives me trouble," says Subra, "is that they separated results a private well survey from the site assessment and submitted it to DEP under separate cover on May 22. I can see why, because the private well survey indicates an area that they should have investigated further and expands the size of the plume." Subra questioned whether the private well survey will be included in DEP's review because it arrived nearly a month later. A DEP spokeswoman that Lockheed's private well study results will considered before the department signs off on the assessment phase. DEP spokeswoman Pamala Vazquez said the department would be happy to talk directly to Subra. "Our goal is get the big picture of what is going on at Tallevast," said Vazquez. "If someone has additional information for us to look at, we will welcome the opportunity to study it and talk to them directly." Subra is worried about what comes next for the residents. "The contamination is under that residential area and it is at very shallow depths," said Subra. "These chemicals are very toxic. These people should not be living over that groundwater plume. To have residents living on top of this plume is putting them at risk." To date, Lockheed has repeatedly said there is health risk to the community that would warrant relocation. Preliminary results from health risk assessment being conducted by the Florida Department of Health also say there is no evidence of health risk, based upon past soil and limited vapor studies. Nonetheless, Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, had been working on relocation plan facilitated by unnamed private parties. But Galvano recently put his project on hold after meeting with attorneys representing Tallevast residents in one of two lawsuits against Lockheed and other parties connected to the beryllium plant. Ed Cottingham, an attorney with Motely Rice and leader of the Tallevast legal team said that the timing is premature to provide Galvano the details he needs on residents' relocation needs. Those needs cannot be assessed, Cottingham said, until the legal discovery process concerning those risks and liability is completed. But meanwhile Tallevast residents' worries about their health escalate, said Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS. Subra said that while no imminent health threat has yet been identified, it is a known fact residents are living atop a plume of contamination. "You really have to get them out of there," Subra said. "Usually it is the regulatory agencies involved who encourage the industries responsible to relocate communities threatened by pollution." But to date both the Florida Health Department and the DEP have not pursued that path. Vazquez said to her knowledge, DEP has had no discussions with Lockheed Martin on relocation beyond comments made by the public and elected officials at public meetings. "We are focused on the clean-up process," said Vazquez, "and we are making sure we involve the community in every step we are taking." But that level of cooperation has not proven true on Lockheed's side, say residents. Washington said that Lockheed did not review its strategy for the vapor study with the community prior to announcing the project in the May 26 newsletter. That's a big mistake, said Subra, who believes the community must be consulted every step of the way. Varney agreed. The results of the vapor study will be determined by the collection process and the methodology, Varney said. Residents, he believes, have a right to be involved in that planning. On its Tallevast.info web site, Lockheed pledges full disclosure of every step of the plume assessment and clean-up process. Lockheed's Tallevast Information Center in the Atrium Plaza at 8051 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite E4 in Sarasota provides the public accesss to all documents and studies produced in the Tallevast investigation, said community liaison Clovia Russell in a May 12th newsletter. "The objective here is full disclosure so that people can do their own research and draw their own conclusions," said Russell, a native of Bradenton who said she was recruited by Lockheed's attorneys to staff the center. "Many people do not realize these documents are readily available for public viewing." But Varney and Subra maintain there is an important level of communication that is missing from Lockheeds efforts. That missing link - direct engagement with the community in the planning stage of programs designed to help them deal with living on top of the plume - is vital to winning residents' trust. "Lockheed's communication with the community has not been good," said Varney. "I don't think that the community feels that they are involved in that process. They feel they are in a raging stream and are just being pulled along. They are just trying to stay afloat." Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 ***************************************************************** 98 Bellona: Kick-off for the Lepse Expert Panel In order to review Russian plans to remove spent nuclear fuel (SNF) on board the storage ship Lepse , and the decommission the vessel, an international expert panel called the “Lepse Expert Panel,” (LEP) has been inaugurated. This group met in Moscow on May 23rd for a kick-off meeting. Service ship Lepse Bellona Charles Digges, 2006-06-02 10:42 The Lepse is a former nuclear service ship, now used as a floating SNF storage vessel, moored a mere four kilometres from the centre of Murmansk. It holds 639 spent fuel assemblies, the majority of which are damaged by a 1967 accident aboard the nuclear icebreaker Lenin. Bellona has been chosen as a member of the EU panel for its long time engagement in the difficulties of dismantling the Lepse . The objective of the LEP, is to provide the Lepse Steering Committee and potential future donors a review and assessment of the TACIS AP 2002:R4.01/02 “Preliminary Design, Development and Approval of the Documentation for SNF/RAW removal from the FTB [Floating Technical Base] Lepse and its further Decommissioning”. The TACIS project is being carried out by the Russian Non-Profit organisation Aspect-Conversion. The Lepse Steering Committee currently consists of the following donor members; the European Commission AidCo TACIS, The French Ministry of Economy and Finance (FFEM), The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign affairs and the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO). The Committee has taken on the following people as members of the LEP: Curt Bergman, Consultant, Bjørn Borgaas, Storvik &Co Christian Deregel, Institut de Radioprotection et de Süreté Nucléaire, Anatoliy Shulgin, Russian Federal Nuclear Regulatory Authority Nils Bøhmer, The Bellona Foundation The kick-off meeting in Moscow on May 23rd was be followed by three panel meetings, which will lead up to a tender dossier that will serve as a background for potential future donors for the Lepse project in spring 2007. So far the total cost of the Lepse project is estimated at EUR30 million. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 99 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Yucca Mountain change of plan Opinion - Jun. 04, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal It's the eastern rail route -- no, the northern! The target date for the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste entombment project shifts like the sands of the Sahara, swallowing and then exposing the bleached ruins of ancient cities lost to time. It's hard to remember or believe that -- according to initial federal plans and schedules -- the thing was supposed to be open and functioning by now. In fact, Yucca Mountain has been delayed so long that if it were to open next year (it can't possibly, of course) and begin accepting spent nuclear fuel immediately, it would no longer hold all the material awaiting storage. So the DOE is now planning to double the size of a vast underground vault not yet built -- or even really started. Though even that won't provide enough room. Oh well. How far along are they? Let's just take the plan to actually get the canisters full of spent fuel to the site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The 319-mile, $880 million rail line from Caliente (over by the Utah border), west to a point near Tonopah and then south to Yucca mountain -- designed to avoid hauling the fuel through urban Las Vegas or through the Nellis Air Force bombing range, will be completed ... Oh, wait. It hasn't been started. And that $880 million price tag? Whoops. The DOE ran a new cost projection last fall, and decided that for the federal government to build 319 miles of rail line in this day and age will actually cost ... $2 billion. So it's back to the drawing board. Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, the initial federal plan had been to ship the waste across northern Nevada through Elko and Winnemucca, then south to Hawthorne and Mina, and finally to build a new line, a mere 209 miles in length, along an old Southern Pacific Railroad bed -- a route that would cross fewer mountain ranges and (in today's dollars) cost about a billion less. But the Walker River Paiute Tribe had objected to the waste shipments crossing their reservation, and that had put the kibosh on the northern route. Now, lo and behold, the DOE says the tribe has withdrawn its long-held objections. Presto! The northern route is alive again. Now, mind you, if the DOE can come up with a way to save taxpayers a billion dollars, that's not small potatoes, and they're to be encouraged. Though it does occur to the casual observer that -- since ongoing research (the part that hasn't been fudged) makes it appear increasingly unlikely the bedrock of Yucca Mountain can really provide "geologic containment" to protect the underlying water tables from radioactive contamination for anywhere near the first half-life of some of the stuff to be entombed -- the DOE might save the entire cost of the rail project by simply storing the stuff above ground at some location further east, where the depressed local economy might cause residents to welcome an influx of employment in the "waste dump storage security" sector. Someplace like, oh, Panaca; Caliente; or the old Wendover Air Force Range. Normally, it might seem silly to propose alternative plans for a project begun nearly 20 years ago. But we didn't start it. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 100 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN RAIL LINE : Paiutes have terms Jun. 03, 2006 Most important, tribe wants assurance that plan is safe Workers prepare to board a shuttle train into the main portal of the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository on April 13. U.S. Energy Department officials are reconsidering a northern rail route that would see the waste transported from nuclear power plants around the nation through such rural Nevada communities as Winnemucca, Silver Springs, Hawthorne and Mina. REVIEW-JOURNAL FILE PHOTO WASHINGTON -- While the Walker River Paiutes will allow the Energy Department to study shipping nuclear waste through their reservation, tribal leaders said Friday they will not sign off on the route unless they are convinced it is safe. The study would include a new rail segment through the outskirts of the reservation north of Walker Lake so that shipments of radioactive spent fuel and also high explosive ordnance from the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot would be diverted away from the town of Schurz, according to tribal Chairwoman Genia Williams. As part of the deal, the tribe also must be assured the Energy Department will ban truck shipments of nuclear waste on U.S. Highway 95 that bisects the reservation as it proceeds south to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. "Safety is the motivating factor for our decision," Williams said. "Let me make it clear that we have not said yes to the route through our reservation until we fully evaluate comprehensive studies on a new rail route that would be constructed miles away from our main population center," she said. The Walker River Paiute Tribal Council on April 13 reversed a 15-year policy of refusing to allow the federal government to explore a railroad path through the tribe's sovereign reservation for nuclear waste. The council's decision has prompted DOE to revive an alignment it had studied in the 1980s and early 1990s that would carry shipments through Northern and western Nevada along existing rail, and on a new 209-mile rail line that could be built from Hawthorne to Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A base route that was identified would cross Northern Nevada on Union Pacific rail, turn south at Winnemucca, pass east of Fernley, through the growing community of Silver Springs and Wabuska, through the Walker River reservation and to Hawthorne. Rail improvements and construction would proceed to Mina and near or through Tonopah and Goldfield, and south to the repository site near Amargosa Valley. Some of the path might run atop abandoned rail alignments that once serviced mining operations. Although extensive environmental surveys would need to be performed, some transportation experts said the so-called Mina route looks to be shorter, less expensive and faster to build than a 319-mile corridor originating in Caliente in southeastern Nevada that is now being studied through an official environmental impact statement. But the western route would carry nuclear waste through a larger portion of Nevada, and within 50 miles of Reno and Carson City. The possibility drew a mixed reaction Friday from Nevadans in that area. One state lawmaker questioned the wisdom of moving the hazardous material through even more of the state than would occur with other proposed routes. But a Silver Springs resident said the route could bring economic opportunities for the small town 35 miles east of the capital. "If you had to figure out how to ship the waste, it should be the most direct route," said state Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, who represents the Silver Springs area. "Increasing the number of miles it has to travel through Nevada would just increase the opportunity for mishaps." Amodei, who has opposed using Yucca Mountain as a repository for the nation's nuclear waste, said the transportation issue has always had implications for Northern Nevada, although this newest idea could make it even more significant for area residents. But Kay Bennett, a member of the board of directors of the Silver Springs Area Chamber of Commerce, said the route could prove economically beneficial to the community. "They would have to upgrade that rail line, which would bring added business and industry to our community," she said. "We have some industrial property along that spur, and we are strategically located here at the intersection of U.S. Highway 50 and U.S. Highway 95." The industrial land is reasonably priced compared to other areas of Northern Nevada, said Bennett, manager of the Silver Springs Airport. The community would have to know more about the safety precautions for such a project before it could reasonably react, she said. But Bennett said the waste has to go somewhere, and there is the chance for Nevada to benefit economically if that place is Yucca Mountain. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., dismissed the promise that nuclear waste will bring economic improvements. "For more than 20 years, Nevadans have heard tall tales of supposed fortunes to be made from Yucca Mountain, and these new claims about economic development are about as credible as an offer to buy a piece of the Hoover Dam or beachfront property in Pioche," Berkley said. John Milton, chairman of the Humboldt County Commission, said transporting nuclear waste would be a concern to residents, particularly in the town of Winnemucca. There are concerns now when train cars with unknown cargo are sometimes left on sidings there for varying periods of time. "Residents are concerned with what is being shipped now. If it was nuclear waste, they would really be concerned," he said. The county has never taken an official position on whether Yucca Mountain should be used to store nuclear waste, Milton said. DOE officials have not commented beyond acknowledging meeting with the Walker River Paiutes and confirming they are considering their options. The department's general counsel reportedly is researching whether the Caliente environmental statement could legally be amended to include the western Nevada route. The Energy Department's consideration of a nuclear waste shipping route through Northern and western Nevada was like waving a red flag in front of Nevada lawmakers in Congress who condemn most of DOE's activities at Yucca Mountain. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., believes a railroad path that would bring nuclear waste "even closer to highly populated areas is a reflection of DOE's arrogance," spokesman Jack Finn said. "Obviously to Senator Ensign there is no acceptable route for high-level nuclear waste through Nevada," Finn said. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said "it doesn't matter where the railroad goes because Yucca Mountain will never happen." Reid suggested the Walker River Paiutes may see an opportunity for jobs and economic betterment. "I have worked a lot with the Indians," Reid said. "They are economically working, looking for anything that might help with poverty." In a statement Friday, tribal Chairwoman Williams said the tribe was motivated by the possibility that, if not by rail, nuclear waste would end up crossing the reservation on trucks traveling U.S. 95. The tribe has no control over the highway, she said. DOE's transportation plan calls for some nuclear waste shipments to be made by truck while most would travel by rail. Department spokesman Allen Benson said it could be possible for nuclear waste to pass through the Walker River reservation although it is too soon to say. DOE is allowed by regulation to use federal highways, he said, although the state has the ability to designate alternative routes. "I fully understand that there may be opposition from other tribal communities and other Nevada communities to our decision but I must be concerned with the safety of our community if we are faced with high-level transportation directly through my community," Williams said. Williams declined to be interviewed Friday, referring to the statement and to a May 4 letter the tribe sent to DOE. In the letter signed by Williams, tribal leaders expressed concern about high-level explosives that pass by rail through Schurz from the Hawthorne depot. They suggested construction of a new rail line that would redirect traffic to the reservation's northern outskirts. Williams stressed the tribe was not agreeing to allow nuclear waste to pass through the reservation, "but to only allow the completion of the (environmental impact study) so that the tribe can make a more informed final decision." The tribe also said it would need an unspecific amount of funding for consultants, attorneys, lobbyists, public relations personnel, emergency service workers and also travel reimbursements to attend meetings about the environmental studies. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 101 Independent: Geologists unearth more UK sites for nuclear waste storage By Tim Webb Published: 04 June 2006 Around 40 per cent of the UK has the right geology to store the country's 470,000 tons of nuclear waste, according to initial findings by the British Geological Survey (BGS). If confirmed, this figure is much higher than the 30 per cent judged to be suitable 10 years ago, when the building of an underground nuclear waste repository was last considered. The Government will be advised next month that this type of repository is the best way to store the UK's waste. Ministers are expected to agree to the recommendation from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management by the end of the year. The process to decide how to build a repository and select a site can then begin. Richard Shaw from the BGS said: "Obviously, since the last site selection process, the geology has not changed. But our databases are much better and, as a result, so is our geological understanding." This time around, the radioactive material to be stored will include high-level waste, which is solidified and easier to maintain than low-level waste, he added. The construction and management of the repository, which could cost £10bn to build, will deliver a bonanza for the nuclear industry. Construction could begin within 10 years. Companies such as BNG, Bechtel, Amec and Fluor would be interested in project-managing the construction and running the facility. Once a decision is made on the repository, Nirex, the nuclear waste body, will ask drilling companies to test the geology of possible sites. Other factors that will determine which site is selected will include ease of transport of the waste, nearby population levels, benefits to the local economy and security risks. Ministers want to press ahead with the construction of new nuclear power stations and are keen to resolve the problem of how to store the existing waste. A mixture of spent fuel and radioactive materials from decommissioned power stations, it is currently being stored in more than 30 temporary sites around the country. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 102 SHJ: South Carolina's delegation must make Washington face plutonium problem Spartanburg Herald-Journal | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C. Published June 4, 2006 Article Options " South Carolina's fears that it will become the semi-permanent plutonium dump for the nation are closer to coming true. The federal government has been sending surplus plutonium from weapons facilities and dismantled weapons to the Savannah River Site. The problem is that the site is not properly located, designed or built to handle long-term storage of this dangerous material. The storage of plutonium there is supposed to be temporary. The federal government had planned two paths to remove the plutonium from the state. One was to build a facility at SRS that would reprocess the plutonium into fuel that could be used in nuclear power plants. But the U.S. House passed an energy bill last week that did not include funding for the reprocessing plant. The second path to get this material out of the state was to finish the high-level nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but lawsuits and political maneuvering have slowed that project as well. South Carolina agreed to accept this dangerous material because Washington promised it would build the plant to reprocess it and ship the rest to Yucca Mountain for proper disposal. Even when these decisions were made in 2002, it was doubtful whether the federal government would carry through its plans. Any method of handling nuclear material is always hampered by political changes and litigation. So the state's congressional delegation got a federal law passed setting steep financial penalties that have to be paid to the state if the plutonium stays here longer than it should. Now is the time for the state's members of Congress to remind Congress of its obligations and to inform Washington that the state will demand full payment of any penalties if this material stays. Stockpiling plutonium along the Savannah River is unsafe. It would be far better to place the material in a facility built and located for that purpose. It would be even better to reprocess it into a fuel that would generate energy for the nation and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. South Carolina's members of Congress must spur their colleagues to act on this problem now. ©2006 Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Staff directory ***************************************************************** 103 Salt Lake Tribune: Waste site accused of piling up too much Article Last Updated: 06/03/2006 03:13:09 AM MDT Critics say EnergySolutions' radioactive dump is expanding too fast By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Does unchecked growth at EnergySolutions present a problem? Several people have begun asking that question. Among them: a former executive of the company's low-level radioactive and hazardous waste site in Tooele County who has called for a state advisory board to decide if regulators are ignoring the law by allowing the growth. "There are rules in place for a purpose," said Charles Judd, the former president of Envirocare of Utah, which has changed its name to EnergySolutions. EnergySolutions says Judd is wrong and that it already has announced its intention to stop his complaint from going forward. Judd contends a paragraph in a 1992 state law makes it clear that lawmakers always intended to keep a check on the flow of waste to the site. The law says the governor and Legislature must sign off when a waste facility grows by more than 50 percent - in the volume of waste being handled in a year, in the amount of money sunk into new construction or in disposal capacity. Basing his conclusions on publicly available documents, Judd says EnergySolutions has exceeded all those triggers at its mile-square disposal site, all with the blessing of regulators in the state Radiation Control Division. He has asked the Utah Radiation Control Board to determine if regulators have read the law right. Judd contends the initial cost of the disposal site was $3.5 million and its approved capacity in 1990 was 3 million cubic yards. Improvements in 2005 and 2006 are estimated at about $60 million, according to EnergySolutions, and its reports to state regulators show nearly 6 million cubic yards have been disposed of at the site. Two other people recently have raised similar questions about EnergySolutions' growth: Jason Groenewold, director of the Health Environment Alliance of Utah, and Pat Cone, a new radiation board member. Echoing a question Cone had asked in last month's board meeting, Groenewold suggested EnergySolutions triggered the legislative and gubernatorial review because of its pending request to pile waste higher in its disposal cells, up to 75 feet instead of the 44 feet currently allowed. Both got the same response: Radioactive waste handling activities are authorized within the facility's 1-square-mile boundary, said Dane Finerfrock, director of the Radiation Control Division. The activist returned to Friday's board meeting to press for a formal review of the issue. But, because his questions overlap with Judd's, Groenewold was barred from raising the issue with board members. In an interview, he said the plain language of the law is clear, that political leaders - not regulators - were to decide on significant growth in Utah's hazardous waste industry. "The Legislature wisely decided that there should be limits on the amount of radioactive and toxic waste dumped in the state," Groenewold said. "When EnergySolutions wants to stack waste sky high, our elected leaders should decide if that's in the best interests of the state." Finerfrock already has answered the question. In response to Judd's initial query in February, the radiation control official cited an analysis by EnergySolutions' lawyer, James Holtkamp, who indicated that a state license applied to the entire facility. "There are no restrictions as to the nature, sequence or timing of the development of [the licensed area], just that it be used for low-level radioactive waste disposal," Finerfrock wrote in his Feb. 27 response. Now the matter heads for the advisory board, which toured the disposal site Thursday. Among the new facilities the panel examined were an administration building, rail spurs, a massive shredder, an electric substation to power the shredder and a station that will pick up two rail car containers at a time and dump their contents - part of roughly $60 million in improvements the company plans to complete by year's end. Last year, Judd sold a 1-square-mile parcel just north of the disposal facility to EnergySolutions' new owners after Tooele County commissioners blocked his efforts to develop a competing radioactive waste facility on the land. Groenewold's group, HEAL, has appealed Finerfrock and the radiation board's decision to grant EnergySolutions a license to expand the facility onto the land formerly owned by Judd. The Utah Court of Appeals has begun to review the case. EnergySolutions went ahead and built some facilities on that expanded area. But it took care not to put any waste-handling facilities on the new acreage until the HEAL appeal is resolved. Still, the waste company continues its robust growth, reporting nearly 5 million cubic feet of waste at the site in the first three months of 2006 and preparing for a shareholders vote next week at Duratek Inc. to allow EnergySolutions to add the Maryland nuclear services company to EnergySolutions' holdings. In August, the board plans to hear arguments by EnergySolutions and state radiation regulators on why Judd's complaint should not be heard. fahys@sltrib.com Two other people recently have raised similar questions about EnergySolutions' growth, Jason Groenewold, director of the Health Environment Alliance of Utah, and Pat Cone, a new radiation board member. Echoing a question Cone had asked in last month's board meeting, Groenewold suggested EnergySolutions triggered the legislative and gubernatorial review because of its pending request to pile waste higher in its disposal cells up to 75 feet instead of the 44 feet currently allowed. Both got the same response: Radioactive waste handling activities are authorized within the facility's 1-square-mile boundary, said Dane Finerfrock, director of the Radiation Control Division. The activist returned to Friday's board meeting, to press for a formal review of the issue. But, because his questions overlap with Judd's, Groenewold was barred from raising the issue with board members. In an interview, he said the plain language of the law is clear, that political leaders - not regulators - were to decide on significant growth in Utah's hazardous waste industry. "The Legislature wisely decided that there should be limits on the amount of radioactive and toxic waste dumped in the state," Groenewold said. "When EnergySolutions wants to stack waste sky high, our elected leaders should decide if that's in the best interests of the state." State law requires a full-bore license approval process for waste sites like the EnergySolutions facility in Tooele County, including consent of the Legislature and governor, if a new application or amendment: l ''would cost 50% or more of the cost of construction of the original radioactive waste facility,'' l ''or the modification would result in an increase in capacity . . . of a cumulative total of 50% of the total capacity . . . '' Source: Utah Code 19-3-105 © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 104 Santa Fe New Mexican: Nuclear waste: DOE begins hearings on WIPP permit By ASSOCIATED PRESS June 3, 2006 CARLSBAD -- The U.S. Department of Energy is presenting its case for changes at its underground nuclear-waste dump, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant east of Carlsbad. Hearings opened Wednesday and will continue through next Tuesday in Carlsbad. Hearings also are slated June 7-9 in Santa Fe. The hearings center on a proposed new hazardous-waste permit for WIPP, the most comprehensive modification since the state gave WIPP its first permit in 1999. It includes tougher requirements than those proposed by DOE, which sought changes ranging from reducing the number of tests on the waste to allowing more aboveground storage and bringing in waste that has higher levels of radioactivity. Representatives of the federal and state governments, WIPP operators and environmental groups worked over two months to hammer out differences, coming up with 180 pages of alterations to a draft released by the state Environment Department late last year. Not all issues have been resolved, however. The hearings, overseen by a state hearing officer, are organized somewhat like a trial. DOE calls witnesses to present the proposed modifications, and other agencies have the opportunity to cross-examine them. Environmental groups and the Environment Department then can call witnesses. The hearings also include periods for public comments, which on Wednesday drew Carlsbad Department of Development members and city residents who expressed their support for WIPP and the proposed permit. Fire Chief Mike Reynolds said his department has benefited from WIPP, with its "scientific brain bank" helping with such things as preparing for possible regional disasters. "Without them, we would be unprepared as a large portion of our nation still is," he said. Comments By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/04/2006 3:12 pm) ( Report this comment ) Liz, what I heard is that these shiny drums are not overpacked, they are placed into standard waste boxes and are shipped to WIPP that way, No PRIVATE sector people will be exposed to this shine. People in the PUBLIC sector, including TA-54 workers, WIPP personnel may be exposed to Gamma from these drums and need to know what's in them. By Liz Bluhm (Submitted: 06/04/2006 2:23 pm) ( Report this comment ) Gumby- It's TA_54 not TA-46 that stores the 55 gallon drums. David- yes drums over a certain radioactivity are overpacked in lead for dose issues.  Big deal.  They get shoved down in a deep underground hole and backfilled.  Who from the public sector will ever come in contact direct from the "shine" you speak of? . By "gumby" mil (Submitted: 06/03/2006 11:55 pm) ( Report this comment ) i would like to hear chris mechels take on this... after reading his comments that the DOE was completely ignored in it's assessment that lanl had failed in it's asci Q machine, and that DOE funding was going to be shifted toward LLNL, yet pete domenici and lanl made under the table negotiations to get back that funding.... i would LOVE to see lanl and pete pursue this venture to store radioactive material at WIPP without DOE... in other words.. if you don't know what i an saying here.. if lanl (or lans now) is so hot sh** that they don't need DOE... let them and petie domenici figure out where to bury this crap... that mesa overlooking white rock (TA-46) is BULGING with nuclear waste... i used to support wipp.. but now.. WHY? it seems that pete domenici can store all of these rusting radioactive 55 gallon drums at his house in albuquerque.. he doesn't seem to care about DOE rules.. does he? 1:00 AM 6/4/2006 By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 06/03/2006 9:34 pm) ( Report this comment ) Well, David...some appropriate hole somewhere, seems to be the idea. Is there a better one you know about? We can argue forever about the best hole, but we need to decide on one soon? Hearings, hearings...does your neighbor fear for his/her job if we just bury this mess? By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/03/2006 8:53 pm) ( Report this comment ) Eldon, these hearings are important to the state because if the state loses its only control over WIPP, the next things to be shoved down the hole, as it were, will be high level fuel rods. It might be that WIPP is a good place for them, but that is for the residents of New Mexico and Southwest Texas to agree upon first. By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 06/03/2006 8:38 pm) ( Report this comment ) Thanks, David. Seems to me that this is one area that we need some people to help us with. Some people who know what is involved. Some people paid by taxpayer dollars that are elected by us? What a concept? Citizens in charge of the problem AND the budget. What do you think? By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/03/2006 8:03 pm) ( Report this comment ) Eldon, my neighbor works at LANL. His group developed an instrument that performs the analysis of drum headspace. They had a good thing going, until one line of the federal budget got the ball rolling to stop headspace gas testing, the only control the state has over WIPP. TRU is both a level of radioactivity and denotes elements heavier than Uranium, Thus are TRansUranic, like Plutonium and Americium. My neighbor told me that the Americium is a gamma emitter, the drums put out a good "shine", you need to cover the drums with lead blankets. If you want kids a lead jock might also come in handy. By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 06/03/2006 5:33 pm) ( Report this comment ) David, I take it you work for the state of New Mexico? And what is TRU? By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/03/2006 4:00 pm) ( Report this comment ) Eldon, now that WIPP is in full production, accepting drums and all, I don't think they are digging more rooms. I think that WIPP is stable enough to story TRU level waste. Once the leap is made from Contact handled TRU waste to Remote handled TRU waste. the leap to high level waste is smaller, and one the state of New Mexico should not take if we lose oversite of plant operations, if the headspace requirement is modified away. By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 06/03/2006 3:02 pm) ( Report this comment ) Eeeho, David. Seems like you are familiar with some of this business. Not enough space at WIPP, huh? Do you buy into the seepage business and that since we perforated the salt domes they are vulnerable to leaking from above? Is my hollow out the middle of a granite mountain idea laughable or feasible? By David Lopez (Submitted: 06/03/2006 2:40 pm) ( Report this comment ) When they talk about reducing the number of tests performed, they are talking about reducing or eliminating the headsace gas testing requirement. This test will detect the 30-odd RCRA regulated solvents that may have been used in their processes. The headspace gas test is the only control the State of New Mexico has over WIPP. The radioactive components of the waste are regulated by the federal government. If the headspace gas requirement is eliminated, the state no longer has any control over WIPP operations. If the remote handled waste is still TRU level, it still falls within the rules. Remembering that WIPP has a finite capacity; there are still too many drums at INL and LANL that should be sent first. By Eldon Howell (Submitted: 06/03/2006 12:38 pm) ( Report this comment ) I agree with Liz. Get real, Jason. Sure the stuff is worthy of careful attention to it's handling and storage, but I'm more afraid of a tube of ricin or anthrax than some spent nuclear waste. We just need to get it into the ground in a way and place that should last for a reasonable eternity. Actually, I've been into the WIPP site during the early phase of it's construction. Looked pretty secure and stable then, but I have heard that brine pockets remaining from the inland sea that created the salt beds remain, and that seepage into the shafts and excavated rooms is dangerous for the steel drums they propose to bury in them. I'm not sure Wipp is the best zone for this. Nevada sounds good....Jim A? haha. Actually, I wonder about another Yucca Mountain project somewhere. We just dynamite out of solid granite enough room in the center of a mountain, which we KNOW is going to be around for millions of years. Best sounding of all is rocket the stuff into the sun, but how to do safely? By Liz Bluhm (Submitted: 06/03/2006 12:13 pm) ( Report this comment ) Most poisonous material ever created is an incorrect statement, Jason. Inhaling a small amount of Pu won't kill you imeddiately (or maybe even never) but the converse isn't true with many biologicial or chemical warfare agents. Please stop the over dramatization. By Jason Shapiro (Submitted: 06/03/2006 6:02 am) ( Report this comment ) The very same people responsible for protecting the U.S. - in other words, the people who couldn't stop 9/11, pushed us into the never ending fiasco of Iraq, and created the Katrina FUBAR scenario, want us to trust them to store and manage the MOST POISONOUS MATERIALS EVER CREATED ON THIS PLANET! Who is more galactically stupid - us or them? ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 105 Tri-City Herald: Oregon uneasy with Hanford study Published Sunday, June 4th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy must not consider leaving radioactive waste behind in underground tanks at Hanford, said Oregon's congressional delegation. Both of the state's U.S. senators and all five of its U.S. representatives signed off on a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman commenting on DOE's plans for a large environmental study. The study, called the Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management Environment Impact Statement, will look both at emptying and closing Hanford's waste tanks and also at disposing of Hanford waste and waste brought to Hanford from elsewhere in the nation. Both issues affect Oregon. An estimated 1 million gallons of radioactive waste have leaked from Hanford's underground tanks in the past. Some of the waste has reached the ground water and is spreading toward the Columbia River, the letter emphasized. In addition, radioactive waste shipped to and from Hanford could be carried by trucks through Oregon. Part of the delegation's concern over the environmental study is a scenario to leave 10 percent of the waste in Hanford's 149 oldest and leak-prone underground tanks. "Such an alternative would require changing or overturning laws and agreements," the letter said. The scenario is one of several alternatives proposed to be studied. Others look at removing 99 percent or more of the waste. DOE has defended studying that 90 percent removal alternative, saying showing the effects of leaving 10 percent of the waste in the tanks could work as an argument for emptying the tanks to 99 percent. The legally binding Tri-Party Agreement calls for 99 percent of the waste -- or as much as is technically possible -- to be removed from the tanks. Comments made at spring meetings, including Oregon meetings held in Hood River and Portland, showed that the public wants the proposal removed from the study, the letter said. The Oregon delegation also questioned the stability of the tanks, which hold mostly salt cake and sludge after Hanford workers finished removing most pump-able liquid in 2004. It pointed out a recent study by the activist group Heart of America Northwest that cited 2002 DOE data on soil contamination to conclude that the tanks have leaked more recently than DOE has acknowledged. When the study was released a month ago, DOE said contamination was from past known leaks, and the Washington State Department of Ecology said it had no information to show there are new leaks from the tanks. DOE needs to install leak detection monitors, the Oregon delegation said. "In the meantime, the department should create a 'watch list' for tanks which do not have early leak detection capability and for which there is evidence of either increased contamination or faster spread of contamination than predicted," the letter said. It also called for accelerating work to look at how much and where contamination has spread beneath the tanks. The waste is left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. On the subject of transportation risks, the congressional delegation called for the environmental study to include an analysis that reflects the reality of trucking radioactive material through their state. That includes calculating risks in bad weather, and to children, who are more susceptible to harm from radiation than adults, the letter said. The delegation said it was concerned about a potential accident or terrorist attack on the shipments. The letter is posted at www.hoanw.org. It was signed by Republicans Sen. Gordon Smith and Rep. Greg Walden and Democrats Sen. Ron Wyden and Reps. Peter DeFazio, Darlene Hooley, Earl Blumenauer and David Wu. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 106 RedOrbit: Doe Begins Hearings on Wipp Permit Posted on: Saturday, 3 June 2006, 21:00 NUCLEAR WASTE CARLSBAD -- The U.S. Department of Energy is presenting its case for changes at its underground nuclear-waste dump, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant east of Carlsbad. Hearings opened Wednesday and will continue through next Tuesday in Carlsbad. Hearings also are slated June 7-9 in Santa Fe. The hearings center on a proposed new hazardous-waste permit for WIPP, the most comprehensive modification since the state gave WIPP its first permit in 1999. It includes tougher requirements than those proposed by DOE, which sought changes ranging from reducing the number of tests on the waste to allowing more aboveground storage and bringing in waste that has higher levels of radioactivity. Representatives of the federal and state governments, WIPP operators and environmental groups worked over two months to hammer out differences, coming up with 180 pages of alterations to a draft released by the state Environment Department late last year. Not all issues have been resolved, however. The hearings, overseen by a state hearing officer, are organized somewhat like a trial. DOE calls witnesses to present the proposed modifications, and other agencies have the opportunity to cross- examine them. Environmental groups and the Environment Department then can call witnesses. The hearings also include periods for public comments, which on Wednesday drew Carlsbad Department of Development members and city residents who expressed their support for WIPP and the proposed permit. Fire Chief Mike Reynolds said his department has benefited from WIPP, with its "scientific brain bank" helping with such things as preparing for possible regional disasters. "Without them, we would be unprepared as a large portion of our nation still is," he said. (c) 2006 The Santa Fe New Mexican. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved. Source: The Santa Fe New Mexican Ads by Google © 2002-2005 redOrbit.com. All rights ***************************************************************** 107 lamonitor.com: Anastasio takes the helm The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor The new director of Los Alamos National Laboratory seemed pleased and relieved to be in charge at last after months of transitional business on the sideline. "The big message today is that's all done," Michael Anastasio said during a visit to the Monitor office Thursday afternoon. "We're in place. We're responsible for the laboratory. It's on our watch now." Wednesday, he said, was all about signing documents and accepting formal responsibility. Thursday was the first day of a new era. Anastasio and the 20-or-so key players that he brings with him have been preparing to make their entrance on June 1 for more than five months, since Los Alamos National Security LLC (LANS) was awarded the first competitively-bid management and operations contract in the history of the renowned national weapons laboratory. Anastasio is also president of LANS, a partnership composed of the former manager, the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International. "I really spent the day out and about in the lab. I got about 20 minutes to do all my other business in my office around lunchtime," he said. "We all became new employees today. I actually got my new badge so I could get into my office," Anastasio said. His object and the main theme Thursday for all the incoming managers was to greet as many employees as possible at the lab. The message for the staff was teamwork, "bringing the lab together and all working toward a common goal to accomplish our missions, paying attention to the special things like safety and security." Anastasio said he thought morale was great and, at least from his anecdotal perspective, he found people who were excited, congratulatory and looking forward to the future. "They want to see what's actually going to happen, not what we're going to say next," Anastasio said. He talked about both change and continuity. "If there wasn't going to be change, the government never would have gone through this process," he said. "They picked us because we're going to bring the things they'd like to see; that's why we won the competition. That's my version." Anastasio becomes LANL's ninth director, the fourth since Jan. 2003, as a series of business, safety and security problems, along with the management transition, shortened the terms of his predecessors. Anastasio was director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California from 2002 until earlier this year. There is a new organizational structure at LANL, a new pension system and industrial partners, he said. There's a new for-profit contract that runs until Sept. 30, 2013, with optional renewals up to 20 years. The contract includes a new variable performance fee between $60 million and $73 million per year. At the same time, Anastasio did not foresee radical discontinuity. "The lab is still the lab," he said. "That part hasn't changed." The visit to the Monitor was a symbolic continuation of the new director's expressed commitment to the community. "We're all in this together," he said. "If the community works well that's good for the lab; if the lab works well that's good for the community." Printed 6-2-06 © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor 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: *****************************************************************