*****************************************************************
06/11/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.138
*****************************************************************
   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 [NYTr] The Yellowcake Caper: The War They Wanted
2 [southnews] Iran strike 'easier', says ret. general
3 [southnews] Iran says parts of incentives proposal "acceptable"
4 IRNA: MP considers US preconditions for talks with Iran as int'l ges
5 IRNA: EU FMs to discuss ties with Iran 
6 IRNA: Iran, Egypt discuss nuclear issue 
7 IRNA: Asefi approves of 5+1's decision to talk with Iran 
8 Guardian Unlimited: Negotiator: Iran Wants Unconditional Talks
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Accepts Parts of Western Nuke Offer
10 IRNA: Hans Blix: Iran not accused of NPT violation 
11 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran May Still Hold Upper Hand
12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Make Counteroffer to West
13 IRNA: West always intends to foment tension in Iran - MP 
14 Herald: Blix: Britain is at nuclear crossroads   
15 WorldNetDaily: More Condi diplomacy?
16 IRNA: Iran will try to reach comprehensive understanding with 5+1 - 
17 IRNA: Iran proposal will focus on national interests - Haddad-Adel -
18 AFP: Iran studying nuclear proposal, won't compromise on 'rights' -
19 AFP: Iran to offer counter-proposals on nuclear crisis 
20 AFP: Iran Nobel laureate urges negotiated nuclear settlement 
21 AFP: UN atomic agency meets: Iran deliberating new nuclear proposal 
22 IRNA: Iran's nuclear program not to harm Islamic, non-Islamic states
23 IRNA:  West show of Iran issues politically-mo tivated - Armenian da
24 IRNA: Asefi says Iran's N-rights "not negotiable" 
25 IRNA: Greens calls for removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe 
26 US: Daily Times: US-India nuclear deal languishing on the Hill 
27 UK: Two brothers held in WMD raid released without charge
28 Guardian Unlimited: China's Thirst for Oil Rattles Old Order
29 AFP: India successfully test-fires nuclear-capable missile - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
30 NEWS.com.au: Labor votes down nuclear power 
31 US: SABCnews.com: Koeberg back at 90% capacity
32 Bellona: Russia to build four nuclear units a year
33 BBC: Brown supports new nuclear plants
34 IndianExpress.com: India will get to stockpile fuel for every N-reac
35 GLW: All the way with the USA: Howard's dream of a nuclear future
36 Independent: Blair and Chirac seal nuclear deal 
37 US: Detroit News: New nuclear plant needed to alleviate power proble
38 baltimoresun.com: Asia turns to plants for fuel - 
39 FT.com: Blair to rule out nuclear power plant incentives
40 US: JS Online: More power plants may be in the pipeline 
41 AFP: India, US to work out details of nuclear energy trade this week
42 US: Los Angeles Times: A few more nukes! - 
43 Telegraph: Nuclear stations may stay on line to bridge the gap
44 US: Record Online: Closing Indian Point ...
45 US: The Day: State Agency Seals Some Records In Whistleblower Case  
46 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry can't hurt: Kohler
47 AU ABC: Nuclear power issue a political distraction
48 SNA: Bulgaria's Fourth Nuclear Unit Switched off Grid
49 AFP: India, US to work out details of nuclear energy trade this week
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
50 NEWS.com.au: 'Nuclear terror risk won't cow us' - 
51 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power a terror risk - Greens - 
52 Sydney Morning Herald: Terror no reason to rule out nukes - govt - 
53 AU ABC: Terrorist threat should not stop nuclear debate: Ellison.
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
54 [DU-WATCH] The Mother of All Scams rears its ugly arse in Oz
55 US: SPI: Government, plaintiffs wait through Hanford downwinder appe
56 US: TheStar.com: How many minutes to midnight?
57 US: Bristol Press: City, state veterans leaders seek munitions study
58 US: FOX 12: Downwinder Rally
59 US: UPI: Atomic vets angry over delays
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
60 Guardian Unlimited: Reid Calls for More Intelligence Oversight
61 US: GLW: Martin Ferguson and the nuclear debate
62 US: Baltimore Examaminer: EnergySolutions buys nuclear waste firm - 
63 US: SF Chronicle: Waste storage dilemma crimps nuclear future
64 US: DenverPost.com: Trainload of debate on nuke storage
65 US: AU ABC: Labor MP commited to uranium mining 'phase out'. 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
66 Knox News: Next stage of massive Y-12 cleanup project coming up
67 Inside Bay Area: Sandia Labs chief plans to retire
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] The Yellowcake Caper: The War They Wanted
 
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:51:35 -0400 (EDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Vanity Fair  - June 2006
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02


THE WAR THEY WANTED, THE LIES THEY NEEDED

The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to
buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world
soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the
cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links
to the White House

By CRAIG UNGER

*This is Craig Unger's third article for Vanity Fair. He is
currently working on a book based on his article "American Rapture," which
appeared in the December 2005 issue.

It's a crisp, clear winter morning in Rome. In the neighborhood between
the Vatican and the Olympic Stadium, a phalanx of motor scooters is parked
outside a graffiti-scarred 10-story apartment building. No. 10 Via Antonio
Baiamonte is home to scores of middle-class families, and to the embassy
for the Republic of Niger, the impoverished West African nation that was
once a French colony.

Though it may be unprepossessing, the Niger Embassy is the site of one of
the great mysteries of our times. On January 2, 2001, an embassy official
returned there after New Year's Day and discovered that the offices had
been robbed. Little of value was missing--a wristwatch, perfume, worthless
documents, embassy stationery, and some official stamps bearing the seal
of the Republic of Niger. Nevertheless, the consequences of the robbery
were so great that the Watergate break-in pales by comparison.

A few months after the robbery, Western intelligence analysts began
hearing that Saddam Hussein had sought yellowcake--a concentrated form of
uranium which, if enriched, can be used in nuclear weapons--from Niger.
Next came a dossier purporting to document the attempted purchase of
hundreds of tons of uranium by Iraq. Information from the dossier and,
later, the papers themselves made their way from Italian intelligence to,
at various times, the C.I.A., other Western intelligence agencies, the
U.S. Embassy in Rome, the State Department, and the White House, as well
as several media outlets. Finally, in his January 2003 State of the Union
address, George W. Bush told the world, "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa."

Two months later, the United States invaded Iraq, starting a conflict that
has killed tens of thousands of people, cost hundreds of billions of
dollars, and has irrevocably de-stabilized the strategically vital Middle
East. Since then, the world has learned not just that Bush's 16-word casus
belli was apparently based on the Niger documents but also that the
documents were forged.

In Italy, a source with intimate knowledge of the Niger affair has warned
me that powerful people are watching. Phones may be tapped. Jobs are in
jeopardy, and people are scared.

On the sixth floor at Via Baiamonte, a receptionist finally comes to the
door of the nondescript embassy office. She is of medium height, has
dark-brown hair, wears a handsome blue suit, and appears to be in her 50s.
She declines to give her full name. A look of concern and fear crosses her
face. "Don't believe what you read in the papers," she cautions in French.
"Ce n'est pas la viriti." It is not the truth.

But who was behind the forgeries? Italian intelligence? American
operatives? The woman tilts her head toward one of the closed doors to
indicate that there are people there who can hear. She can't talk. "C'est
interdit," she says. It is forbidden.

"A CLASSIC PSY-OPS CAMPAIGN"

For more than two years it has been widely reported that the U.S. invaded
Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is far more likely
that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence
success--specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of
disinformation, or black propaganda, which led the White House, the
Pentagon, Britain's M.I.6 intelligence service, and thousands of outlets
in the American media to promote the falsehood that Saddam Hussein's
nuclear-weapons program posed a grave risk to the United States.

The Bush administration made other false charges about Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (W.M.D.)--that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes suitable
for centrifuges, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda, that he had
mobile weapons labs, and so forth. But the Niger claim, unlike other
allegations, can't be dismissed as an innocent error or blamed on
ambiguous data. "This wasn't an accident," says Milt Bearden, a 30-year
C.I.A. veteran who was a station chief in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, and
Germany, and the head of the Soviet-East European division. "This wasn't
15 monkeys in a room with typewriters."

In recent months, it has emerged that the forged Niger documents went
through the hands of the Italian military intelligence service, SISMI
(Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare), or operatives
close to it, and that neoconservative policymakers helped bring them to
the attention of the White House. Even after information in the Niger
documents was repeatedly rejected by the C.I.A. and the State Department,
hawkish neocons managed to circumvent seasoned intelligence analysts and
insert the Niger claims into Bush's State of the Union address.

By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, in March 2003, this apparent
black-propaganda operation had helped convince more than 90 percent of the
American people that a brutal dictator was developing W.M.D.--and had led
us into war.

To trace the path of the documents from their fabrication to their
inclusion in Bush's infamous speech, Vanity Fair has interviewed a number
of former intelligence and military analysts who have served in the
C.I.A., the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency (D.I.A.),
and the Pentagon. Some of them refer to the Niger documents as "a
disinformation operation," others as "black propaganda," "black ops," or
"a classic psy-ops [psychological-operations] campaign." But whatever term
they use, at least nine of these officials believe that the Niger
documents were part of a covert operation to deliberately mislead the
American public.

The officials are Bearden; Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as the
D.I.A.'s defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and
terrorism; Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of
State Colin Powell; Melvin Goodman, a former division chief and senior
analyst at the C.I.A. and the State Department; Ray McGovern, a C.I.A.
analyst for 27 years; Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in
the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia division in 2002 and 2003; Larry
C. Johnson, a former C.I.A. officer who was deputy director of the State
Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993; former C.I.A.
official Philip Giraldi; and Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of
operations of the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center.

In addition, Vanity Fair has found at least 14 instances prior to the 2003
State of the Union in which analysts at the C.I.A., the State Department,
or other government agencies who had examined the Niger documents or
reports about them raised serious doubts about their legitimacy--only to
be rebuffed by Bush-administration officials who wanted to use the
material. "They were just relentless," says Wilkerson, who later prepared
Colin Powell's presentation before the United Nations General Assembly.
"You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their
favorite bureaucratic technique--ruthless relentlessness."

All of which flies in the face of a campaign by senior Republicans
including Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, to blame the C.I.A. for the faulty pre-war intelligence on
W.M.D. Indeed, the accounts put forth by Wilkerson and his colleagues
strongly suggest that the C.I.A. is under siege not because it was wrong
but because it was right. Agency analysts were not serving the White
House's agenda.

What followed was not just the catastrophic foreign-policy blunder in Iraq
but also an ongoing battle for the future of U.S. intelligence. Top
officials have been leaving the C.I.A. in droves--including Porter Goss,
who mysteriously resigned in May, just 18 months after he had been
handpicked by Bush to be the director of Central Intelligence. Whatever
the reason for his sudden departure, anyone at the top of the C.I.A.,
Goss's replacement included, ultimately must worry about serving two
masters: a White House that desperately wants intelligence it can use to
remake the Middle East and a spy agency that is acutely sensitive to
having its intelligence politicized.

CUI BONO?

Unraveling a disinformation campaign is no easy task. It means entering a
kingdom of shadows peopled by would-be Machiavellis who are practiced in
the art of deception. "In the world of fabrication, you don't just drop
something and let someone pick it up," says Bearden. "Your first goal is
to make sure it doesn't find its way back to you, so you do several
things. You may start out with a document that is a forgery, that is a
photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, which makes it hard to track
down. You go through cutouts so that the person who puts it out doesn't
know where it came from. And you build in subtle, nuanced errors so you
can say, 'We would never misspell that.' If it's very cleverly done, it's
a chess game, not checkers."

Reporters who have entered this labyrinth often emerge so perplexed that
they choose not to write about it. "The chances of being manipulated are
very high," says Claudio Gatti, a New York-based investigative reporter at
Il Sole, the Italian business daily. "That's why I decided to stay out of
it."

Despite such obstacles, a handful of independent journalists and bloggers
on both sides of the Atlantic have been pursuing the story. "Most of the
people you are dealing with are professional liars, which really leaves
you with your work cut out for you as a reporter," says Joshua Micah
Marshall, who has written about the documents on his blog, Talking Points
Memo.

So far, no one has figured out all the answers. There is even disagreement
about why the documents were fabricated. In a story by Seymour Hersh in
The New Yorker, a source suggested that retired and embittered C.I.A.
operatives had intentionally put together a lousy forgery in hopes of
embarrassing Cheney's hawkish followers. But no evidence has emerged to
support this theory, and many intelligence officers embrace a simpler
explanation. "They needed this for the case to go to war," says Melvin
Goodman, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for International
Policy. "It serves no other purpose."

By and large, knowledgeable government officials in the U.S., Italy,
France, and Great Britain are mum. Official government investigations in
Italy, the U.K., and the U.S.--including a two-year probe into pre-war
intelligence failures by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--have
been so highly politicized as to be completely unsatisfying.

Only the ongoing investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
into the Plamegate scandal bears promise. However, it is focused not on
the forgeries but on the leaks that were apparently designed to discredit
former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and that outed his wife, former C.I.A.
agent Valerie Plame, after Wilson revealed that the Niger story was false.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President
Dick Cheney, has already been charged in the case, and President Bush's
senior adviser, Karl Rove, has been Fitzgerald's other principal target.
But, with the dubious exception of an ongoing F.B.I. inquiry, there is no
official probe into who forged the Niger documents, who disseminated them,
and why, after they had been repeatedly discredited, they kept
resurfacing.

Meanwhile, from Rome to Washington, and countless points in between,
journalists, bloggers, politicians, and intelligence agents are pondering
the same question: Cui bono? Who benefits? Who wanted to start the war?

THE STUFF OF CONSPIRACY FANTASIES

If Italy seems like an unlikely setting for a black-propaganda plot to
start the Iraq war, it is worth remembering that Et tu, Brute is part of
the local idiom, and Machiavelli was a native son. Accordingly, one can't
probe Nigergate without examining the rich tapestry of intrigue that is
Italian intelligence.

Because Italy emerged from World War II with a strong Communist Party,
domestic politics had elements of a civil war, explains Guido Moltedo,
editor of Europa, a center-left daily in Italy. That meant
ultra-conservative Cold Warriors battled the Communists not just
electorally but through undercover operations in the intelligence world.
"In addition to the secret service, SISMI, there was another, informal,
parallel secret service," Moltedo says. "It was known as Propaganda Due."

Led by a neo-Fascist named Licio Gelli, Propaganda Due, with its penchant
for exotic covert operations, was the stuff of conspiracy
fantasies--except that it was real. According to The Sunday Times of
London, until 1986 members agreed to have their throats slit and tongues
cut out if they broke their oaths. Subversive, authoritarian, and
right-wing, the group was sometimes referred to as the P-2 Masonic Lodge
because of its ties to the secret society of Masons, and it served as the
covert intelligence agency for militant anti-Communists. It was also
linked to Operation Gladio, a secret paramilitary wing in NATO that
supported far-right military coups in Greece and Turkey during the Cold
War.

In 1981 the Italian Parliament banned Propaganda Due, and all secret
organizations in Italy, after an investigation concluded that it had
infiltrated the highest levels of Italy's judiciary, parliament, military,
and press, and was tied to assassinations, kidnappings, and arms deals
around the world. But before it was banned, P-2 members and their allies
participated in two ideologically driven international black-propaganda
schemes that foreshadowed the Niger Embassy job 20 years later. The first
took place in 1980, when Francesco Pazienza, a charming and sophisticated
Propaganda Due operative at the highest levels of SISMI, allegedly teamed
up with an American named Michael Ledeen, a Rome correspondent for The New
Republic. According to The Wall Street Journal, Pazienza said he first met
Ledeen that summer, through a SISMI agent in New York who was working
under the cover of a U.N. job.

The end result of their collaboration was a widely publicized story that
helped Ronald Reagan unseat President Jimmy Carter, whom they considered
too timid in his approach to winning the Cold War. The target was Carter's
younger brother, Billy, a hard-drinking "good ol' boy" from Georgia who
repeatedly embarrassed his sibling in the White House.

It began after Billy mortified the president in 1979 by going to Tripoli
at a time when Libya's leader, Muammar Qaddafi, was reviled as a radical
Arab dictator who supported terrorism. Coupled with Billy's later
admission that he had received a $220,000 loan from Qaddafi's regime, the
ensuing "Billygate" scandal made headlines across America and led to a
Senate investigation. But it had died down as the November 1980 elections
approached.

Then, in the last week of October 1980, just two weeks before the
election, The New Republic in Washington and Now magazine in Great Britain
published a story co-authored by Michael Ledeen and Arnaud de Borchgrave,
now an editor-at-large at The Washington Times and United Press
International. According to the story, headlined "Qaddafi, Arafat and
Billy Carter," the president's brother had been given an additional
$50,000 by Qaddafi, on top of the loan, and had met secretly with
Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat. The story had come
dramatically back to life. The new charges were disputed by Billy Carter
and many others, and were never corroborated.

A 1985 investigation by Jonathan Kwitny in The Wall Street Journal
reported that the New Republic article was part of a larger disinformation
scam run by Ledeen and SISMI to tilt the election, and that "Billy Carter
wasn't the only one allegedly getting money from a foreign government."
According to Pazienza, Kwitny reported, Michael Ledeen had received at
least $120,000 from SISMI in 1980 or 1981 for his work on Billygate and
other projects. Ledeen even had a coded identity, Z-3, and had money sent
to him in a Bermuda bank account, Pazienza said.

Ledeen told the Journal that a consulting firm he owned, I.S.I., worked
for SISMI and may have received the money. He said he did not recall
whether he had a coded identity.

Pazienza was subsequently convicted in absentia on multiple charges,
including having used extortion and fraud to obtain embarrassing facts
about Billy Carter. Ledeen was never charged with any crime, but he was
cited in Pazienza's indictment, which read, "With the illicit support of
the SISMI and in collaboration with the well-known American 'Italianist'
Michael Ledeen, Pazienza succeeded in extorting, also using fraudulent
means, information ... on the Libyan business of Billy Carter, the brother
of the then President of the United States."

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Ledeen denied having worked with
Pazienza or Propaganda Due as part of a disinformation scheme. "I knew
Pazienza," he explained. "I didn't think P-2 existed. I thought it was all
nonsense--typical Italian fantasy."

He added, "I'm not aware that anything in [the Billygate] story turned out
to be false."

Asked if he had worked with SISMI, Ledeen told Vanity Fair, "No," then
added, "I had a project with SISMI--one project." He described it as a
simple "desktop" exercise in 1979 or 1980, in which he taught Italian
intelligence how to deal with U.S. officials on extradition matters. His
fee, he said, was about $10,000.

THE BULGARIAN CONNECTION

In 1981, Ledeen played a role in what has been widely characterized as
another disinformation operation. Once again his alleged ties to SISMI
were front and center. The episode began after Mehmet Ali Agca, the
right-wing terrorist who shot Pope John Paul II that May, told authorities
that he had been taking orders from the Soviet Union's K.G.B. and
Bulgaria's secret service. With Ronald Reagan newly installed in the White
House, the so-called Bulgarian Connection made perfect Cold War
propaganda. Michael Ledeen was one of its most vocal proponents, promoting
it on TV and in newspapers all over the world. In light of the ascendancy
of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, the Pope's homeland, the Bulgarian
Connection played a role in the demise of Communism in 1989.

There was just one problem--it probably wasn't true. "It just doesn't pass
the giggle test," says Frank Brodhead, co-author of The Rise and Fall of
the Bulgarian Connection. "Agca, the shooter, had been deeply embedded in
a Turkish youth group of the Fascist National Action Party known as the
Gray Wolves. It seemed illogical that a Turkish Fascist would work with
Bulgarian Communists."

The only real source for the Bulgarian Connection theory was Agca himself,
a pathological liar given to delusional proclamations such as his
insistence that he was Jesus Christ. When eight men were later tried in
Italian courts as part of the Bulgarian Connection case, all were
acquitted for lack of evidence. One reason was that Agca had changed his
story repeatedly. On the witness stand, he said he had put forth the
Bulgarian Connection theory after Francesco Pazienza offered him freedom
in exchange for the testimony. He subsequently changed that story as well.

Years later, Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who had initially
believed the theory, wrote that "I became convinced ... that the Bulgarian
connection was invented by Agca with the hope of winning his release from
prison. ... He was aided and abetted in this scheme by right-wing
conspiracy theorists in the United States and William Casey's Central
Intelligence Agency, which became a victim of its own disinformation
campaign."

Exactly which Americans might have been behind such a campaign? According
to a 1987 article in The Nation, Francesco Pazienza said Ledeen "was the
person responsible for dreaming up the 'Bulgarian connection' behind the
plot to kill the Pope." Similarly, according to The Rise and Fall of the
Bulgarian Connection, Pazienza claimed that Ledeen had worked closely with
the SISMI team that coached Agca on his testimony.

But Ledeen angrily denies the charges. "It's all a lie," he says. He adds
that he protested to The Wall Street Journal when it first reported on his
alleged relationship with Pazienza: "If one-tenth of it were true, I would
not have security clearances, but I do."

Not long before his death, in 2005, Pope John Paul II announced that he
did not believe the Bulgarian Connection theory. But that wasn't the end
of it. In March 2006 an Italian commission run by Paolo Guzzanti, a
senator in the right-wing Forza Italia Party, reopened the case and
concluded that the Bulgarian Connection was real. According to Frank
Brodhead, however, the new conclusions are based on the same old
information, which is "bogus at best and at worst deliberately
misleading."

In the wake of Billygate and the Bulgarian Connection, Ledeen allegedly
began to play a role as a behind-the-scenes operative with the ascendant
Reagan-Bush team. According to Mission Italy, by former ambassador to
Italy Richard Gardner, after Reagan's victory, but while Jimmy Carter was
still president, "Ledeen and Pazienza set themselves up as the preferred
channel between Italian political leaders and members of the new
administration." Ledeen responds, "Gardner was wrong. And, by the way, he
had every opportunity to raise it with me and never did."

When Reagan took office, Ledeen was made special assistant to Alexander
Haig, Reagan's secretary of state. Ledeen later took a staff position on
Reagan's National Security Council and played a key role in initiating the
illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran that became known as the
Iran-contra scandal.

THE ITALIAN JOB

In 1981, P-2 was outlawed and police raided the home of its leader, Licio
Gelli. Authorities found a list of nearly a thousand prominent public
figures in Italy who were believed to be members. Among them was a
billionaire media mogul who had not yet entered politics--Silvio
Berlusconi.

In 1994, Berlusconi was elected prime minister. Rather than distancing
himself from the criminal organization, he told a reporter that "P-2 had
brought together the best men in the country," and he began to execute
policies very much aligned with it.

Among those Berlusconi appointed to powerful national-security positions
were two men known to Ledeen. A founding member of Forza Italia, Minister
of Defense Antonio Martino was a well-known figure in Washington neocon
circles and had been close friends with Michael Ledeen since the 1970s.
Ledeen also occasionally played bridge with the head of SISMI under
Berlusconi, Nicolr Pollari. "Michael Ledeen is connected to all the
players," says Philip Giraldi, who was stationed in Italy with the C.I.A.
in the 1980s and has been a keen observer of Ledeen over the years.

Enter Rocco Martino. An elegantly attired man in his 60s with white hair
and a neatly trimmed mustache, Martino (no relation to Antonio Martino)
had served in SISMI until 1999 and had a long history of peddling
information to other intelligence services in Europe, including France's
Direction Ginirale de la Sicuriti Extirieure (D.G.S.E.).

By 2000, however, Martino had fallen on hard times financially. It was
then that a longtime colleague named Antonio Nucera offered him a
lucrative proposition. A SISMI colonel specializing in
counter-proliferation and W.M.D., Nucera told Martino that Italian
intelligence had long had an "asset" in the Niger Embassy in Rome: a woman
who was about 60 years old, had a low-level job, and occasionally sold off
embassy documents to SISMI. But now SISMI had no more use for the
woman--who is known in the Italian press as "La Signora" and has recently
been identified as the ambassador's assistant, Laura Montini. Perhaps,
Nucera suggested, Martino could use La Signora as Italian intelligence
had, paying her to pass on documents she copied or stole from the embassy.

Shortly after New Year's 2001, the break-in took place at the Niger
Embassy. Martino denies any participation. There are many conflicting
accounts of the episode. According to La Repubblica, a left-of-center
daily which has published an investigative series on Nigergate, documents
stolen from the embassy ultimately were combined with other papers that
were already in SISMI archives. In addition, the embassy stationery was
apparently used to forge records about a phony uranium deal between Niger
and Iraq. The Sunday Times of London recently reported that the papers had
been forged for profit by two embassy employees: Adam Maiga Zakariaou, the
consul, and Montini. But many believe that they, wittingly or not, were
merely pawns in a larger game.

According to Martino, the documents were not given to him all at once.
First, he explained, SISMI had La Signora give him documents that had come
from the robbery: "I was told that a woman in the Niger Embassy in Rome
had a gift for me. I met her and she gave me documents." Later, he said,
SISMI dug into its archives and added new papers. There was a codebook,
then a dossier with a mixture of fake and genuine documents. Among them
was an authentic telex dated February 1, 1999, in which Adamou Chikou, the
ambassador from Niger, wrote another official about a forthcoming visit
from Wissam al-Zahawie, Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican.

The last one Martino says he received, and the most important one, was not
genuine, however. Dated July 27, 2000, it was a two-page memo purportedly
sent to the president of Niger concerning the sale of 500 tons of pure
uranium per year by Niger to Iraq.

The forged documents were full of errors. A letter dated October 10, 2000,
was signed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Allele Elhadj Habibou--even
though he had been out of office for more than a decade. Its September 28
postmark indicated that somehow the letter had been received nearly two
weeks before it was sent. In another letter, President Tandja Mamadou's
signature appeared to be phony. The accord signed by him referred to the
Niger constitution of May 12, 1965, when a new constitution had been
enacted in 1999. One of the letters was dated July 30, 1999, but referred
to agreements that were not made until a year later. Finally, the
agreement called for the 500 tons of uranium to be transferred from one
ship to another in international waters--a spectacularly difficult feat.

Martino, however, says he was unaware that they were forgeries. He was
merely interested in a payday. "He was not looking for great amounts of
money--$10,000, $20,000, maybe $40,000," says Carlo Bonini, who
co-authored the Nigergate stories for La Repubblica.

SISMI director Nicolr Pollari acknowledges that Martino has worked for
Italian intelligence. But, beyond that, he claims that Italian
intelligence played no role in the Niger operation. "[Nucera] offered
[Martino] the use of an intelligence asset [La Signora]--no big deal, you
understand--one who was still on the books but inactive--to give a hand to
Martino," Pollari told a reporter.

Rocco Martino, however, said SISMI had another agenda: "SISMI wanted me to
pass on the documents, but they didn't want anyone to know they had been
involved."

THE CUTOUT

Whom should we believe? Characterized by La Repubblica as "a failed
carabiniere and dishonest spy," a "double-dealer" who "plays every side of
the fence," Martino has reportedly been arrested for extortion and for
possession of stolen checks, and was fired by SISMI in 1999 for "conduct
unbecoming." Elsewhere he has been described as "a trickster" and "a
rogue." He is a man who traffics in deception.

On the other hand, operatives like Martino are highly valued precisely
because they can be discredited so easily. "If there were a deep-cover
unit of SISMI, it would make sense to use someone like Rocco," says
Patrick Lang. "His flakiness gives SISMI plausible deniability. It's their
cover story. That's standard tradecraft with the agencies."

In other words, Rocco Martino may well have been the cutout for SISMI, a
postman who, if he dared to go public, could be disavowed.

Martino, who is the subject of a recently reopened investigation by the
public prosecutor in Rome, has declined to talk to the press in recent
months. But before going silent, he gave interviews to Italian, British,
and American journalists characterizing himself as a pawn who distributed
the documents on behalf of SISMI and believed that they were authentic. "I
sell information, I admit," Martino told The Sunday Times of London, using
his pseudonym, Giacomo. "But I sell only good information."

Over the next two years, the Niger documents and reports based on them
made at least three journeys to the C.I.A. They also found their way to
the U.S. Embassy in Rome, to the White House, to British intelligence, to
French intelligence, and to Elisabetta Burba, a journalist at Panorama,
the Milan-based newsmagazine. Each of these recipients in turn shared the
documents or their contents with others, in effect creating an echo
chamber that gave the illusion that several independent sources had
corroborated an Iraq-Niger uranium deal.

"It was the Italians and Americans together who were behind it. It was all
a disinformation operation," Martino told a reporter at England's Guardian
newspaper. He called himself "a tool used by someone for games much bigger
than me."

What exactly might those games have been? Berlusconi defined his role on
the world stage largely in terms of his relationship with the U.S., and he
jumped at the chance to forge closer ties with the White House when Bush
took office, in 2001. In its three-part series on Nigergate, La Repubblica
charges that Berlusconi was so eager to win Bush's favor that he
"instructed Italian Military Intelligence to plant the evidence
implicating Saddam in a bogus uranium deal with Niger." (The Berlusconi
government, which lost power in April, denied the charge.)

Because the Niger break-in happened before Bush took office, La Repubblica
and many others assume that the robbery was initiated as a small-time job.
"When the story began, they were not thinking about Iraq," says La
Repubblica's Bonini. "They were just trying to gather something that could
be sold on the black market to the intelligence community."

But it is also possible that from its very inception the Niger operation
was aimed at starting an invasion of Iraq. As early as 1992,
neoconservative hawks in the administration of George H. W. Bush, under
the aegis of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, unsuccessfully lobbied for
regime change in Iraq as part of a grandiose vision for American supremacy
in the next century.

During the Clinton era, the neocons persisted with their policy goals, and
in early 1998 they twice lobbied President Clinton to bring down Saddam.
The second attempt came in the form of "An Open Letter to the President"
by leading neoconservatives, many of whom later played key roles in the
Bush administration, where they became known as the Vulcans. Among those
who signed were Michael Ledeen, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser.

According to Patrick Lang, the initial Niger Embassy robbery could have
been aimed at starting the war even though Bush had yet to be inaugurated.
The scenario, he cautions, is merely speculation on his part. But he says
that the neocons wouldn't have hesitated to reach out to SISMI even before
Bush took office. "There's no doubt in my mind that the neocons had their
eye on Iraq," he says. "This is something they intended to do, and they
would have communicated that to SISMI or anybody else to get the help they
wanted."

In Lang's view, SISMI would also have wanted to ingratiate itself with the
incoming administration. "These foreign intelligence agencies are so
dependent on us that the urge to acquire I.O.U.'s is a powerful incentive
by itself," he says. "It would have been very easy to have someone go to
Rome and talk to them, or have one of the SISMI guys here [in Washington],
perhaps the SISMI officer in the Italian Embassy, talk to them."

Lang's scenario rings true to Frank Brodhead. "When I read that the Niger
break-in took place before Bush took office, I immediately thought back to
the Bulgarian Connection," he says. "That job was done during the
transition as well. [Michael] Ledeen ... saw himself as making a serious
contribution to the Cold War through the Bulgarian Connection. Now, it was
possible, 20 years later, that he was doing the same to start the war in
Iraq."

Brodhead is not alone. Several press outlets, including the San Francisco
Chronicle, United Press International, and The American Conservative, as
well as a chorus of bloggers--Daily Kos, the Left Coaster, and Raw Story
among them--have raised the question of whether Ledeen was involved with
the Niger documents. But none have found any hard evidence.

AN ABSURD IDEA

Early in the summer of 2001, about six months after the break-in,
information from the forged documents was given to U.S. intelligence for
the first time. Details about the transfer are extremely sketchy, but it
is highly probable that the reports were summaries of the documents. It is
standard practice for intelligence services, in the interests of
protecting sources, to share reports, rather than original documents, with
allies.

To many W.M.D. analysts in the C.I.A. and the military, the initial
reports sounded ridiculous. "The idea that you could get that much
yellowcake out of Niger without the French knowing, that you could have a
train big enough to carry it, much less a ship, is absurd," says Larry
Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff.

"The reports made no sense on the face of it," says Ray McGovern, the
former C.I.A. analyst, who challenged Rumsfeld about the war at a public
event this spring. "Most of us knew the Iraqis already had yellowcake. It
is a sophisticated process to change it into a very refined state and they
didn't have the technology."

"Yellowcake is unprocessed bulk ore," explains Karen Kwiatkowski, who has
written extensively about the intelligence fiasco that led to the war. "If
Saddam wanted to make nuclear bombs, why would he want unprocessed ore
when the best thing to do would be to get processed stuff in the Congo?"

"When it comes to raw reports, all manner of crap comes out of the field,"
McGovern adds. "The C.I.A. traditionally has had experienced officers....
They are qualified to see if these reports make sense. For some reason,
perhaps out of cowardice, these reports were judged to be of such
potential significance that no one wanted to sit on it."

Since Niger was a former French colony, French intelligence was the
logical choice to vet the allegations. "The French were managing partners
of the international consortium in Niger," explains Joseph Wilson, who
eventually traveled to Niger to investigate the uranium claim. "The French
did the actual mining and shipping of it."

So Alain Chouet, then head of security intelligence for France's D.G.S.E.,
was tasked with checking out the first Niger report for the C.I.A. He
recalls that much of the information he received from Langley was vague,
with the exception of one striking detail. The agency had heard that in
1999 the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawie, had made an
unusual visit to four African countries, including Niger. Analysts feared
that the trip may have been a prelude to a uranium deal.

Chouet soon found that the al-Zahawie visit was no secret. It had been
covered by the local press in Niger at the time, and reports had surfaced
in French, British, and American intelligence. Chouet had a 700-man unit
at his command, and he ordered an extensive on-the-ground investigation in
Niger.

"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium
production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium," Chouet told the
Los Angeles Times last December. Having concluded that nothing had come of
al-Zahawie's visit and that there was no evidence of a uranium deal,
French intelligence forwarded its assessment to the C.I.A. But the Niger
affair had just begun.

U

A few weeks later, on September 11, 2001, terrorists struck the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. The neocons had long said that they needed
another Pearl Harbor in order to realize their dreams of regime change in
Iraq. Now it had taken place. According to Bob Woodward's Bush at War,
C.I.A. director George Tenet reported to the White House within hours that
Osama bin Laden was behind the attack. But by midday Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld had already raised the question of attacking Saddam.
Likewise, four days later, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
advised President Bush not to bother going after Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan but to train American guns on Iraq instead.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush's approval ratings soared to 90
percent, the all-time high for any U.S. president. This was the perfect
opportunity to go after Saddam, except for one thing: the available
intelligence did not support the action. Ten days after the attacks, Bush
was told in a classified briefing that there was no credible evidence
linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Now the Niger operation went into overdrive. The details of how this
happened are murky. Accounts from usually reputable newspapers, the United
States Senate Intelligence Committee, and other sources are wildly at
variance with one another. In October 2001, SISMI, which had already sent
reports about the alleged Niger deal to French intelligence, finally had
them forwarded to British and U.S. intelligence. The exact dates of the
distribution are unclear, but, according to the British daily The
Independent, SISMI sent the dossier to the Vauxhall Cross headquarters of
M.I.6, in South London. The delivery might have been made, Italian reports
say, by Rocco Martino. At roughly the same time, in early October,
according to La Repubblica, SISMI also gave a report about the Niger deal
to Jeff Castelli, the C.I.A. station chief in Rome. According to a recent
broadcast by CBS's 60 Minutes, C.I.A. analysts who saw the material were
skeptical.

In addition, on October 15, 2001, Nicolr Pollari, the newly appointed
chief of SISMI, made his first visit to his counterparts at the C.I.A.
Under pressure from Berlusconi to turn over information that would be
useful for America's Iraq-war policy, Pollari met "with top C.I.A.
officials to provide a SISMI dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to
buy uranium in Niger," according to an article by Philip Giraldi in The
American Conservative.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the analysts saw Pollari's
report as "very limited and lacking needed detail." Nevertheless, the
State Department had the U.S. Embassy in Niger check out the alleged
uranium deal. On November 20, 2001, the U.S. Embassy in Niamey, the
capital of Niger, sent a cable reporting that the director general of
Niger's French-led consortium had told the American ambassador that "there
was no possibility" that the African nation had diverted any yellowcake to
Iraq.

In December 2001, Greg Thielmann, director for strategic proliferation and
military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and
Research (INR), reviewed Iraq's W.M.D. program for Colin Powell. As for
the Niger report, Thielmann said, "A whole lot of things told us that the
report was bogus. This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong
advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

"FASTER, PLEASE"

Michael Ledeen waves an unlit cigar as he welcomes me into his 11th-floor
office at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington. Home to Irving
Kristol, Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, and countless other stars in the
neocon firmament, the A.E.I. is one of the most powerful think tanks in
the country. It has sent more than two dozen of its alumni to the Bush
administration.

After 17 years at the A.E.I., Ledeen is the institute's Freedom Scholar
and rates a corner office decorated with prints of the Colosseum in Rome,
the Duomo in Florence, and other mementos of his days in Italy. Having
served as a consultant at the Pentagon and the State Department and on the
National Security Council, Ledeen relishes playing the role of the
intriguer. In the Iran-contra scandal, Ledeen won notoriety for
introducing Oliver North to his friend the Iranian arms dealer and con man
Manucher Ghorbanifar, who was labeled "an intelligence fabricator" by the
C.I.A. Ledeen has made his share of enemies along the way, especially at
the C.I.A. According to Larry Johnson, "The C.I.A. viewed Ledeen as a
meddlesome troublemaker who usually got it wrong and was allied with
people who were dangerous to the U.S., such as Ghorbanifar."

Apprised of such views, Ledeen, no fan of the C.I.A., responds, "Oh,
that's a shock. Ghorbanifar over the years has been one of the most
accurate sources of understanding what is going on in Iran. ... I have
always thought the C.I.A. made a big mistake."

Bearded and balding, the 65-year-old Ledeen makes for an unlikely 007. On
the one hand, he can be self-deprecating, describing himself as "powerless
... and, well, schlumpy." On the other, one of his bios grandiosely
proclaims that he has executed "the most sensitive and dangerous missions
in recent American history."

Ledeen props his feet up on his desk next to an icon of villainy--a mask
of Darth Vader. "I'm tired of being described as someone who likes Fascism
and is a warmonger," he says. "I've said it over and over again. I'm not
the person you think you are looking for. ... I think it's obvious I have
no clout in the administration. I haven't had a role. I don't have a
role." He barely knows Karl Rove, he says. He has "very occasionally" had
discussions with Cheney's office. And he denies reports that he was a
consultant for Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, the division of
the Pentagon that was famous for cherry-picking and "stovepiping"
intelligence that suited its policy of invading Iraq. "I have had no
professional relationship with any agency of the federal government during
the Bush Administration," Ledeen later clarifies via e-mail. "That
includes the Pentagon."

However, there is considerable evidence that Ledeen has had far more
access than he lets on to the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Even before Bush took office, Rove asked Ledeen to funnel ideas to the
White House. According to The Washington Post, some of Ledeen's ideas
became "official policy or rhetoric." As for Ledeen's role in the Office
of Special Plans, Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon during the
run-up to the Iraq war, has described Ledeen as Feith's collaborator and
said in an e-mail that he "was in and out of there (OSP) all the time."

Through his ties to Rove and Deputy National-Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley, Michael Ledeen was also wired into the White House Iraq Group,
which was charged with marketing an invasion of Iraq.

Ledeen claims, as he told the Web site Raw Story, that he had strongly
advised against the plan, saying that the invasion of Iraq was the "wrong
war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place." But the truth is somewhat more
complicated. Ledeen had urged regime change in Iraq since 1998, and just
four hours after the 9/11 attacks he posted an article on the National
Review Web site urging Bush to take "the fight directly to Saddam on his
own territory."

But to Ledeen, Iraq was just one part of a larger war. As he later told a
seminar, "All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then
we will do Iraq ... that is entirely the wrong way to go about it." He
urged Americans not to try to "piece together clever diplomatic solutions
to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants."

In January 2003, two months before the war started, he wrote, "If we were
serious about waging this war, we would, at an absolute minimum, support
the Iranian people's brave campaign against their tyrants ... and
recognize an Iraqi government in exile in the 'no fly' zones we control.
... If we don't, we may well find ourselves facing a far bigger problem
than Saddam alone."

Ledeen repeatedly urged war or destabilization not just in Iraq but also
in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, even Saudi Arabia. "One can only hope that we
turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please," he wrote. "Faster,
please" became his mantra, repeated incessantly in his National Review
columns.

Rhapsodizing about war week after week, Ledeen became chief rhetorician
for neoconservative visionaries who wanted to remake the Middle East.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and
abroad," he wrote after the attacks. "We must destroy [our enemies] to
advance our historic mission."

The U.S. must be "imperious, ruthless, and relentless," he argued, until
there has been "total surrender" by the Muslim world. "We must keep our
fangs bared," he wrote, "we must remind them daily that we Americans are
in a rage, and we will not rest until we have avenged our dead, we will
not be sated until we have had the blood of every miserable little tyrant
in the Middle East, until every leader of every cell of the terror network
is dead or locked securely away, and every last drooling anti-Semitic and
anti-American mullah, imam, sheikh, and ayatollah is either singing the
praises of the United States of America, or pumping gasoline, for a dime a
gallon, on an American military base near the Arctic Circle."

"AN OLD FRIEND OF ITALY"

As 2001 drew to a close, such positions seemed decidedly outside the
mainstream. Career military and intelligence professionals saw the
relatively moderate Colin Powell and George Tenet, a Clinton appointee,
reassuringly ensconced as secretary of state and director of central
intelligence, respectively. "George Tenet had been there for a number of
years," says Larry Wilkerson. "He knew what he was doing. He was a
professional. What did he have to do with Douglas Feith? It didn't seem
possible that someone like Douglas Feith could exercise such influence."
But a schism was growing between the cautious realism of analysts in the
C.I.A. and the State Department, on one side, and the hawkish ambitions of
Dick Cheney and the Pentagon, on the other.

As for Ledeen, how much clout he carried with the administration is a
matter of debate. But one measure of his influence may be a series of
secret meetings he set up--with Hadley's approval, he claims--in Rome in
the second week of December 2001. During these meetings, Ghorbanifar
introduced American officials to other Iranians who passed on information
about their government's plans to target U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Among those in attendance were Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin of the
Office of Special Plans. (In a separate matter, Franklin has since pleaded
guilty to passing secrets to Israel and been sentenced to 12 years in
prison.) "That information saved American lives in Afghanistan," Ledeen
asserts.

But other accounts suggest that Ledeen may have used his time in Italy to
reactivate old friendships that played a role in the Niger affair.

According to La Repubblica, Nicolr Pollari had become frustrated by the
C.I.A.'s refusal to let SISMI deliver a smoking gun that would justify an
invasion of Iraq. At an unspecified date, he discussed the issue with
Ledeen's longtime friend Minister of Defense Antonio Martino. Martino, the
paper reported, told Pollari to expect a visit from "an old friend of
Italy," namely Ledeen. Soon afterward, according to La Repubblica, Pollari
allegedly took up the Niger matter with Ledeen when he was in Rome. Ledeen
denies having had any such conversations. Pollari declined to be
interviewed by Vanity Fair, and has denied playing any role in the Niger
affair. Martino has declined to comment.

By early 2002, career military and intelligence professionals had seen the
Niger reports repeatedly discredited, and assumed that the issue was dead.
But that was not the case.

"These guys in the Office of Special Plans delighted in telling people,
'You don't understand your own data,'" says Patrick Lang. "'We know that
Saddam is evil and deceptive, and if you see this piece of data, to say
just because it is not well supported it's not true is to be politically
naove.'"

Not everybody in the C.I.A. was of one mind with regard to the alleged
Niger deal. As the Senate Intelligence Committee report points out, some
analysts at the C.I.A. and other agencies considered the Niger deal to be
"possible." In the fall of 2002, the C.I.A. approved language referring to
the Niger deal in one speech by the president but vetoed it in another.
And in December 2002, analysts at WINPAC, the C.I.A.'s center for Weapons
Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control, produced a paper that
chided Iraq for not acknowledging its "efforts to procure uranium from
Niger."

Nevertheless, the C.I.A. had enough doubts about the Niger claims to
initially leave them out of the President's Daily Brief (P.D.B.), the
intelligence updates given each morning to President Bush. On February 5,
2002, however, for reasons that remain unclear, the C.I.A. issued a new
report on the alleged Niger deal, one that provided significantly more
detail, including what was said to be "verbatim text" of the accord
between Niger and Iraq. In the State Department, analysts were still
suspicious of the reports. But in the Pentagon, the Vulcans pounced on the
new material. On February 12, the D.I.A. issued "a finished intelligence
product," titled "Niamey Signed an Agreement to Sell 500 Tons of Uranium a
Year to Baghdad," and passed it to the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney.

Cheney gave the Niger claims new life. "The [C.I.A.] briefer came in.
Cheney said, 'What about this?,' and the briefer hadn't heard one word,
because no one in the agency thought it was of any significance," says Ray
McGovern, whose job at the C.I.A. included preparing and delivering the
P.D.B. in the Reagan era. "But when a briefer gets a request from the vice
president of the United States, he goes back and leaves no stone
unturned."

The C.I.A.'s Directorate of Operations, the branch responsible for the
clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, immediately tasked its
Counterproliferation Division (CPD) with getting more information.
According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, just
hours after Dick Cheney had gotten the Niger report, Valerie Plame, who
worked in the CPD, wrote a memo to the division's deputy chief that read,
"My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the
former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of
whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Her husband, as the world now knows, was Joseph Wilson, who had served as
deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and as ambassador
to Gabon under George H. W. Bush. Wilson approached the task with a
healthy skepticism. "The office of the vice president had asked me to
check this out," Wilson told Vanity Fair. "My skepticism was the same as
it would have been with any unverified intelligence report, because there
is a lot of stuff that comes over the transom every day."

He arrived in Niger on February 26, 2002. "Niger has a simplistic
government structure," he says. "Both the minister of mines and the prime
minister had gone through the mines. The French were managing partners of
the international consortium. The French mining company actually had its
hands on the product. Nobody else in the consortium had operators on the
ground."

In addition, Wilson personally knew Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi
ambassador to the Vatican, whose visit to Niger had raised suspicions.
"Wissam al-Zahawie was a world-class opera singer, and he went to the
Vatican as his last post so he could be near the great European opera
houses in Rome," says Wilson. "He was not in the Ba'thist inner circle. He
was not in Saddam's tribe. The idea that he would be entrusted with this
super-secret mission to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger is out of the
question."

On March 1, the State Department weighed in with another cable, headed
"Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq Unlikely." Citing "unequivocal" control of
the mines, the cable asserted that President Tandja of Niger would not
want to risk good relations with the U.S. by trading with Iraq, and cited
the prohibitive logistical problems in such a transaction.

A few days later, Wilson returned from Niger and told C.I.A. officials
that he had found no evidence to support the uranium charges. By now the
Niger reports had been discredited more than half a dozen times--by the
French in 2001, by the C.I.A. in Rome and in Langley, by the State
Department's INR, by some analysts in the Pentagon, by the ambassador to
Niger, by Wilson, and yet again by State.

But the top brass at the C.I.A. knew what Cheney wanted. They went back to
French intelligence again--twice. According to the Los Angeles Times, the
second request that year, in mid-2002, "was more urgent and more
specific." The C.I.A. sought confirmation of the alleged agreement by
Niger to sell 500 tons of yellowcake to Iraq. Alain Chouet reportedly sent
five or six men to Niger and again found the charges to be false. Then his
staff noticed that the allegations matched those brought to him by Rocco
Martino. "We told the Americans, 'Bullshit. It doesn't make any sense.'"

THE MARKETING CAMPAIGN

Until this point, the American people had been largely oblivious to the
Bush administration's emerging policy toward Iraq. But in August 2002,
just as Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans formally set up shop in
the Pentagon, White House chief of staff Andrew Card launched the White
House Iraq Group to sell the war through the media. The plan was to open a
full-fledged marketing campaign after Labor Day, featuring images of
nuclear devastation and threats of biological and chemical weapons. A key
piece of the evidence was the Niger dossier.

Test-marketing began in August, with Cheney and his surrogates asserting
repeatedly that "many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear
weapons fairly soon." Making Cheney seem moderate by comparison, a piece
by Ledeen appeared in The Wall Street Journal on September 4, suggesting
that, in addition to Iraq, the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi
Arabia should be overthrown.

But the real push was delayed until the second week of September. As Card
famously put it, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new
products in August." The first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was
perfect.

The opening salvo was fired on Sunday, September 8, 2002, when
National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN, "There will always be
some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons.
But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud catchphrase was such a hit that Bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld all picked it up in one form or another, sending it
out repeatedly to the entire country.

Meanwhile, the C.I.A. had finally penetrated Saddam's inner sanctum by
"turning" Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. Tenet delivered the news personally
to Bush, Cheney, and other top officials in September 2002. Initially, the
White House was ecstatic about this coup.

But, according to Tyler Drumheller, the C.I.A.'s chief of operations in
Europe until he retired last year, that reaction changed dramatically when
they heard what Sabri had to say. "He told us that they had no active
weapons-of-mass-destruction program," Drumheller told 60 Minutes. "The
[White House] group that was dealing with the preparation for the Iraq war
came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said, 'Well,
what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel
anymore. This is about regime change.'"

At roughly the same time, highly placed White House sources such as
Scooter Libby leaked exclusive "scoops" to credulous reporters as part of
the campaign to make Saddam's nuclear threat seem real. On the same day
the "mushroom cloud" slogan made its debut, The New York Times printed a
front-page story by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller citing administration
officials who said that Saddam had "embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb." Specifically, the article contended
that Iraq "has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum
tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of
centrifuges to enrich uranium."

The next day, September 9, the White House received a visitor who should
have known exactly what the tubes were for--Nicolr Pollari. As it happens,
the Italians used the same tubes Iraq was seeking in their Medusa
air-to-ground missile systems, so Pollari presumably knew that Iraq was
not trying to enrich uranium but merely attempting to reproduce weaponry
dating back to an era of military trade between Rome and Baghdad. As La
Repubblica pointed out, however, he did not set the record straight.

Pollari met with Stephen Hadley, an understated but resolute hawk who has
since replaced Condoleezza Rice as national-security adviser. Hadley has
confirmed that he met Pollari, but declined to say what was discussed. "It
was a courtesy call," Hadley told reporters. "Nobody participating in that
meeting or asked about that meeting has any recollection of a discussion
of natural uranium, or any recollection of any documents being passed."

But there was no need to pass documents. It was significant enough for
Pollari to have met with Hadley, a White House official allied with
Cheney's hard-liners, rather than with Pollari's American counterpart,
George Tenet. "It is completely out of protocol for the head of a foreign
intelligence service to circumvent the C.I.A.," says former C.I.A. officer
Philip Giraldi. "It is uniquely unusual. In spite of lots of people having
seen these documents, and having said they were not right, they went
around them."

"To me there is no benign interpretation of this," says Melvin Goodman,
the former C.I.A. and State Department analyst. "At the highest level it
was known the documents were forgeries. Stephen Hadley knew it. Condi Rice
knew it. Everyone at the highest level knew." Both Rice and Hadley have
declined to comment.

Michael Ledeen, who had access to both Pollari and Hadley, categorically
denies setting up the meeting: "I had nothing to do with it." A former
senior intelligence official close to Tenet says that the former C.I.A.
chief had no information suggesting that Pollari or elements of SISMI may
have been trying to circumvent the C.I.A. and go directly to the White
House.

But the Niger documents had been resurrected once again. Two days later,
on September 11, 2002, the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks,
Hadley's office asked the C.I.A. to clear language so that President Bush
could issue a statement saying, "Within the past few years, Iraq has
resumed efforts to purchase large quantities of a type of uranium oxide
known as yellowcake. ... The regime was caught trying to purchase 500
metric tons of this material. It takes about 10 tons to produce enough
enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon."

In addition, in a new paper that month, the D.I.A. issued an assessment
claiming that "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and
yellowcake."

Later that month, the British published a 50-page, 14-point report on
Iraq's pursuit of weapons that said, "There is intelligence that Iraq has
sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"When you are playing a disinformation operation," says Milt Bearden,
"you're like a conductor who can single out one note in the symphony and
say, 'Let the Brits have that.'"

On September 24, Prime Minister Tony Blair cited that "dossier of death"
and asserted again that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Africa.
"The reports in [the Niger file] were going around the world, and Bush and
Blair were talking about the documents without actually mentioning them,"
Rocco Martino told Milan's Il Giornale. "I turned the television on and I
did not believe my ears."

Now it was time for the international media to chime in with independent
corroboration. In early October 2002, Martino approached Elisabetta Burba,
a journalist at Panorama, the Milan-based newsmagazine. Burba and Martino
had worked together in the past, but there may have been other reasons he
went to her again. Owned by Silvio Berlusconi, Panorama was edited by
Carlo Rossella, a close ally of the prime minister's. It also counted
among its contributors Michael Ledeen.

Martino told Burba he had something truly explosive--documents that proved
Saddam was buying yellowcake from Niger. Burba was intrigued, but
skeptical. She agreed to pay just over 10,000 euros--about $12,500--on one
condition: Martino would get paid only after his dossier had been
corroborated by independent authorities. Martino gave her the documents.

When Burba told Rossella of her concerns about the authenticity of the
Niger documents, he sent her to Africa to investigate. But he also
insisted that she give copies to the U.S. Embassy. "I think the Americans
are very interested in this problem of unconventional weapons," Rossella
told her.

On October 17, Burba flew to Niger. Once there, she discovered for herself
how difficult it would be to ship 500 tons of uranium out of Africa. By
the time she returned, she believed the real story was not about Saddam's
secret nuclear-weapons program at all, but about whether someone had
forged the documents to fabricate a rationale for invading Iraq. But when
she reported her findings to Rossella, he called her off. "I told her to
forget the documents," he told Vanity Fair. "From my point of view, the
story was over."

Now, however, thanks to Panorama, the U.S. had received copies of the
Niger documents. They were quickly disseminated to the C.I.A. station
chief in Rome, who recognized them as the same old story the Italians had
been pushing months before, and to nuclear experts at the D.I.A., the
Energy Department, and the N.S.A.

The State Department had already twice cast doubt on the reports of the
sale of uranium to Iraq. In the fall, Wayne White, who served as the
deputy director of the State Department's intelligence unit and was the
principal Iraq analyst, reviewed the papers themselves. According to The
Boston Globe, he said that after a 15-minute review he doubted their
authenticity.

"STICK THAT BABY IN THERE"

In early October, Bush was scheduled to give a major address on Iraq in
Cincinnati. A few days earlier, according to the Senate Intelligence
Committee report, the N.S.C. sent the C.I.A. a draft which asserted that
Saddam "has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of
uranium oxide from Africa--an essential ingredient in the enrichment
process."

The C.I.A. faxed a memo to Hadley and the speechwriters telling them to
delete the sentence on uranium, "because the amount is in dispute and it
is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress
that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already
have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory." Iraq's supply
of yellowcake dated back to the 1980s, when it had imported hundreds of
tons of uranium ore from Niger and mined the rest itself. The C.I.A. felt
that if Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program he would be more
likely to use his own stockpile than risk exposure in an illegal
international deal.

But the White House refused to let go. Later that day, Hadley's staff sent
over another draft of the Cincinnati speech, which stated, "The regime has
been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide
from sources in Africa."

This time, George Tenet himself interceded to keep the president from
making false statements. According to his Senate testimony, he told Hadley
that the "president should not be a fact witness on this issue," because
the "reporting was weak." The C.I.A. even put it in writing and faxed it
to the N.S.C.

The neocons were not done yet, however. "That was their favorite
technique," says Larry Wilkerson, "stick that baby in there 47 times and
on the 47th time it will stay. At every level of the decision-making
process you had to have your ax out, ready to chop their fingers off.
Sooner or later you would miss one and it would get in there."

For the next two months, December 2002 and January 2003, references to the
uranium deal resurfaced again and again in "fact sheets," talking-point
memos, and speeches. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice all declared
publicly that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger. On
December 19, the claim reappeared on a fact sheet published by the State
Department. The bureaucratic battle was unending. In light of the many
differing viewpoints, the Pentagon asked the National Intelligence
Council, the body that oversees the 15 agencies in the U.S. intelligence
community, to resolve the matter. According to The Washington Post, in a
January 2003 memo the council replied unequivocally that "the Niger story
was baseless and should be laid to rest." The memo went immediately to
Bush and his advisers.

Nevertheless, on January 20, with war imminent, President Bush submitted a
report to Congress citing Iraq's attempts "to acquire uranium and the
means to enrich it."

At an N.S.C. meeting on January 27, 2003, George Tenet was given a
hard-copy draft of the State of the Union address. Bush was to deliver it
the next day. Acutely aware of the ongoing intelligence wars, Tenet was
caught between the hard-liners in the White House, to whom he reported,
and the C.I.A., whose integrity he was duty-bound to uphold. That day, he
returned to C.I.A. headquarters and, without even reading the speech, gave
a copy to an assistant who was told to deliver it to the deputy director
for intelligence. But, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee
report, no one in the D.D.I.'s office recalls receiving the speech.

A State of the Union address that was a call for war, that desperately
needed to be vetted, had been misplaced and gone unread. "It is
inconceivable to me that George Tenet didn't read that speech," says Milt
Bearden. "At that point, he was effectively no longer D.C.I. [director of
central intelligence]. He was part of that cabal, and no longer able to
carry an honest message."

In an e-mail, a former intelligence official close to Tenet said the
charge that Tenet was "part of a 'cabal' is absurd." The official added,
"Mr. Tenet was unaware of attempts to put the Niger information in the
State of the Union speech. Had he been aware, he would have vigorously
tried to have it removed."

The next day, despite countless objections from the C.I.A. and other
agencies, Bush cited the charges from the fraudulent Niger documents in
his speech. Later that year, Stephen Hadley accepted responsibility for
allowing the sentence to remain in the speech. He said he had failed to
remember the warnings he'd received about the allegations.

BLAMING THE C.I.A.

In last-minute negotiations between the White House and the C.I.A., a
decision was made to attribute the alleged Niger uranium deal to British
intelligence. The official reason was that it was preferable to cite
British intelligence, which Blair had championed in his 50-page report,
rather than classified American intelligence. But the C.I.A. had told the
White House again and again that it didn't trust the British reports.

The British, meanwhile, have repeatedly claimed to have other sources, but
they have refused to identify them. According to Joseph Wilson, that
refusal is a violation of the U.N. resolution stipulating that member
states must share with the International Atomic Energy Agency all
information they have on prohibited nuclear programs in Iraq. "The British
say they cannot share the information, because it comes from a
third-country intelligence source," says Wilson. "But that third country
is presumably a member of the United Nations, and it too should comply
with Article 10 of United Nations Resolution 1441." So far, Wilson says,
no evidence of a third country has come to light.

A week after Bush's speech, on February 4, the Bush administration finally
forwarded electronic copies of the Niger documents to the I.A.E.A.
Astonishingly, a note was attached to the documents which said, "We cannot
confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims."

On March 7, the I.A.E.A. publicly exposed the Niger documents as
forgeries. Not long afterward, Cheney was asked about it on Meet the
Press. He said that the I.A.E.A. was wrong, that it had "consistently
underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing." He added,
"We know [Saddam] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear
weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

On March 14, Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to F.B.I. chief Robert
Mueller asking for an investigation because "the fabrication of these
documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating
public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq." But Senator Pat
Roberts, of Kansas, the Republican chair of the committee, declined to
co-sign the letter.

Then, on March 19, 2003, the war in Iraq began.

On July 11, 2003, faced with public pressure to investigate the forgeries,
Roberts issued a statement blaming the C.I.A. and defending the White
House. "So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy
handling of the issue from the outset by the C.I.A.," he said.

Under Roberts's aegis, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the
Niger affair and came to some extraordinary conclusions. "At the time the
President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC
[intelligence community] had asked anyone in the White House to remove the
sentence from the speech," read the report. It added that "CIA Iraq
nuclear analysts ... told Committee staff that at the time of the State of
the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from
Africa."

In November 2005, Rockefeller and Democratic senator Harry Reid staged a
dramatic shutdown of the Senate and challenged Roberts to get to the
bottom of the forgeries. "The fact is that at any time the Senate
Intelligence Committee pursued a line of questioning that brought us close
to the White House, our efforts were thwarted," Rockefeller said.

So far, the Republican-controlled Senate committee has failed to produce a
more extensive report.

AN EVEN BIGGER MISTAKE

For his part, Michael Ledeen thinks all the interest in the Niger
documents and Bush's famous 16 words is overblown. "I don't want my
government's decisions based on falsehoods," he says. "But the president
referred to British intelligence. So far as I've read about it, that
statement is true."

Ledeen categorically asserts that he couldn't have orchestrated the Niger
operation, because he disagreed so strongly with the administration's
policy. "I thought it was wrong to do Iraq militarily," he says. "Before
we went into Iraq, I said that anyone who thinks we can march into Iraq,
overthrow Saddam, and then have peace is crazy. I thought it was a mistake
at the time, and the way they did it." He adds, "Let's get real. This is
politics. People in office do not like people who criticize them."

It is unclear how these assertions square with the widespread reports that
Ledeen was tightly wired into the neocons in the administration; with his
long history of ties to SISMI, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and
the court records from the trial of Francesco Pazienza; and with Ledeen's
own pro-war writings.

Despite all the speculation, there are no fingerprints connecting Ledeen
to the Niger documents. Even his fiercest adversaries will concede this.
"In talking to hundreds of people, no one has given us a hint linking
Ledeen to the Niger documents," says Carlo Bonini of La Repubblica, which
is facing a defamation suit by Ledeen in Italy.

It is also unclear what, if anything, the Italians may have received for
their alleged participation in Nigergate. In 2005, a consortium led by
Finmeccanica, the Italian arms company, and Lockheed Martin unexpectedly
beat out U.S.-owned Sikorsky to win a contract to build presidential
helicopters. Some saw the contract, worth as much as $6.1 billion, as a
reward to Berlusconi for helping Bush on Iraq.

Regardless of who fabricated the Niger documents, it is difficult to
overstate the impact of the war they helped ignite. By May 18, 2006, the
number of American fatalities was 2,448, while various methods of tracking
American casualties put the number of wounded at between 18,000 and
48,000. At least 35,000 Iraqis have been killed. A new study by Columbia
University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the
total costs of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion. That figure includes
the long-term health-care costs for injured soldiers, the cost of higher
oil prices, and a bigger U.S. budget deficit.

But the most important consequence of the Iraq war is its destabilization
of the Middle East. If neoconservatives such as Ledeen and their critics
agree on anything, it is that so far there has been only one real winner
in the Iraq conflict: the fundamentalist mullahs in Iran. For decades, the
two big threats in the Middle East--Iran and Iraq--had counterbalanced
each other in a standoff that neutralized both. Yet the Bush
administration, despite having declared Iran a member of the Axis of Evil,
proceeded to attack its two biggest enemies, Afghanistan and Iraq. "Iran
is unquestionably the biggest beneficiary of the war in Iraq," says Milt
Bearden.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the Bush administration is now rattling
its sabers against Iran, which has been flexing its muscles with a new
nuclear program. As a result, according to a Zogby poll in May, 66 percent
of Americans now see Iran as a threat to the U.S. Zbigniew Brzezinski,
national-security adviser to President Carter, has argued that starting
the Iraq war was a catastrophic strategic blunder, and that taking
military action against Iran may be an even bigger mistake. "I think of
war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world," he
told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. "Iraq may have been a
preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war
with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will
condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

To Michael Ledeen, however, Iran's ascendancy is just one more reason to
expand the Iraq war to the "terror masters" of the Middle East. "I keep
saying it over and over again to the point where I myself am bored," he
says. "I have been screaming 'Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran' for five years.
[Those in the Bush administration] don't have an Iran policy. Still don't
have one. They haven't done fuck-all."
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 [southnews] Iran strike 'easier', says ret. general
 
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:56:01 -0500 (CDT)

.. Israeli general who planned the demolition of Iraq`s nuclear reactor 
in 1981 said this week that it would now be technically 'easier' to 
destroy Iran`s nuclear ...

Iran strike `easier`, says ret. general

By Joshua Brilliant Jun 9, 2006, 18:50 GMT	

TEL AVIV, Israel (UPI) -- A retired Israeli general who planned the 
demolition of Iraq`s nuclear reactor in 1981 said this week that it 
would now be technically 'easier' to destroy Iran`s nuclear facilities 
in a pre-emptive air strike.

'A modern air force, first and foremost the U.S. Air Force but also 
Israel`s... (would find it) easier to do something similar in Iran... 
today. Technology has changed, the intelligence technology has changed. 
Today we know much more than what we used to know and especially the 
technology for attack has changed,' Maj. Gen. in the reserves Isaac Ben 
Israel said. Ben Israel now heads Tel Aviv University`s security studies 
program.

One U.S. stealth plane, an F-117 or a B-2, can 'drop its bombs (and) 
accurately destroy the targets the planners decided it should destroy... 
(It could) enter Iran, leave Iran, and the Iranians won`t know it is 
there,' he told a conference marking the 25 anniversary of Israel`s 
attack in Iraq.

Satellites, photography equipment and intelligence gathering means are 
so advanced today that 'what existed in 1981 seems... like the Middle 
Ages,' said retired intelligence Brig. Gen. Amos Gilboa, who was 
involved in the preparations for that attack.

In 1981 Israeli intelligence had detailed plans of the Osirak reactor 
rising southeast of Baghdad. They knew the inner walls` locations and 
thickness.

Ben Israel`s team reckoned that in order to destroy the reactor beyond 
repair they would have to hit its 8 cubic meter core located between two 
meter thick walls of reinforced concrete more than 20 meters underground.

The team calculated the path and speed that a one-ton bomb would take 
once it hits the spot they chose. Then they calculated how many bombs 
must be dropped to be 100 percent sure that the core will be hit.

They concluded that four planes with one-ton bombs each would be enough. 
The air force`s commander decided to be on the safe side. He sent eight 
F-16s, recalled Ben-Israel.

He ridiculed claims that the Iranians have learned a lesson from the 
Osirak strike and placed everything underground.

'These things are always built underground. It`s not an Iranian 
invention,' he said, adding that one of the bombs hit the ground in 
front of the designated spot and plowed through into the structure.

The question is whether it is worthwhile launching a strike, he said.

Ben Israel, in his presentation, and a recent study by Prof. Efraim 
Inbar, who heads Bar Ilan University`s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic 
Studies, concluded that the risks of letting Iran develop a bomb are too 
great.

Tehran`s nuclear program began during the days of the shah, before the 
Islamic revolution. Some of its elements, 'Have little or no suitability 
for any other purpose' but military applications, wrote Inbar.

The Shehab 3 missile it developed 'can probably be nuclear tipped.' It 
can reach Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and several 
important U.S. bases, he noted.

'Further improvements in Iranian missiles would initially put most 
European capitals, and eventually the North American continent, within 
range,' he added.

For Israel an Iranian nuclear bomb would be 'an existential threat,' 
Maj. Gen. in the reserves Giora Eiland said in a briefing shortly before 
stepping down as head of the National Security Council.

Many political disputes can be resolved but it is difficult to strike 
compromises when religion is involved, Eiland maintained.

Inbar and Ben Israel concurred. 'The tripartite combination of a radical 
Islamic regime, long-range missile capability and nuclear weapons is 
extremely perilous. Due to its small and dense population Israel is 
exceedingly vulnerable to a nuclear attack,' wrote Inbar.

Middle Eastern states can hardly establish a nuclear 'balance of terror' 
with Iran and there is no full proof defense against nuclear tipped 
missiles, he added.

The analysts seemed to support the government`s policy of letting the 
U.S.-lead a diplomatic effort to stop Tehran`s nuclear program.

If that fails, the world might try economic sanctions. Iran depends on 
imported refined oil products; its revenues from exporting crude oil are 
a source of enormous revenues and U.S. naval forces could block much of 
those in the Straits of Hormuz, noted Inbar.

He nevertheless cautioned that, 'Societies and regimes have demonstrated 
great resilience in the face of economic sanctions and a capacity to 
withstand pain.'

'External pressure has been used more than once as a focal point for 
rallying domestic support for the embattled regime,' he noted.

'If the world won`t stop this, it is a matter of time' until Iran has a 
bomb, warned Ben Israel.

If everything else fails, 'We`ve got to do it ourselves because this 
risk cannot be taken,' he said.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 3 [southnews] Iran says parts of incentives proposal "acceptable"
 
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:20:11 -0500 (CDT)

Iran is still going over a Western incentives package aimed at getting 
Tehran to the negotiating table over its nuclear programs. But from what 
it's seen so far, Tehran says part of the package is "acceptable" while 
other parts need to be developed further.

A foreign ministry official says Iran will offer a counterproposal, 
although he didn't say when it would be coming.

UN atomic agency meets: Iran deliberating new nuclear proposal

AFP Sunday June 11

The UN nuclear watchdog will meet in Vienna tomorrow with the world 
waiting to see if Iran accepts an international offer to rein in its 
nuclear program.

A vigorous debate but no resolution or major initiative is expected at 
the regular meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 
35-nation board of governors, which is expected to run several days and 
discuss routine matters besides an Iranian nuclear program that has 
raised fears Tehran seeks the bomb.

"The decision to be made is in Tehran, not at the board," a European 
diplomat told AFP about the offer. The diplomat asked not be named due 
to the sensitivity of the issue.

A second diplomat said: "I think that there is no stomach at all from 
any country next week to posture or stir up any fires at this delicate 
time in the political process."

The IAEA board set off the latest crisis when it in February found Iran 
in violation of non-proliferation safeguards for almost two decades of 
hiding nuclear activities. This opened the door to possible punitive 
action by the United Nations Security Council.

Meanwhile, the United States, European Union countries Britain, France 
and Germany, as well as Russia and China have offered Iran a package of 
benefits if it suspends uranium enrichment and begins talks on 
guaranteeing it does not seek nuclear weapons, but threatened UN 
sanctions if Tehran fails to comply.

A senior Iranian official warned nations Friday to show "self-restraint" 
at the IAEA meeting in order not to endanger this diplomacy.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh said Iran has a 
"positive approach" to possible talks and that nothing should happen at 
the board "to affect this more or less positive environment."

His comments came after the IAEA reported Thursday that Iran had 
accelerated uranium enrichment on the same day that the six world powers 
asked it to halt the work and open talks.

Iran stepped up enrichment on June 6 when EU foreign policy chief Javier 
Solana was in Tehran to present the package of benefits to be discussed 
if Iran suspends the work which makes nuclear reactor fuel or in highly 
refined form atom bomb material, the report said.

On June 6, it said, Iran started feeding feedstock uranium gas into a 
connected series of 164 centrifuges -- known as a cascade -- to produce 
enriched uranium.

Iran on Friday confirmed these facts.

Soltanieh said it was a "coincidence" and not meant as a provocation 
that Iran re-started enrichment work the same day that Solana was in Tehran.

The report appears to dash hopes Iran is preparing a pause in its 
nuclear fuel activities in order to start talks.

A Western diplomat said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei "had been quietly 
urging the Iranians to create the conditions necessary to return to 
negotiations and one of these could have been holding off from using any 
new nuclear material at this time."

Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity but 
Washington charges this is a cover for developing atomic weapons.

Iran said Saturday it had started to study the world powers' offer and 
could make counter-proposals through shuttle diplomacy.

"We have opened the package, and we are studying it, and afterwards we 
will officially reply to the Europeans," Foreign Minister Manouchehr 
Mottaki said.

He gave no timing for Iran's response.

US President George W. Bush said Friday that Tehran had "weeks and not 
months" to accept the offer and warned the Security Council would act if 
Iran did not comply.

A senior cleric close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 
said Tehran would not suspend uranium enrichment.

"We must have uranium enrichment between 3.5 to 5 percent and they have 
to accept it," Ayatollah Ahmad Janati said Friday.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: MP considers US preconditions for talks with Iran as int'l gesture - 

Semnan, June 10, IRNA

Iran-Jalali-US 

Rapporteur of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy
Commission Kazem Jalali said here Saturday that US precondition
for talks with Iran is not serious, but is just an international
gesture.

 Jalali said that by offering a preset condition for holding
talks with Iran, the US has made negotiations subject to
question.

 He said that the US should explain the reason for such talks,
adding that negotiations are not basically negative, but that a
definite goal should be set for it.

 Jalali considered the proposal by US Foreign Secretary
Condoleezza Rice for talks with Iran as a proof of Iran's
stability in the region and world, adding that this shows that
the US extremists' attempt to change the Iranian ruling system
has failed.

 The MP from Shahroud underlined the US failure to reach global
consensus against Iran and said, "The recent statement issued by
116 members states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in support
of Iran's peaceful nuclear activity proves the failure of the
US."

*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: EU FMs to discuss ties with Iran 

Brussels, June 11, IRNA

EU-FMs-Iran 

The European Union Foreign Ministers' Council will be holding
its regular monthly meeting in Luxembourg Monday and Tuesday
with the focus on the subject of EU enlargement and preparing
for the EU summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday (June 15
and 16).

 With regard to external relations, the Council will discuss
developments concerning Iran's nuclear program, the situation in
Iraq and Palestine and EU relations with the Western Balkans and
Cuba.

 Over lunch, ministers will be briefed by High Representative
Javier Solana on his June 6 visit to Tehran during which he
presented Iran a new proposal on resolving the country's nuclear
issue through a long-term agreement based on mutual respect.

 EU sources noted that during its May 15 meeting, the council
reaffirmed the right of Iran to the use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes in conformity with its obligations under the
NPT.

 The council is not expected to issue any conclusion on Iran.

 However, the EU summit will release a statement on ties with
Iran on Friday in Brussels.

 The ministers will discuss the situation in Iraq following the
formation of the new national unity government on May 20.

 On the sidelines of the Council, a meeting between the EU
presidency, currently held by Austria, and Foreign Minister of
the new Iraqi government, Hoshyar Zebari is also foreseen.

 The Council will discuss the situation in Palestine and
prospects for a resumption of the peace process.

 They will also review work on a temporary international
mechanism for direct delivery and supervision of assistance to
the Palestinian people.

 The ongoing WTO negotiations and preparation of the EU-US
summit on June 21 in Vienna are also on the agenda.

 Accession meetings with Turkey and Croatia are planned on the
sidelines of the council on Monday.

 The Stabilization and Association Agreement for closer ties
with Albania will also be signed on Monday with Albanian Prime
Minister Sali Berisha in attendance.

 Association Council meetings with Israel and Egypt will take
place on Tuesday.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: Iran, Egypt discuss nuclear issue 

Tehran, June 11, IRNA

Iran-Egypt-Nuclear 

Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC),
Ali Larijani, in Cairo on Saturday outlined latest developments
in Iran's nuclear case regarding the Group 5+1 new package of
incentives for Tehran.

 Larijani, who is currently in Egypt on a two-day visit, made
the remark during a 30-minute meeting with Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak, Qatari Al Jazeera television said on Sunday.

 The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on June 6
handed over a new package of incentives approved by the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council --
China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus
Germany (Group 5+1) in exchange for Iran's suspension of uranium
enrichment work.

 Al Jazeera did not disclose the outcome of the meeting.

 Earlier on Sunday, Larijani met with Arab League Secretary
General Amr Moussa.

 He then addressed reporters in a joint press conference with
Moussa, saying, "Iran's nuclear program will inflict no damage
on Islamic and non-Islamic states."
 He said he would give more explanations on Iran's nuclear case
and outcomes of his meetings with Egyptian officials and Moussa
later on Sunday during a press conference.

 Egypt calls for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear
case, while stressing the international community should also
address the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons.

*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Asefi approves of 5+1's decision to talk with Iran 

, June 11, IRNA

-- 

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi here Sunday said
that the decision made by the 5+1 group to hold talks with Iran
on its nuclear issue is right and in accordance with Iran's
former suggestion.

 Speaking to domestic and foreign reporters in this week's
briefing session, he dismissed the ways leading to hue and cry
as well as crisis.

 "The international community has no anxieties over Iran's
peaceful nuclear activities rather supports it. The support of
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states for Iran's nuclear
issue is one such example.

 In response to the question whether Iran has intensified its
enrichment process concurrent to the arrival of the European
Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Tehran, he said that
the claims of foreign media in this respect are not true and
that the process continues according to the plan that has been
acknowledged to the UN nuclear watchdog.

 He added that Iran's nuclear activities are supervised by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 In reply to another question whether any agreement was reached
with Solana about future talks, he said no specific reference
was made to how the talks will continue as well as the level and
place of any further talks.

 The spokesman said that in general accord was reached to
continue talks in the future.

 Concerning Iran's approach to the proposal of the 5+1 group, he
said that Iran will neither talk about its rights with anyone,
nor will it give up its rights.

 He assured the people that the Iranian government will continue
its work within the framework of international and IAEA laws
without conceding its inalienable rights.

 Asked about the time the received package of incentives will be
revealed to the public, he urged the reporter who had raised
this question not to consider the package too confidential to
make things complicated.

 He said that Europe has submitted its proposal to Iran and the
Iranian officials will consider it and announce their views.

 Asefi noted "if we were to accept their proposal, there would
have been no more discussion on the issue."
 Replying to the reporter's repeated question as when the
proposal will be disclosed to the public, he said it will be
declared in the proper time.

 The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the two sides agreed
to keep it confidential.		 				 		 			

 			 			 				News sent: 15:57 Sunday June 11, 2006 				Print 			
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Negotiator: Iran Wants Unconditional Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday June 11, 2006 4:31 PM

AP Photo CAI101 

By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD 

Associated Press Writer 

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Sunday
that his country wants ``unconditional'' nuclear talks and
sharply rejected any threats of sanctions if Iran does not
accept a Western incentives package. 

Ali Larijani said the package, presented to Iran last week, has
``strong points,'' ``weak points'' and parts that still need
clarification. 

He said the package's offer of nuclear technology from Europe
and the United States was ``positive.'' But a key part of the
proposal, concerning Iran's uranium enrichment program, was not
clear, he said. 

``There are also points that are unclear, such as the uranium
enrichment program. This has not been made clear yet to Iran, so
these are things where the finishing touches must be made,'' he
told reporters in Cairo after talks with President Hosni Mubarak
and other Egyptian officials and Arab League chief Amr Moussa. 

The proposals, presented by the Big Five powers at the United
Nations plus Germany, present a series of incentives aimed at
enticing Iran to freeze uranium suspension to allow the
resumption of negotiations over its nuclear ambitions. Among the
incentives are a promise of European and U.S. nuclear
technology. 

``It contains positive points, like nuclear reactors for Iran,''
Larijani said. 

But he told reporters that Iran would not accept the proposal if
it contains any threats of punishment in case of rejection. ``If
we go in the direction of punishments, that will block the way
to negotiations. We will not accept negotiations under
pressure,'' he said. 

The Big Five and Germany are said to have worked out a set of
possible sanctions if Iran rejects the proposal, but these were
not mentioned when a EU envoy, Javier Solana, presented the
package to Iran last week in order to maintain a positive
atmosphere. 

U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday said Iran must respond
soon or face possible penalties. 

``We did not see anything about punishment in what Mr. Solana
gave us,'' Larijani said. ``What he gave was more suggestions
for solving the problems between the two sides in the interest
of the two sides. There were no punishments.'' 

He insisted negotiations should be held without preconditions. 

``Dialogue must be held under a reasonable and logical
atmophere. If the negotiations are in a reasonable framework,
then we will accept. What we say is that neither side should be
putting conditions. We haven't put conditions so we expect the
other side not to,'' he said.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Accepts Parts of Western Nuke Offer
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday June 12, 2006 1:16 AM

AP Photo CAI101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday that it accepted some parts
of a Western offer aimed at getting Tehran to drop its nuclear
program, but it rejected others while calling the central point
ambiguous. 

Iran said the key issue of uranium enrichment - a process that
can make nuclear fuel for a power plant or fissile material for
an atomic bomb - needed clarification. 

Although the government did not give specifics, the comments
were the first time Iran has said directly that it rejects or
accepts parts of the package. 

Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would reject the
package outright if Western powers threatened the Islamic
republic with sanctions in the nuclear standoff. 

The comments came as the United States and Europe lobbied other
nations to join them this week in urging Iran to accept the
offer - and warning of U.N. Security Council action if it does
not - according to documents shared with The Associated Press in
Vienna, Austria. 

The package, presented by permanent Security Council members the
United States, Russia, China, France and Britain, plus Germany,
contains a series of incentives for Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment, which would allow negotiations over its nuclear
ambitions. 

The incentives include promises that the United States and
Europe will provide Iran nuclear technology and that Washington
will join direct talks with Tehran. 

Iran has not responded to the offer, and it underlinedeza Asefi
insisted Iran was not stalling over the package and would take
``as long as is necessary'' to study it. 

He told a press conference the package includes ``points which
are acceptable. There are points which are ambiguous. There are
points that should be strengthened, and points that we believe
should not exist.'' 

He did not give specifics. 

Larijani said the offer of nuclear technology was a ``positive
point'' but that ``there are also points that are unclear, such
as the uranium enrichment program.'' 

``This has not been made clear yet to Iran, so these are things
where the finishing touches must be made,'' he told reporters in
Cairo, Egypt, after talks with President Hosni Mubarak and Arab
League chief Amr Moussa. 

Egypt is one of the members of the U.N. watchdog nuclear
agency's board of directors, which the United States and Europe
are lobbying to pressure Iran to accept the deal. 

Larijani sharply denounced any threats of sanctions against Iran
in connection with the package. 

``We will not accept negotiations under pressure,'' he said. 

He said the package, as presented to Iran, did not contain any
threats of penalties. 

The five permanent Security Council members and Germany are said
to have worked out a set of possible sanctions if Iran rejects
the proposal, but these were not mentioned when EU envoy Javier
Solana presented the package to Iran last week to maintain a
positive atmosphere. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear
weapons, which Tehran denies, saying its program seeks only to
develop energy. 

But the package drops demands for an all-out scrapping of
enrichment, instead asking Iran to suspend such activity during
the duration of any negotiations. 

In two position papers shown to the AP, the United States and
Europe were lobbying hard for support of the package from
members of the 35-nation board of the International Atomic
Energy Agency before a Monday meeting of the body. 

``We are ... encouraging all board members to make firm
statements to call on Iran'' to negotiate on the six-power
offer, the U.S. position paper said. 

If Tehran declines, the text warned that the five permanent
Security Council members plus Germany ``have agreed to pursue
measures, including at the U.N. Security Council, (to) pressure
the Iranian regime to change course.'' 

The other text, issued by Britain, France and Germany, also
warned that if Iran remains defiant, ``the Security Council will
have no choice but to increase the pressure on Iran.'' 

The texts were shared with the AP by diplomats accredited to the
gathering. 

--- 

Associated Press reporters George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, and
Nadia Abou El-Magd in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.	 
     
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Hans Blix: Iran not accused of NPT violation 

Brussels, June 10, IRNA

EU-WMD-Blix 

Former United Nations weapons inspector now nuclear disarmament
advocate Hans Blix has welcomed the new western overtures to
talk with the Islamic Republic to resolve the nuclear stand-off.

 "We welcome the further engagement in talks and also the EU
offer to transfer modern nuclear technology, or the readiness to
do so. It demonstrates that the EU negotiators are not against
Iran moving into the nuclear age," Blix told reporters in
Brussels after a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana Friday afternoon.

 He said it was positive that the US has come in favour of
diplomacy, in favour of negotiations with Iran.

 Blix, Chairman of the Swedish Weapons of Mass Destruction
Commission (WMDC), was here to present to Solana his report
called "Weapons of Terror" which contains sixty concrete
proposals on how the world could be freed of nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons.

 Noting that Iran is a party to the NPT, he said Iran has "not
been accused in the IAEA board or in the Security Council of
breaching non-proliferation treaty."

 "But they have been criticized and they have also admitted not
to have complied with as they should have done with the
safe-guard agreements."

 Regarding the US conditions to hold talks with Iran, Blix said
"I think there is something peculiar of saying that we are ready
to sit down with you to discuss suspension of enrichment, but
before we do that we ask you to suspend enrichment. That is
putting it into a little provocative way."

 He also criticized those who raise the question that why Iran
which is rich in oil and gas reserves need nuclear energy.

 "No one asked that question to Mexico, or to the US or to
Russia." As an example of confidence building to handle the
Iranian nuclear issue, Blix said one could imagine in the Middle
East, as we have in the case of North Korea, that all the
countries in the area would make a commitment not to make either
enrichment or reprocessing.

 "That would mean that in this very tense region Iran would stay
away, suspended not for ever but for a prolonged period of time,
of enrichment, but it would also mean that Israel would commit
itself not to reprocess," he said.

 Blix pointed out that Iran was one of the first countries to
push the idea of a Middle East region free of WMDs.

*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: Analysis: Iran May Still Hold Upper Hand
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday June 10, 2006 7:01 PM

AP Photo VAH109 

By SALLY BUZBEE 

Associated Press Writer 

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Iran so far has been in the driver's seat in
its confrontation with the West over its nuclear program,
gradually leading the Bush Administration to change strategy.
Now it faces a choice - to accept the West's new incentives
deal, or go on being confrontational. 

For months, Iran has appeared to cleverly manipulate the debate
over its nuclear program, engaging in brinksmanship that
eventually led Washington to offer talks. 

Now, many analysts predict, regardless of whether Iran takes the
offer, it probably still holds the upper hand going forward. The
Islamic republic has gotten substantially what it wanted - an
offer of dialogue with the U.S. - while still keeping the guts
of its nuclear program. 

Indeed, the incentive package offered by the United States and
other world powers June 1 could prove a key moment: The point
where the United States shifted from trying to abort Iran's
nuclear program to merely trying to contain it - much as North
Korea's brinkmanship led the United States to try containment
there, too. 

These analysts point to a crucial change: The package drops the
demands that Iran commit to a long-term moratorium on uranium
enrichment, asking instead only for a suspension during talks. 

That suggests the United States is willing to accept an Iran
that, in a limited way, enriches uranium, the key step toward
either running a nuclear power plant or making a nuclear weapon. 

That would be significant, because both European negotiators and
the United States previously had demanded a halt in enrichment
before talks could restart. The United States has accused Iran
of wanting a bomb, a charge it denies. 

Such a change also would be sure to annoy Western hard-liners,
who have pushed for sanctions or even military options against
Iran. The son of the toppled shah of Iran, for example, said the
new offer will allow Iran's regime to merely ``drag out the game
of confusion.'' 

Indeed, long negotiations are probably to Iran's benefit, many
analysts say, because it can work on its nuclear program,
overtly or covertly, while it talks. The new offer only obliges
it to suspend things short-term. 

Iran has watched with clear interest how North Korea wrung
concessions from the West by moving ahead with its nuclear
program as a powerful bargaining chip. 

Nothing is yet clear, however, because Iran is still studying
the offer, and its internal political squabbles could complicate
things. 

In particular, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may worry he could
lose domestic political support if Iran agrees to talk and he
has to tone down his inflammatory, crowd-pleasing words. 

A senior hard-line cleric on Friday criticized the package,
while Ahmadinejad has been somewhat warm toward it, knowing that
``Iran is in a good position to push the West in the direction
it wants,'' according to Nasser Hadian, a Tehran University
political scientist who has known Ahmadinejad since boyhood. 

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't spoken. He has the
final say in all state matters, and has overruled hard-liners
previously in the nuclear dispute. 

In some ways, there is no downside for Iran in agreeing to talk,
said Khalid Al-Rodhan, a visiting fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington who has
written extensively on Iran's nuclear program. 

The Iranians could, for example, accept the incentives offer,
``suspend'' enrichment activities, then resume them once
negotiations stalled, gaining diplomatic support from China and
Russia for having appeared to be cooperative, he said. 

The United States, for its part, disagrees with any notion that
is has radically changed its stance or made huge concessions. It
says it will push tough sanctions if Iran rejects the deal. 

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute says it was probably
smart of the United States to bend, as a way to persuade Iran's
allies, Russia and China, that it is trying to solve the
impasse. 

That will strengthen the U.S. hand if Iran does not cooperate
and America again seeks sanctions, O'Hanlon said. 

But al-Rodhan thinks the U.S. change, while in the end both
realistic and positive, has also strengthened Iran. It ``gives
Iran the clout that it forced the U.S. to negotiate directly
with it,'' he said. 

--- 

Sally Buzbee is the AP's Chief of Middle East News, based in
Cairo. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Make Counteroffer to West
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday June 10, 2006 7:31 PM

AP Photo VAH109 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Tehran will make a counteroffer in response
to a Western incentive package aimed at persuading Iran to
suspend uranium enrichment, the foreign minister said Saturday. 

The counteroffer may be a variation of the proposal made by
Europe, the United States, China and Russia or could be an
entirely new package, Manouchehr Mottaki said, according to the
state-run news agency IRNA. 

``We hope that Iran's real proposal, which might come within a
modified or new package, will be examined carefully by Europe,''
he said. 

He did not elaborate on how the Iranian proposal might differ
from the Western package. 

``We intend to take steps toward a comprehensive understanding
that considers the rights of one side, Iran, and resolves the
concerns of the other side at the same time,'' Mottaki said.
``Iran has begun examination of the European package and it will
officially response to the European side.'' 

Meanwhile, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, briefed
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Tehran's position
on the proposal during talks in Cairo, a statement from the
Egyptian side said. Larijani and Abul Gheit were to meet again
Sunday, it said. 

The package put forward by the five permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council plus Germany aims to restart negotiations
with Iran over its nuclear program. 

It included some significant concessions by Washington aimed at
enticing Tehran to freeze enrichment. The United States would
provide Iran with peaceful nuclear technology, lift some
sanctions and join direct negotiations with Tehran. 

The package also pulls back from demands that Iran outright
scrap its enrichment program as an initial condition for
negotiations, seeking a suspension instead. However, it also
contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains
defiant. 

When presented with the details Tuesday, Iran said the package
contains ``positive steps'' but also ambiguities, which it said
had to be cleared up in further talks. It said it would study
the package before announcing its stance. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who conveyed the offer to
Tehran, said he expected a reply within ``weeks.'' 

Iran has consistently refused to give up enrichment, a process
that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the
material for a nuclear warhead. Iran insists its program is
peaceful and that it has the right to develop enrichment -
though it has signaled it might compromise on large-scale
enrichment. 

On Friday, a powerful hard-line cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati,
came out against the Western incentive package, reflecting
conservative pressure on the government to reject the offer. 

``It's not good for Iran,'' Jannati said in his Friday prayer
sermon, telling worshippers that the West has ``no choice but to
accept'' an Iranian enrichment program. 

Jannati is the head of the powerful Guardian Council, a
constitutional watchdog arbitrating between the parliament and
the government. He holds considerable influence, but the
ultimate power in state matters lies with supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has sometimes overruled hard-liners
on the nuclear issue. 	 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: West always intends to foment tension in Iran - MP 
 
Tehran, June 10, IRNA

Iran-MP-West 

A Majlis deputy on Saturday said the West has always tried to
foment tension and disturb tranquility in Iran for its political
ends.

 Zoroastrian MP Kourosh Niknam made the remark while speaking to
IRNA.

 "The West always seeks to raise issues such as rights of
minorities, tribes and university students to pretend that the
situation of human right is worrying in Iran," he said while
pointing to propaganda spread by Western media on rights of
religious minorities in the country.

 He rejected news by Western media that minorities in Iran
should carry a badge on their dresses to be distinct from
Muslims, saying, "The news was a sheer lie. This issue has not
been raised by the government, Majlis or its specialized
commissions.

 "In case of any problem for religious minorities in Iran, the
government has always made efforts to settle them through
interaction and negotiations."
 The MP added, "Some of the problems concerning the minorities'
rights including blood money have been settled. We will resolve
the remaining problems through cooperation with the government."
Niknam said religious minorities have a bad situation in certain
countries and their rights are not observed.

 "Religious minorities in Iran enjoy partial facilities, an
issue which should not be ignored.

 "The ruling system of the Islamic Republic of Iran tries to set
defined rights for religious minorities. The Iranian officials
have always paid attention to the minorities' rights."

*****************************************************************
 14 Herald: Blix: Britain is at nuclear crossroads   

Web Issue 2547     June 12 2006      

  IAN BRUCE     June 12 2006   
    
  Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons' inspector, will today tell
a delegation of Scottish church leaders and politicians that
Britain is "at a crossroads" which could influence the global
spread and development of new nuclear arms.

 The Rt Rev Alan McDonald, Moderator of the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland and Lord Ronald King Murray, the former
lord advocate, are among 20 anti-nuclear lobbyists on a
fact-finding mission to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at
Aldermaston.

 He said yesterday: "Any state contemplating the modernisation
of its nuclear weapon systems must consider such action in the
light of all relevant treaty obligations and its duty to
contribute to the international nuclear disarmament process.

 "France and Britain are now at a crossroads. Going down one
road would show their conviction that nuclear weapons are not
necessary for their security. Going down the other would
demonstrate to all states a belief that these weapons continue
to be indispensable."

 Mr Blix's comments came as Ministry of Defence figures obtained
by The Herald show that Ł4.4bn has been spent on research at
Aldermaston between 1993 and this year. There is also a
commitment to invest a further Ł5bn of taxpayers' money to build
a series of super-computers, and to recruit specialists for work
on new nuclear warheads for the next generation of weapons.
   

  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 15 WorldNetDaily: More Condi diplomacy?

 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
 
Posted: June 10, 2006

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

The French, Brits and Germans (allegedly acting on behalf of the
European Union) have just made a confidential
"take-it-or-you'll-be-sorry" offer to Iran to "come back to the
negotiating table." 

To what table and to negotiate what? 

Well, with the , Iran had hoped to get the EU to ignore or
surmount the barriers erected by the United States in the late
1970s to European economic and technological cooperation with
Iran. 

For its part, the E3/EU ostensibly wanted to get "objective
guarantees" about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program.
But, realistically, it's more likely the EU wanted to keep
Iranian oil and natural gas flowing to Europe, rather than to
China. 

Of course, Iran's nuclear program was already subject to an
International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement, entered
unto as a condition of Iran's being a non-nuke signatory to the
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 

Nevertheless, to "promote confidence"– Iran offered to sign an
Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement and to
immediately begin cooperation with the IAEA "in advance of its
ratification." 



Furthermore, while the Tehran Agreed Statement reaffirmed Iran's
"right under the nuclear non-proliferation regime to develop
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," Iran voluntarily
suspended for the duration of the negotiations "all uranium
enrichment and reprocessing activities as defined by the IAEA." 

A magnanimous offer by the Iranians. 

And what did Iran get in return? 

Not much. The E3/EU governments did formally "recognize the
right of Iran to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in
accordance with the NPT." 

Now, that's big of them, since the NPT makes that Iran's
"inalienable right." 

Anyway, a year later, the E3/EU and Iran notified all IAEA
members that they had agreed – the – to negotiate a formal
agreement that would "provide objective guarantees (to E3/EU)
that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful
purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees (to Iran) on
nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm
commitments (to Iran) on security issues." 

Three months after that, Iran submitted – as required by the
Paris Accord – an of "objective guarantees" that included a
voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear program. 

In particular, the Iranians offered to forego indefinitely the
chemical processing of spent fuel to recover unspent uranium and
plutonium. 

The Iranians also offered to limit their uranium-enrichment
activities to those necessary for meeting contingency
requirements of Iran's power reactors. 

The Iranians even offered to go beyond the requirements of the
Additional Protocol to allow "on-site presence of IAEA
inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities." 

Did the E3/EU accept this magnanimous offer? 

No, they didn't even acknowledge it. 

Did the E3/EU submit – as required by the Paris Accord – an
initial package of "guarantees on nuclear, technological and
economic cooperation" as well as "firm commitments" that a
"coalition of the willing" wouldn't be allowed to do unto them
what had been done to Iraq? 

No. 

Why? 

Well, evidently, Condi Rice wouldn't let them. 

After the Iranians broke off the negotiations last August
(because the E3/EU obviously weren't negotiating in good faith)
and announced they were resuming – subject to IAEA Safeguards –
the nuclear activities they had voluntarily suspended, the E3/EU
sent a letter to the IAEA Board of Governors, wherein they
stated their objection to Iran ever resuming those activities. 

In particular: 

We do not believe that Iran has any operational need to engage
in fissile material production activities of its own, nor any
other reason to resume [UF-6 production] activity at Esfahan, if
the intentions of its nuclear program are exclusively peaceful. 

By some strange coincidence, that's Condi's belief, too: 

I think it's fair to say that we would be very concerned if the
Iranians were left with stockpiles of UF-6 that could be used in
nuclear weapons. But I don't want to get any further into
details about what may be being contemplated by other parties to
the negotiations – by the parties to the negotiations. 

"Other" parties? 

Well, reportedly, the confidential "take-it-or-you'll-be-sorry"
offer the E3/EU has just made to the Iranians was endorsed by
Condi. 

And, , the offer merely requests Iran suspend the actual
enrichment of uranium for the duration of the renewed talks, not
indefinitely. Furthermore, reportedly, it allows Iran to
continue UF-6 uranium-conversion activities. 

If these reports are accurate, no wonder Iran is considering the
offer "favorably." Now, if they can just get "firm commitments"
that they won't get pre-emptively bombed in their burqas even if
they accept the "take-it-or-you'll-be-sorry" offer.
 
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.                  
*****************************************************************
 16 IRNA: Iran will try to reach comprehensive understanding with 5+1 - FM

Tehran, June 10, IRNA

Iran-FM-Nuclear 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday Iran will try
to reach a comprehensive understanding with Group 5+1 on its
nuclear case.

 "Iran will strive to adopt measures to reach a comprehensive
understanding which would take into consideration the
inalienable interests of one side and remove concerns of the
other," he said.

 Mottaki made the statement while speaking to reporters in a
joint press conference with his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud
al-Zahar.

 The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on June 6
presented a new package of incentives and penalties to Iran
which has been approved by representatives of the five permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council -- Russia, China,
Britain, France and the United States -- plus Germany in
exchange for Tehran's suspension of enrichment work.

 Mottaki said, "The proposed package has been opened. We will
review proposals of the Group 5+1 and then announce the results
to the European side officially.

 "We will inform the (Iranian) nation of the content of the
Europe's proposals at the earliest."
 The Iranian foreign minister expressed hope, "The shuttle
diplomacy will lead to Europe's precise study of a genuine
proposal by the Islamic Republic of Iran that could possibly be
sent to the European side as an amendment or a counter-package.

 "We support fair talks, with no preconditions and
discrimination, which may lead to a comprehensive
understanding," he added.

 He declined to comment on a question whether Europe's proposals
included suspension of enrichment work saying, "Since we have
not announced the content of the package, we cannot talk about
its details."

*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: Iran proposal will focus on national interests - Haddad-Adel -

Tehran, June 11, IRNA

Iran-Speaker-Nuclear 

The Iranian officials will present a proposal which will take
national interests and rights into consideration after reviewing
Europe's proposal, Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel said
here Sunday.

 The European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on June 6
presented a new package of incentives to Iran which has been
approved by representatives of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council -- Russia, China, Britain,
France and the United States -- plus Germany in exchange for
Tehran's suspension of enrichment.

 In a pre-agenda speech at Majlis, Haddad-Adel said, "We welcome
resumption of talks with Europe and regard it as a victory.

 "First of all, this victory belongs to the Iranians because it
showed Iran cannot be treated with a language of threat.

 "The West knows that Iran will not make decision in an
atmosphere dominated by a psychological war."
 He added, "The issue can also be regarded as a win for Europe
showing its independence. It can lead to settlement of issues
through negotiations while preserving independence of
international organizations.

 "We are interested in peace, understanding and negotiations.

 Such talks do not mean that we will receive a closed package
and they (5+1 group) expect us to accept.

 "The Europeans made remarks and now they should be ready to
listen to our words."
 The speaker stressed, "Preconditions are not rational in talks.

 It will be meaningless that the Europeans should set
preconditions (for Iran) when the both sides are going to
discuss the principle of Iran's use of peaceful nuclear energy.

 "The side which announces its desired result as a precondition
shows it practically has no belief in talks.

 "Confidence is a mutual issue. We are ready to build confidence
as we have taken confidence-building measures before. But we
expect the Europeans to adopt an attitude leading to Iran's
confidence in them."

 He said, "Confidence-building should not deprive Iran of its
rights."

 Addressing himself to the American people, he said "Since the
US administration supports crimes of the Zionist regime, it has
no prestige among world nations."

 Haddad-Adel condemned atrocities of the Zionist regime in Gaza
Strip and its massacre of the Palestinian people and expressed
his sympathy with the Palestinian government and nation.

 He also urged all Iranian organizations to implement
ratification of Majlis, stressing, "Majlis insists on
implementation of its ratifications."
		 				 		 			
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Iran studying nuclear proposal, won't compromise on 'rights' -
                           
 by Farhad Pouladi Sun Jun 11, 1:58 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iransaid it would not compromise on its 
nuclear "rights" but asserted it was still studying an 
international proposal that demands a freeze of sensitive uranium 
enrichment work. 

 "We are definitely not going to compromise on our rights. We
are going to act according to our responsibilities and rights.
We are holding the initiative," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid
Reza Asefi told reporters. 

He was repeatedly asked whether Iran would return to a
suspension of enrichment, but only said that "we will not
negotiate our right. We will not give up our right." 

Asefi declined to categorically say if Iran would reject or
accept an international offer of incentives if it agrees to stop
enrichment -- a process at the centre of fears the country could
acquire nuclear weapons. 

According to Asefi, the package -- drawn up by Britain, France
and Germany and backed by the United States, Russia and China --
contained elements which were "acceptable" and others which were
not. 

"As soon as we received it, we opened it and started to study
it. We categorised the points. Some of them are acceptable, some
have ambiguities, some have to be consolidated, and some of them
we don't accept," Asefi said. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, meanwhile, on a visit to Cairo,
told reporters that Tehran would not accept any threats or
preconditions in negotiations with the international community. 

"The language of threats contradicts the language of
negotiations," said Ali Larijani. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsaid
Friday that Tehran had "weeks and not months" to accept the
proposal to halt its nuclear program and warned that the UN
Security Council would act if Iran did not comply. 

But Larijani denied that any deadline had been fixed in the
proposal and rejected any preconditions. "There is no timeframe
... We are for negotiations but without preconditions," he said. 

Iran has so far refused to suspend enrichment, which can be
extended from making civilian reactor fuel to the core of a
nuclear weapon. The country argues enrichment for peaceful
purposes is a "right" enshrined by the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. 

The package was presented to Iran last Tuesday by EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana. 

"The Islamic republic of Iran is not trying to buy time, we are
trying to come up with an answer that is satisfactory for all
sides and we will give our answer after we have meticulously
studied the package," Asefi said. 

His comments came as board members of the UN nuclear watchdog --
the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA) -- prepared to meet in Vienna on Monday. 

The IAEA board in February found Iran in violation of
non-proliferation safeguards for almost two decades of hiding
nuclear activities. This opened the door to possible punitive
action by the Security Council. 

Seeking a negotiated way out of the impasse, the five permanent
members of the Security Council plus Germany have offered Iran a
package of benefits if it suspends uranium enrichment and begins
talks on guaranteeing it does not seek nuclear weapons. 

At the IAEA meeting, a vigorous debate on Iran but no resolution
or major initiative is expected. 

"The decision to be made is in Tehran, not at the board," a
European diplomat told AFP in Vienna. 

A second diplomat said: "I think that there is no stomach at all
from any country next week to posture or stir up any fires at
this delicate time in the political process." 

Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity but
Washington charges this is a cover for developing atomic
weapons. 

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday expressed hopes
that ongoing international efforts to resolve the nuclear crisis
with Iran would succeed and urged Tehran to accept a deal. 

"I hope the Iranians will be smart and responsible enough to
accept it," said the Israeli leader, interviewed on Britain's
Sky News television. 

"I hope that the Iranians will not misinterpret it, that they
will understand that it comes out of enormous strength, not out
of weakness and that they will respond to it." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Iran to offer counter-proposals on nuclear crisis 

 by Siavosh Ghazi Sat Jun 10, 7:47 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> said it has started to study the West's 
offer to resolve the nuclear crisis and could make 
counter-proposals through shuttle diplomacy, as Iraq" /> mounted 
a mediation effort. 

"We have opened the package, and we are studying it, and
afterwards we will officially reply to the Europeans," Mottaki
was quoted as saying following talks with Palestinian foreign
minister Mahmud al-Zahar. 

"We hope ... a shuttle diplomacy will be started for the Islamic
republic's proposals in the form of amendments or
counter-proposals to be studied seriously by the Europeans," he
added. 

"We are in favour of discussions which are fair, unbiased and
without preconditions, that will result in an understanding
satisfactory for all sides," he said. 

Asked if a suspension of uranium enrichment was raised in the
international package, he said: "We can not outline details of
the proposals, since we have not announced the content of the
package." 

Mottaki gave no timing for Iran's official response. "We have
not defined a deadline for our reply," he added. 

US President George W. Bush" /> said Friday that Tehran had
"weeks and not months" to accept the offer and warned the UN
Security Council would act if Iran did not comply. 

A senior cleric close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei said the same day that Tehran would not suspend uranium
enrichment, amid reports from the UN nuclear watchdog that the
country had accelerated enrichment work. 

"We must have uranium enrichment between 3.5 to 5 percent and
they have to accept it," Ayatollah Ahmad Janati said. 

In a related developments, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi
met Iran's top nuclear negotiator in Tehran in a bid to help
mediate an end to the crisis, a source close to the Iraqi leader
said Saturday. 

He said the meeting with Ali Larijani took place on Friday, a
day after Abdel Hadi met in Baghdad with the ambassadors of
Britain, France and Germany whose countries have been at the
centre of efforts to resolve the crisis. 

It was unclear who initiated the mediation. 

Last month, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said his
country respected "the right of Iran to have nuclear technology"
but feared an arms race in the area, after a meeting in Baghdad
with his Iranian counterpart. 

It was not the first time that the Iraqi authorities try to
intervene with Iran on an international file. 

On March 16, Iran announced that it agreed to negotiate with the
United States regarding Iraq at the request of the Iraqi
authorities. But, finally, these discussions did not take place. 

On a visit Saturday to Egypt, which has called for a
nuclear-free Middle East, Larijani said that Muslim countries
had the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

Iran's hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran remains open
to the nuclear negotiations on offer, which contains incentives
and threats of sanctions, but refuses to give up on its rights. 

Iran on Friday insisted it would not stop enriching uranium even
as world leaders warned the Islamic republic to halt the
sensitive nuclear activity within weeks or face the
consequences. 

Tehran considers uranium enrichment to be its right under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Western powers, which
suspect Iran's nuclear program has military ambitions, want a
suspension of enrichment. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: Iran Nobel laureate urges negotiated nuclear settlement 

 Sun Jun 11, 5:05 PM ET 		 	 

SHUNEH, Jordan (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's Nobel peace prize laureate 
Shirin Ebadi voiced hope that Tehran will solve its nuclear row 
with the West through negotiations. 

"These disputes must be resolved through negotiations," Ebadi
told AFP in Jordan on the sidelines of a conference on the
shores of the Dead Sea to launch a network of women leaders to
improve the conditions of women and children. 

"I hope that these proposals and counter-proposals will be
brought together and that through the combination of them these
problems will be resolved," Ebadi said of the international
offer to resolve the nuclear crisis. 

Last week the United States, Britain, France and Germany, as
well as Russia and China, offered Iran a package of benefits if
it suspends uranium enrichment and begins talks on guaranteeing
it does not seek nuclear weapons. 

Iran said it is studying the offer while signalling it could
make counter-proposals through shuttle diplomacy. But Tehran
warned it would not compromise on its nuclear rights. 

Ebadi said her work in the field of human rights were "devoted
to ensuring that the quality of life in Iran improves", although
she had no direct influence on resolving the nuclear row. 

"The Iranian government is opposed to my activities,
nevertheless I continue with my work," she said, when asked if
she could play any direct role to defuse the tension. 

Ebadi won the Nobel prize in 2003 for her work for women and
children. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: UN atomic agency meets: Iran deliberating new nuclear proposal -
     
 by Michael Adler Sun Jun 11, 3:06 AM ET 		 	 

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN nuclear watchdog will meet in Vienna 
tomorrow with the world waiting to see if Iran" /> Iranaccepts an 
international offer to rein in its nuclear program. 

A vigorous debate but no resolution or major initiative is
expected at the regular meeting of the International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation
board of governors, which is expected to run several days and
discuss routine matters besides an Iranian nuclear program that
has raised fears Tehran seeks the bomb. 

"The decision to be made is in Tehran, not at the board," a
European diplomat told AFP about the offer. The diplomat asked
not be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. 

A second diplomat said: "I think that there is no stomach at all
from any country next week to posture or stir up any fires at
this delicate time in the political process." 

The IAEA board set off the latest crisis when it in February
found Iran in violation of non-proliferation safeguards for
almost two decades of hiding nuclear activities. This opened the
door to possible punitive action by the United Nations" />
United NationsSecurity Council. 

Meanwhile, the United States, European Union" /> European
Unioncountries Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia
and China have offered Iran a package of benefits if it suspends
uranium enrichment and begins talks on guaranteeing it does not
seek nuclear weapons, but threatened UN sanctions if Tehran
fails to comply. 

A senior Iranian official warned nations Friday to show
"self-restraint" at the IAEA meeting in order not to endanger
this diplomacy. 

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh said Iran has
a "positive approach" to possible talks and that nothing should
happen at the board "to affect this more or less positive
environment." 

His comments came after the IAEA reported Thursday that Iran had
accelerated uranium enrichment on the same day that the six
world powers asked it to halt the work and open talks. 

Iran stepped up enrichment on June 6 when EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana was in Tehran to present the package of
benefits to be discussed if Iran suspends the work which makes
nuclear reactor fuel or in highly refined form atom bomb
material, the report said. 

On June 6, it said, Iran started feeding feedstock uranium gas
into a connected series of 164 centrifuges -- known as a cascade
-- to produce enriched uranium. 

Iran on Friday confirmed these facts. 

Soltanieh said it was a "coincidence" and not meant as a
provocation that Iran re-started enrichment work the same day
that Solana was in Tehran. 

The report appears to dash hopes Iran is preparing a pause in
its nuclear fuel activities in order to start talks. 

A Western diplomat said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei "had been
quietly urging the Iranians to create the conditions necessary
to return to negotiations and one of these could have been
holding off from using any new nuclear material at this time." 

Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity but
Washington charges this is a cover for developing atomic
weapons. 

Iran said Saturday it had started to study the world powers'
offer and could make counter-proposals through shuttle
diplomacy. 

"We have opened the package, and we are studying it, and
afterwards we will officially reply to the Europeans," Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. 

He gave no timing for Iran's response. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushsaid
Friday that Tehran had "weeks and not months" to accept the
offer and warned the Security Council would act if Iran did not
comply. 

A senior cleric close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei said Tehran would not suspend uranium enrichment. 

"We must have uranium enrichment between 3.5 to 5 percent and
they have to accept it," Ayatollah Ahmad Janati said Friday. 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 22 IRNA: Iran's nuclear program not to harm Islamic, non-Islamic states - Larijani - 

Tehran, June 11, IRNA

Egypt-Larijani-Nuclear 

Iran's nuclear program will inflict no damage on Islamic or
non-Islamic states, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC), Ali Larijani, said in Cairo on Sunday.

 The Qatari Al Jazeera television on Sunday quoted Larijani, who
is currently in Egypt on a two-day visit, as saying the above in
a joint press conference with Arab League Secretary General Amr
Mussa following their bilateral talks.

 "Strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on its
constant support for Arab and Islamic countries," he said.

 "Iran is not after nuclear weapons and its nuclear program will
help Arab and Islamic states.

 He also quoted Amr Moussa as stressing that Arab states should
take major strides in the field of nuclear technology and that
Iran's success belongs to all Arab countries.

 He pointed to a new package of incentives approved by the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council --
China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States -- plus
Germany (Group 5+1) in exchange for Iran's suspension of uranium
enrichment. He said, "There are positive points in the proposals
although there are also several problems.

 "It has been said that the proposals included both incentives
and punishments but what we received was just a plan with
positive points.

 There has been no negative point and threats of punishment." He
rejected allegations by certain media on setting a deadline and
preconditions for Iran to give response to the package of
incentives, stressing, "Iran welcomes constructive talks with no
preconditions." Egypt calls for a diplomatic solution to the
Iranian nuclear case, while stressing the international
community should also address the issue of Israel's nuclear
weapons.

*****************************************************************
 23 IRNA:  West show of Iran issues politically-mo tivated - Armenian daily
      
Tehran, June 11, IRNA

Armenia-Iran-Daily 

The West has always shown the domestic affairs of Iran in line
with its political goals, Armenian daily `Alik' wrote on Sunday.

 Alik editor-in-chief Dernik Malekian Mehr made the remark while
pointing to a news by Western media claiming that religious
minorities in Iran are obliged to carry a badge on their dresses
to be distinct from Muslims.

 In line with the West's anti-Iran propaganda, the Western media
publish news on alleged violation of human rights in Iran every
year, he said, adding this time they have focused on violation
of rights of religious minorities in Iran.

 He said minor social and economic problems of religious
minorities in Iran have reduced during the past 27 years after
the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

 He added religious minorities were exposed to no pressure in
Iran.

 The editor-in-chief further stated if religious minorities
faced problems in Iran, they would raise them through their
representatives at Majlis (Parliament) and the MPs did their
utmost to settle the problems.

 He added the West has always launched such propaganda against
Iran over the past 27 years but to no avail.

 Today, the communities of religious minorities in Iran face no
problem with respect to interaction with the government, he
said, adding there is no room for the West to distort realities
in Iran.

 Religious minorities, like every Iranian individual, can rought
up their political, social and economic problems with their
deputies at Majlis, he added.

 Malekian Mehsr said the government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran has always tried to settle problems of religious minorities.

 There are, however, problems in Iran which are not limited to
just religious minorities rather all Iranians are faced with
them, he said, adding these problems caused no displeasure
between religious minorities and the Iranian government.


*****************************************************************
 24 IRNA: Asefi says Iran's N-rights "not negotiable" 

Tehran, June 11, IRNA

Iran-Asefi-Nuclear 

Iran said on Sunday it would not give up its nuclear rights,
stressing its nuclear rights are not negotiable.

 Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark in
his weekly press conference in response to a question whether
Iran would suspend its enrichment work.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran will not abandon its rights.

 It acts based on its responsibilities and duties, and in this
respect it holds the initiative," Asefi said

 "We will not negotiate on our rights. We will not give up our
rights."

 Asked about talks between Iran and the United States, he said,

"We welcome negotiations on an equal footing with no
preconditions and no prejudgment."

 The spokesman stressed, "It is not that Iran assesses 
negotiations as constructive under whatever circumstances and 
preconditions."

*****************************************************************
 25 IRNA: Greens calls for removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe 

Brussels, June 11, IRNA

EU-Greens-WMDs 

The group of Greens in the European Parliament has welcomed the
report of The International Commission on weapons of mass
destruction.

 The report was presented in the European Parliament on Thursday
by former head of the UN Arms Control Commission in Iraq Hans
Blix.

 "The report reminds 'recognized' nuclear states of their
longstanding and unfulfilled disarmament obligations. The EU
must show leadership on this front and bring the US along," said
Green MEPs Angelika Beer and Caroline Lucas in a joint statement.

 "The continuing failure of these states to decommission their
nukes makes their current non-proliferation demands, like that
for uclear weapon free zone in the Middle East, ring hollow."
 "Withdrawing the 480 US nuclear warheads still in Europe would
be an important step in the right direction," said the statement.

 The MEPs also condemned the arrest of 24 Greenpeace activists,
who were detained for holding a peaceful protest for the removal
of US nuclear weapons from Europe outside NATO headquarters in
Brussels on Thursday when NATO defence ministers were meeting.

*****************************************************************
 26 Daily Times: US-India nuclear deal languishing on the Hill 

  Saturday, June 10, 2006  

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: President George W Bush and congressional supporters
of the US-India nuclear agreement are “pushing to rescue the
initiative and its vision of expanded strategic ties,” according
to a US news service. 

Bloomberg, quoting “aides and lobbyists” said that the accord is
languishing because of lawmakers’ concerns about proliferation,
and supporters say they fear that with only about 50 those
advocating the controversial agreement are trying to have a
measure to the House floor by the end of the month to signal to
India that the congressional approval effort remains on track.
That test vote would convey support for the accord’s broad
outlines and come with an understanding that Congress will have
more say later on the agreement’s details, four people familiar
with the talks told Bloomberg. 

According to Michael Levi, co-author of a Council on Foreign
Relations report issued on June 7 endorsing a two-step approach,
“The longer Congress thinks final approval is going to take, the
sooner they should try to vote on some kind of placeholder.” In
one variant of this compromise, the near-term vote would lift US
sanctions on nuclear sales to India, a necessary step for the
deal to go forward. Measures to that effect, which have been
bottled up in committees, would create an exception to US rules
prohibiting the transfer of US nuclear materials and technology
to India. A second vote would come after lawmakers are assured
their concerns about the security of the technology are
addressed in the final version, even if that happens next year. 

The Bloomberg commentary said, “The India agreement is a
turnabout for the US, which has imposed nuclear sanctions on
India ever since it tested an atomic bomb in 1974. US critics
say the agreement still leaves India’s military programme
unchecked and doesn’t ask enough of the Asian nation. Supporters
say it marks a strategic embrace of the world’s biggest
democracy, which they describe as a counterweight to China.
While many in Congress acknowledge these points, some have also
said that in its current form the agreement weakens decades of
efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons because India
never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

According to Prof Sarah Binder of George Washington University,
“The test vote will be framed in such a way so as to give
lawmakers a way out later if they don’t like the final deal.”
She was of the view that the “obscurity” of the agreement would
work in the administration’s favour. She said, “There are
pockets of intense interest, but broadly speaking, most people
have never heard of this deal with India. That provides an
environment where it’s easier for the administration to get its
test vote, because the public’s not watching. The business
community is.”

The supporters of the deal, according to Bloomberg, is to focus
on the House of Representatives, where moving legislation is
easier, rather than the Senate, where complex rules mean that
even simple things can get bogged down. The need for
congressional action is urgent, because the Indian government
needs reassurance that Congress is supportive, backers say. 

In addition to being necessary before Indian policy-makers will
negotiate the final details with US diplomats, a vote is also
needed to help Prime Minister Manhoman Singh defend himself at
home from accusations by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party
that he is allowing the US to dictate nuclear policy. 

South Asia expert Stephen Cohen of Brookings believes that
another reason the Bush administration must deliver the
agreement is to prove to India that it’s a reliable partner for
defence sales. India plans to buy as many as 126 fighter
aircraft, and the bid could be worth as much as $10 billion,
according to Boeing and Lockheed officials. The administration’s
hope now is that a two-step approach might win over
Representative Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who chairs
the International Relations Committee and has yet to endorse
Bush’s deal with India, Senator Richard Lugar, the Indiana
Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
has not endorsed it either. Hyde is “optimistic” that he and
Lantos, the panel’s ranking Democrat, will be able to ask their
committee to approve some kind of India measure before the end
of the month, Hyde spokeswoman Kirsti Garlock was quoted as
saying. 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 27 UK: Two brothers held in WMD raid released without charge
 
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:36:26 -0500 (CDT)

Yes folks, you guessed it... it was another f**k up..

Intelligence tip off.... muslim terrorist cell... poison gas factory...

"CYANIDE explosive jacket" Da Da..

Then "hundreds of hours of surveillance", then big armed police night time
raid (250), some in CBW suits.

One guy shot by nervous cop for the crime of being a muslim running down the
stairs in his pyjamas to see who was breaking into his home, two brothers
arrested, held under antiterrorist laws BUT no WMD can be found.

Another Muslim family living in the next door house owned by the brothers
family also mistreated by police. WMD bomb factory in cellar turns out to be
the brothers gym.

Then usual plethora of slanderous planted stories in the tabloids about how
one brother shot the other, how the injured man grabbed the policmans gun
and how anyway one brother is allegedly a criminal.

Both homes wrecked by "detailed forensic search" of the two houses (media
says police promise to do repairs).

Then the excuses... nervous trigger happy cop was not nervous or racist but
was wearing thick gloves.

One brother works in a supermarket, the other is a postal worker.. both
British Muslims.. from a Bangladesh family... both now released without
chage.

Local community alienated, UK muslims living in fear and the 80% of the UK
population who are against the war, disgusted.

I guess you could call it the Iraqification of a British muslim family by
the police.

===========

Saturday June 10, 2006
The Guardian
www.guardian.co.uk

Two brothers held in armed raid on home released without charge

Police unable to find link to biological terror plot

Family use mosques to neutralise extreme protest

by

Hugh Muir, Lee Glendinning and Vikram Dodd

The two brothers arrested last week in an anti-terror raid on a house in
east London, in which one was shot, were released without charge last night
after police failed to find any link to an alleged biological terror plot.

However, the Metropolitan police said the intelligence which led to the raid
last Friday was still being developed, adding that all lines of inquiry
would be exhausted.

Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23 and Abul Koyair, 20, maintained their innocence
throughout their detention. They were released from Paddington Green high
security police station shortly before 8:30pm after an extensive search of
their house.

More than 250 police officers, some of them armed and wearing biochemical
suits, burst into the house at 4am last Friday after receiving intelligence
claiming that a chemical or biological weapon could be inside. During the
operation, Mr Kahar was shot in the shoulder by a police gun. Police
maintained that they had been left with "no choice" but to force entry into
the home, because there was "very specific" intelligence of a threat to
public safety.

Security sources said the timing of the raid was dictated by fears that an
attack on a British target using an unconventional weapon could be soon be
staged.

But as the week drew on, senior officers came under increasing pressure and
were forced to concede that there may never have been such a weapon in the
house.

The shooting of Mr Kahar will be investigated by the Independent Police
Complaints Commission, which could take months to produce a report.

At the same time, the Met regards the investigation into the intelligence as
an ongoing inquiry which may lead elsewhere, with the possibility of more
raids.

The home secretary, John Reid, last night defended the police.

"The police are acting in the best interests of the whole community in order
to protect the whole community, and they therefore deserve the support of
the whole community in doing what is often a very hazardous and dangerous
job often involving difficult decisions," he said.

Scotland Yard said the two men would be contacted so arrangements could be
made for property to be handed back to them. It also said the police would
undertake appropriate restoration work.

The Met's assistant commissioner, Andy Hayman, thanked the community for its
understanding. "We have worked with the local community since the operation
on Friday to keep them updated and have listened to their concerns." he
said.

The two brothers were arrested under the Terrorism Act, and held on
suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of
terrorism. Mr Kahar was held under armed guard at Royal London hospital in
Whitechapel, as he recovered from his wounds. He was shot in the upper right
hand side of his chest, with the bullet exiting through his shoulder.Azad
Ali chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, which tries to improve relations
between the Muslim community and the police, said officers should explain
fully to the family what happened and apologise for the trauma they caused.

"The police have clearly made errors and they have to learn lessons," he
said.

Earlier yesterday, the men's family foiled an attempt by extremists to
hijack their protest against the police actions.

Around 35 men and 15 women attended a noisy demonstration opposite Forest
Gate police station in east London organised by Anjem Choudary, formerly a
close associate of the exiled cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. Mr Choudary had
said hundreds of angry Muslims would attend the protest once they had left
their mosques after Friday prayers. But the brothers' family sent a
statement to at least 20 mosques on Thursday evening which was read to
worshippers during prayers yesterday afternoon, urging them to disassociate
themselves from the event.

Mr Koyair and Mr Kahar's sister, Humeya Kalam, said the police raid
represented "barbaric and horrific actions" but an extremist protest would
"only give another opportunity for our community to be portrayed in a
negative light".

Family thwart extremists' bid to hijack terror raid protest

The family of the terrorism suspect who was shot by police last week foiled
an attempt by extremists to hijack their protest campaign yesterday.

Around 35 men and 15 women attended a noisy demonstration opposite Forest
Gate police station organised by Anjem Choudary, formerly a close associate
of the exiled cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. Mr Choudary had said hundreds of
angry Muslims would attend the protest once they had left their mosques
after Friday prayers.

But the suspect's family sent a statement to at least 20 mosques on Thursday
evening which was read to worshippers during prayers yesterday afternoon,
urging them to disassociate themselves from the event.

Humeya Kalam, the suspect's sister, said the police raid represented
"barbaric and horrific actions taken against an innocent family". But she
said an extremist protest would "only give another opportunity for our
community to be portrayed in a negative light".

"This will allow the police to inflict the same trauma that we have been
through on another family," she said. "More brothers and sisters as a result
could be arrested, which will have an adverse effect in proving both of my
brothers' innocence." She urged those who wanted to protest to attend a
"peaceful community demonstration" scheduled for next week.

The message was backed up by a cousin, Enam, who went to the edge of the
demonstration to urge people to stay away.

Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, was shot in Forest Gate during the raid on his
family home by police searching for a chemical bomb. His brother Abul
Koyair, 20, was also detained. Both were arrested on charges connected with
terrorism offences and are being held at Paddington Green high security
police station.

During the demonstration, which saw protesters heavily outnumbered by police
officers, Mr Choudary and other speakers castigated the police and the
government for the shooting, and for the broader foreign policy in Iraq and
other "Muslim lands". Mr Choudary led chants of "Muslims are innocent, Tony
Blair is a terrorist", and accused prominent Muslim groups and individuals
of failing the community, labelling them "sycophants".

Last week's raid, and the subsequent failure to locate any chemical device
at the house, have put police and community relations under strain. On
Thursday, Scotland Yard assistant commissioner Andy Hayman apologised for
the disruption the operation caused; but he has also said the police had no
choice but to carry it out.

Yesterday Sir Robin Wales, Newham's mayor, said he would seek the full facts
from John Reid, the home secretary. But he also condemned outside agitators
"stirring up division and fomenting unrest".

========

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1794438,00.html

========
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: China's Thirst for Oil Rattles Old Order
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday June 10, 2006 6:46 PM

By PETER ENAV and ELAINE KURTENBACH 

Associated Press Writers 

ZHENHAI, China (AP) - China's surging appetite for energy is
engraved in the landscape of this gritty port city: waterfront
piles of coal, gas pipes snaking along grimy roads, and tankers
anchored amid islands where pirates once lurked. 

Zhenhai is at the heart of a global energy revolution. 

As China's leading oil receiving center, the city provides this
nation of 1.3 billion people with hundreds of thousands of
barrels of crude per day to feed its galloping economy. 

The shifting pattern of energy consumption is rattling
Washington and aggravating an already intense rivalry with
neighboring Japan over access to oil and gas supplies, adding to
tensions in an already volatile region. 

``The global demand for oil has been rising faster than supply
because there's new economies that are beginning to gin up, new
economies growing, like China and India,'' President Bush said
recently. 

``Oil - the dependence upon oil is a national security problem,
and an economic security problem,'' Bush said. 

China is acutely aware of the security implications of its
growing dependence on imported oil. For more than a decade, its
three large state-owned companies have been scouring the globe,
from Iran to Angola, to secure supplies. 

In the past six months alone, China has signed deals totaling
more than $7 billion for stakes in oil and gas fields in
Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Syria. A state-controlled company is
reportedly considering a $2 billion bid for yet another Kazakh
property. 

The worldwide buying spree helped net at least 3.5 million
barrels per day of imported oil last year - enough to make China
the world's third-leading consumer of foreign oil. 

Chinese demand is forecast to more than double by 2025, to 14.2
million barrels a day from the current 7 million a day,
according to the U.S. government's Energy Information Agency. 

Although China's imports still only constitute about one-sixth
of total world oil trade - compared to 30 percent for the United
States - it is already the world's second largest oil consumer.
China's increasingly pivotal role as global manufacturer of
practically everything has ensured demand will continue to grow. 

The worry in Washington, Tokyo and other major oil importing
centers is that competition is helping push prices to
potentially destabilizing levels, and raising the risks of
conflict over dwindling resources. 

China has sought to diversify its energy sources, clinching
exploration and production deals in Africa and Latin America to
limit its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It too recognizes
the huge economic stakes for all sides. 

However, those deals also have raised worries. 

Earlier this year, the Bush administration published a revised
National Security Strategy that accused Chinese leaders of
``acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around
the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them
up.'' 

U.S. and other Western oil companies discovered during the oil
crises of the 1970s show how vulnerable such deals can be, but
``There is considerable rhetoric in some high places that
China's trying to monopolize or control world energy
resources,'' says William Overholt, director of the Center for
Asia Pacific Policy at RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, Calif. 

A more broadly shared concern, he says, is that just as U.S. oil
needs have helped keep dictatorships in power in the past,
``China is buying into oil in places where those purchases
support abusive regimes'' such as Sudan and Iran, undermining
U.S. diplomacy in other areas such as nuclear nonproliferation. 

While many agree with Overholt's characterizations of China's
oil allies, critics point out that Saudi Arabia - whose oil
fields were developed by U.S. companies and which has been the
anchor of Washington's foreign oil strategy for more than three
decades - is also not a democratic society. 

For China, ensuring future supplies is top priority as it fuels
annual economic growth rates of about 10 percent. 

China still gets more than two-thirds of its energy from coal,
and roughly half of its oil supply is from domestic sources -
3.4 million barrels a day in 2005. But veteran fields are
beginning to falter and motor vehicle use is surging. 

``Oil imports are bound to play a very important role in China's
future development,'' said Dong Xiucheng, a professor at the
China University of Petroleum. 

Much of that oil will arrive through Zhenhai, a port city about
100 miles south of Shanghai and home to the country's first
national petroleum reserve - as well as the country's biggest
refinery. 

Tankers from the Middle East and Africa berth at busy oil
terminals secreted in the nearby Zhoushan archipelago, a pirate
hideout in centuries past. A pipeline under construction will
connect offshore terminals to factories in the Shanghai region,
the country's biggest commercial hub. 

Surging oil consumption by China, India and other emerging
economies - on top of what is already being consumed by wealthy
nations like the United States - has added urgency to the debate
over future supplies. 

Some experts believe production will soon peak, and that looming
shortages require a fast shift to alternatives. 

Others say the peak is at least several decades ahead: the U.S.
Geological Survey reckons that only about one-third of the
world's estimated 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil has been
consumed. 

China relies most heavily on the Middle East, which provides
about 45 percent of its total oil imports, with Saudi Arabia
accounting for about 17 percent. 

In late April, Chinese President Hu Jintao flew to the kingdom
for talks with Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producer -
the latest episode in a continuing Chinese effort to ensure
access to Saudi Arabia's 9.5 million barrels per day of oil
production. 

That visit, coming just after meetings between Hu and Bush in
the United States, was closely monitored in Washington. 

China takes American concerns seriously and has worries of its
own over its vulnerability to upheavals in global hotspots and
to U.S. naval pressure in the Malacca Straits, the narrow
Southeast Asian passage through which virtually all Middle
Eastern and African oil moves on its way to East Asia. 

Though Beijing is building up its own navy, analysts say it
would take decades - if ever - to match America's. 

With the naval option of limited value, China has tried to do
the next best thing - reduce the amount of oil that reaches it
via the Straits. 

``Gaining access to new routes is a very important strategy for
China to ensure the security of its oil imports, aside from
diversifying the countries supplying oil,'' said Dong, the
Chinese Petroleum University professor. 

China is studying alternative routes for African and Middle
Eastern oil, including a pipeline through Myanmar, a port
project in Pakistan and possibly even building a shipping
channel through Thailand. 

It is also laying pipelines to former Soviet countries. 

China recently opened a 625-mile link carrying 190,000 barrels a
day of Kazakh oil, providing its first direct access to
potentially rich central Asian fields. 

Construction has begun on an even bigger pipeline project that
when completed in 2010 will move up to 1.6 million barrels per
day of crude from Russia's Irkutsk region to its Pacific coast,
with a branch line running into northeastern China. 

Japan prevailed in persuading Moscow to route the main pipeline
to the Pacific, rather than into China, providing low-interest
loans to pay much of the more than $10 billion cost. 

China and Japan are also facing off over potentially rich gas
resources in the East China Sea, with no signs of an early
resolution. 

The high stakes of energy rivalry are highlighted in a Chinese
online book, ``The Battle in Protecting Key Oil Routes.'' 

The anonymously authored book is set in a future where oil costs
$100 a barrel. It begins with U.S.-Japan naval exercises focused
on the Malacca Straits that trigger a real battle between China
and the United States when a U.S.-fired missile goes astray. 

The still incomplete book has drawn little attention, but it
does reflect growing awareness of the potential for energy
competition to get out of hand. 

Given the risks, Washington should step up energy cooperation
with China, says Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut - a
Democrat regarded as a close security ally of President Bush. 

``These are two nations following similar international oil
acquisition policies,'' he said. ``If we let it go, this could
end up in real military conflict, not just economic conflict.'' 

--- 

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach reported this story from
Zhenhai and Shanghai, China, and correspondent Peter Enav from
Taipei, Taiwan. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 29 AFP: India successfully test-fires nuclear-capable missile - 

 Sun Jun 11, 6:57 AM ET 		 	 

BHUBANESHWAR, India (AFP) - India successfully tested a 
nuclear-capable missile fired from a mobile launcher in the 
eastern coastal state of Orissa, a defence ministry official 
said. 

The test of the Prithvi-1 (Earth) missile took place at the 
Chandipur-on-Sea test site, said the official, who declined to be 
named. 

The missile has a range of 250 kilometres (190 miles) and can
carry conventional or low-yield nuclear warheads. 

Nuclear-capable India and Pakistan, who have fought three wars,
routinely carry out missile tests and normally notify each other
in advance under an agreement. 

The 8.5-metre (28-foot) surface-to-surface missile, first tested
in February 1988, is under trials before its induction into the
army's arsenal, other defence officials said. The missile was
last tested last year. 

It is designed for battlefield use against troops or armoured
formations. Two other variants of the Prithvi, with a strike
range of between 250 and 350 kilometres, will be handed over to
the navy and air force once tests are completed. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 30 NEWS.com.au: Labor votes down nuclear power 

From: AAP                       

June 10, 2006                                                    

THE New South Wales Labor party has voted to oppose the
development of a nuclear power industry in Australia. Premier
Morris Iemma today said nuclear power facilities had been banned
in NSW since 1986 and would remain so.

 "There will be no nuclear power stations in NSW," he told the
NSW ALP Conference in Sydney.

 The conference later voted in favour of a motion by federal
Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese which rejected
nuclear power as a possible future part of Australia's energy
infrastructure.

 Mr Albanese said nuclear power was too expensive, too unsafe
and too dangerous to be considered for use in Australia.

 He also said nuclear power stations could be targeted by
terrorists as the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney has
allegedly previously been.

"We already know that Lucas Heights has been a terrorist target," 
he told the conference. "We know that nuclear power plants must 
be built near where people live and near to the (power) grid."

 "They would also become terrorist targets."

 The Australian Workers' Union has previously called for public
discussion on the nuclear option but supported today's
resolution.

 AWU NSW president Mick Madden said the Labor party had now come
to a position on the issue.

 "We are not participating in John Howard's agenda," Mr Madden
said.

 The Federal Government has set up an expert inquiry into
whether Australia should have a domestic nuclear power industry.

Sitemap Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
 31 SABCnews.com: Koeberg back at 90% capacity

South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005 
SABC                                                        

[Consumers in the Western Cape responded positively to the call 
to save electricity, says Eskom]

Koeberg was operating at 90% capacity and would be fully 
operational by tomorrow

June 11, 2006, 16:00

Nuclear power station Koeberg was operating at 90% capacity and 
would be fully operational by tomorrow, Eskom said. "It is 
generating about 90% of its output. The staff at Koeberg will 
continue monitoring the situation and increase capacity to 100% 
by tomorrow," said Fanie Zulu, the company spokesperson.
 
Supply interruptions stopped on Friday evening and electricity 
demand was met without incident yesterday and today. Power cuts 
ended before the power station was returned to full service 
because electricity was generated from other sources, like gas 
turbines. Industrial users also agreed to cut down on their power 
use, allowing electricity to be diverted for domestic use, Zulu 
said.
 
"Consumers in the Western Cape responded positively to the call
to save electricity. We want to encourage them to use available
resources in a sparing way," he added. The province has been
plagued by power outages recently caused by repair and
maintenance work to both of Koeberg's generating units. - Sapa
				

*****************************************************************
 32 Bellona: Russia to build four nuclear units a year
 
Russia's president Vladimir Putin calls for an increased role of 
nuclear power in country's energy supply while US and Russian 
NGOs demand to stop subsidies for new nuclear plants and invest 
in alternative energy.

  Vladimir Putin AP   
  

Vera Ponomareva, 2006-06-10 13:01

Addressing top nuclear industry officials on Friday, Russia's
president Vladimir Putin has called on the nuclear industry to
assume a greater role in meeting the nation's energy needs. 

"The share of nuclear power in the country's energy balance is
16%, and if the condition of the sector remains in the shape we
know it is in, then in several years that share could fall by
2030 to 1-2%,” Putin said. He also mentioned the "strong
potential in nuclear power" that was acquired by Russia in
Soviet times. 

Earlier this year Putin tasked his government to draft a program
to bring the share of nuclear power in overall electricity
production up to 25%. 

In response to the president's speech Sergei Kiriyenko, a former
prime minister and now head of the Federal Nuclear Agency
(Rosatom), told the meeting that two more power units a year
would be built from 2007 and another four or five would follow
in both 2009 and 2010. 

In May, during his trip to the United States, Kiriyenko called
for 40 new reactor units to be built. Currently Russia has 35
units at 10 nuclear power plants.

Public against nuclear power
 Ahead of the G8 summit, several NGO conferences are held in
Russia on the issue of energy safety and sustainable
development. In March, civil G8 gave it's recommendations to
change the priorities in global energy policy towards energy
saving and efficient use of new and renewable sources of fuel
and power. 

On June 1-2, representatives of 31 from Russia, US, Finland and
Norway discussed these issues at the international conference on
the “Impact of the Public and Whistleblowers on Energy and
Nuclear Policy”. 

"The public is very much concerned with the new initiatives of
such countries as Russia, US an Great Britain to develop nuclear
industry," said Alexander Nikitin, the chairman of
Bellona-St.Petersburg, at the press-conference on Monday. 

“We believe that so called nuclear renaissance is a very bad
thing for both US and for the world,” claimed Susan Gordon, head
of US Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. 

Jay Coglan, head of Nuclear Watch, New Mexico, said that the
governments have their own interests investing in nuclear power.
“I think it has much to do with corporate structure. They are
big corporations that want to make a profit. My opinion is that
energy supply should be regionally based. If we put the same
effort to renewable energy that we put in nuclear energy we
would not need nuclear energy and we would not have nuclear
waste.”
 
  Rosatom plans to build a second Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant 
 
  Rosatom head Sergei Kirienko and officials in the Leningrad
Region, which surrounds St. Petersburg, plan to build a second
nuclear station on the grounds of the already dilapidated
Leningrad Nuclear Power plant (LNPP).
   
Another Leningrad NPP

 The first units to be built in 2007 will replace the old
reactors of Leningrad nuclear plant (LNPP), 80 kilometers from
St.-Petersburg. According to the earlier statements of
Kiriyenko, four new VVER-1000 blocks will be constructed as the
existing Chernobyl design RBMK-1000 reactors at the LNPP are
shut down. 

During his visit to LNPP in may, Kiriyenko assured that the
designing and building of the new nuclear station would take
place in accordance with the respective laws governing
ecological impact studies. He promised a state ecological impact
study of the project, as well as public hearings. 

If society is against it than we will not build anything, said
Kiriyenko. 

  Leningrad NPP provokes criticism in Finland   
  
  Heikki Reponen, an expert with STUK, Finlands official
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, has called the reactors
at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant unsafe for use in an
interview with Bellona Web, while Finnish Member of the European
Parliament (MEP) Satu Hassi has called for closing the plant,
which lies in Russia only 150 kilometres off Finlands southern
shores and some 70 kilometres west of St. Petersburg.
   
Yet Kiriyenko said that only residents of the Leningrad Region
could take part in the public discussions of the project, as the
new plant is of regional significance only. 

It is obvious, that in the case of an accident at the plant, the
fallout would spread far further than the borders of the
Leningrad region and even Russia itself. Therefore, view the new
plant as an installation of regional significance is
impermissible. 

This project performs environmental risks not only for the
Leningrad region but for all Baltic countries as well, claimed
Oleg Bogrov, the chairman of Green world NGO from Sosnovy Bor,
at the press-conference on Monday.

  Public hearings on Leningrad NPP dry storage to be held post
factum   
  
  Public hearings on a separation and dry-storage facility for
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) will be held in Sosnovy Borhome to the
Leningrad Nuclear Power Planton March 29th , but given that the
storage facility has already been built, the hearings are being
held after the fact.
   
Bodrov also reminded that recently several nuclear projects were
implemented in Sosnovy Bor without state environmental
assessment and public hearings. Thus, Rosenergoatom -- Russias
nuclear power plant building monopoly, has just finished a
radioactive waste burning facility and new spent nuclear fuel
storage on the shore of the Finnish gulf. 

The public had no chance to influence these projects and demand
their security, Bodrov said.   

  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 33 BBC: Brown supports new nuclear plants
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 10 June 2006
 
[Chancellor Gordon Brown]                               

Some MPs had hoped Mr Brown would take a different stance                                                             

Chancellor Gordon Brown has given a clear signal that he supports 
the building of new nuclear power stations. 

In an article in the Times, he said the government was set to 
demonstrate its flexibility in key policy areas such as energy - 
"including new nuclear". 

The government's energy review is due by the end of July but Tony 
Blair has already said he favours new plants. 

The anti-nuclear lobby and some Labour MPs had hoped the expected 
next party leader would take a different view. 

The UK generates about 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. 

'Simple question' 

In recent weeks, Mr Blair has made it clear that he sees new 
nuclear power stations as part of a mix to fill the gap which 
will be left when the current sites come to the end of their 
lives. 

In a speech at the CBI annual dinner in May, he said the issue 
was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". 

We will demonstrate o enhanced flexibility with further reforms 
in planning, skills and labour markets, and in energy policy, 
Gordon Brown    

And at a summit on Friday, French President Jacques Chirac 
announced the UK and France would be setting up a joint nuclear 
energy forum. 

Mr Blair told a joint news conference in Paris he was not 
prejudging the outcome of the energy review, but said he believed 
it was a simple question of energy efficiency, self-sufficiency 
and climate change. 

BBC political correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said anti-nuclear 
campaigners had hoped Mr Brown could be persuaded to modify such 
a policy. But that has all but vanished with the "unequivocal 
backing" for nuclear power in the Times article. 

In the article, published to coincide with the G8 finance 
ministers meeting in St Petersburg, Mr Brown writes: "In Britain 
over the coming weeks and months we will demonstrate our enhanced 
flexibility with further reforms in planning, skills and labour 
markets, and in energy policy, including new nuclear..." 

For the Tories, meanwhile, shadow trade and industry secretary 
Alan Duncan has said he opposes subsidies or price guarantees for 
nuclear firms. 

The comments appear to make cross-party consensus on building a 
new generation of nuclear power plants unlikely. 

The Liberal Democrats have already voiced their opposition to new 
stations. 

*****************************************************************
 34 IndianExpress.com: India will get to stockpile fuel for every N-reactor
 
Pranab Dhal Samanta 
	
Posted online: Monday, June 12, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print Email

N-deal talks today: New Delhi can import fuel beyond its 
immediate reactor requirement as part of its strategic reserve 
	 	 
NEW DELHI, JUNE 11:As India and US sit tomorrow to negotiate a 
bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, it is clear 
that the document will contain significant assurances on fuel 
supply which would allow India to stockpile fuel for the lifetime 
of every reactor. 

Nuke deal: US team to visit IndiaDouble bonanza for Bihar: Hunt
begins for N-plant site, oil &gas China: Fix criteria for
exempting non-NPT statesIran dialogue: India welcomes US
decision US rules out imposing new conditions on Indo-US deal

 India will also be moving forward on negotiations over the
safeguards agreement with an IAEA team expected to arrive here
later this month. But all this is preparatory and the signing
would happen only after the US Congress passes the enabling
legislation. 

The unique fuel supply assurance was agreed upon during
negotiations on the separation plan and has not been ever
conceded to any country not recognised as a nuclear weapons
state. 

In practical terms, there will be no restriction on how much
fuel India can buy. India can import fuel beyond the immediate
requirement of its reactors on the grounds that it will be part
of a strategic reserve. 

This is part of a string of other assurances like US help in
negotiating a India-specific fuel supply agreement with the IAEA
and a back-up arrangement that in case all these assurances
fail, US and India will convene a group of supplier friendly
countries like Russia, UK and France to restore supply. 

This is in return for India agreeing to accept permanent
safeguards on its civilian facilities unlike other nuclear
weapon states. 

On the India-specific legislation pending with the Congress, it
has been agreed that even the agreement will be put on vote. 

In discussions between principal interlocutors Shyam Saran and
Nicholas Burns in London, Washington conveyed that it had come
up with a compromise that Congress takes up the legislation and
puts it on vote but will also get a chance to vote upon the
bilateral agreement once it is negotiated. 

This puts to rest speculation over the Tom Lantos proposal—it
has now been withdrawn—that the Congress will first pass a
“sense of the Congress” resolution and vote on the Bill only
after other conditions like the bilateral agreement and the
safeguards agreement are negotiated. 

On the issue of the deal going off in case India were to test a
device, the sense is very clear that Washington has this law in
place internally but it won’t be part of the bilateral
agreement. 

US is inclined to accept a wording that reaffirms India’s
commitment to voluntary moratorium on testing. This is expected
to be formalised in the talks starting tomorrow. Also, it was
clarified in London that the Congressional waiver will be a
one-time affair and not done annually as was being suggested in
some quarters. 

There has been criticism that India placed far too many
facilities like the Nuclear Fuel Complex are under safeguards
apart from the 14 reactors. It’s, however, learnt that what has
been undertaken is a firewalling within the NFC so that separate
processing can be feasible for civilian and military facilities. 

Sources clarified that the entire NFC will not be under
safeguards, just units that will be needed for processing fuel
obtained from abroad have been separated from the rest which can
be used for strategic purposes. This is a logical step in
separating civilian and military fuel cycles. 

The separation plan tabled in Parliament lists nine research
facilities as civilian. But these will be “safeguards
irrelevant”, which means they will not be part of any safeguards
arrangement—as was largely interpreted—but have been declared
civilian so that they can enter into international cooperation. 

Besides this, India has nuanced its position on the Fissile
Materials Cut-off Treaty by welcoming the US draft in the
Conference of Disarmament in Geneva but has not given up its
stand for a verification mechanism. 

US dropped this in its draft. This is in line with Indian
commitment in the July 18 agreement while at the same time not
divorced from its original position.

editor@expressindia.com 	 

© 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights
reserved throughout the world. 
*****************************************************************
 35 GLW: All the way with the USA: Howard's dream of a nuclear future
 
"http://www.greenleft.org.au Green Left Weekly

Christine Milne 

Make no mistake: the current debate about nuclear power in
Australia is a furphy. The real agenda is the development of a
nuclear enrichment industry and a global nuclear waste dump to
store huge volumes of depleted uranium and to take high-level
waste from all over the world, including the United States. 

The prime minister’s task force is hand picked for the task. It
will find that nuclear power is not economically viable but that
an expanded uranium mining, nuclear enrichment industry and
waste dump will be highly lucrative and will make Australia a
key player in the global nuclear industry. 

The plan is to develop the enrichment facility in South
Australia in association with the huge expansion of the Olympic
Dam mine at Roxby Downs and to transport the enriched uranium
via the Halliburton-owned railway to Darwin for leasing to
overseas countries like India. By leasing and not selling,
Australia will be able to join the US in circumventing the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

Since it is clear that nuclear is too slow, too dirty and too
dangerous to address climate change or energy security, why has
nuclear rushed onto the Australian agenda? Look no further than
the mutual admiration club of US President George Bush and PM
John Howard. 

During the Vietnam war Australians had to endure the sickening
refrain “All the way with LBJ”, referring to the federal
government’s support of then-US President Lyndon B. Johnson. Now
we are seeing Howard clamouring to be part of President Bush’s
grand nuclear plan, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). 

Howard, a long-time admirer of all things American just as
former prime minister Menzies was of all things British, could
hardly contain his excitement after his recent visit to
Washington, that President Bush had a real strategic role for
Australia to play in the US’s 21st century empire. 

The US wants to control which countries can access nuclear
technologies and develop civilian nuclear power, and it wants to
find a global waste dump for high-level nuclear waste, including
its own. What’s more, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, set up by the
US to oversee rules governing the supply of uranium, nuclear
fuel and technology, has now offended its creator, with Sweden
and Switzerland blocking consensus on the US-India nuclear
technology deal because it undermines the NPT. Instead of
respecting multilateralism and the rule of law, the US now wants
to set up a new organisation that will do what it wants. 

Who better for Bush to turn to than his good friend and ally
Howard? Australia, with 40% of the world’s uranium reserves and
wide open spaces ripe for a dump, presents a perfect solution. 

The US initiative for a GNEP proposes a number of nuclear fuel
supply centres around the world. GNEP participants would offer
other countries a reliable supply of nuclear fuel and fuel
services including waste storage. 

While Australia might argue that exporting uranium will not lead
to leakage into weapons programs in countries like China and
India, the US is keenly aware of the danger and the loopholes in
safeguard arrangements. It also fears that bomb-ready plutonium
derived from re-processing spent nuclear fuel rods from power
plants would be susceptible to misuse, theft or terrorist
attack. But it cannot secure support in the United States for a
dump at home. 

So to address the nuclear proliferation and waste storage and
disposal issues, US deputy energy secretary Clay Sell said: “We
hope to develop an international regime … so that fuel can be
leased to a country interested in building a reactor and taking
fuel, but then the fuel can be taken back to the fuel cycle
country.” 

This plan for fuel suppliers to take back the high-level waste
would suit the US because public opposition there has stalled
the US government’s plan to open a long-term spent nuclear fuel
and waste repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Howard’s remark while announcing the nuclear task force - “If we
are not a nuclear fuel supplier then that shuts us out of
certain gatherings” - reveals exactly where the PM is coming
from. Just as he was desperate to be part of the Coalition of
the Willing that invaded Iraq in 2003, he is determined not to
be left out of Bush’s nuclear plan. 

It is ironic that those who stand in front of the flag and
invoke the memory of ANZAC to reaffirm their patriotism are the
very politicians who are compromising Australia’s independence
and global positioning so profoundly. 

The Greens do not share a vision of Australia as an adjunct to
the US. We do not want a nuclear future for Australia as a
global uranium supplier and nuclear waste dump. We want
Australia to be a world leader in renewable industries like
solar and build up a global reputation for solar thermal and
sliver cell technologies. We want to be part of the global drive
for peace and a solution to global warming. 

[Senator Christine Milne is the Green’s energy and climate
change spokesperson.] 

Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW   	 
*****************************************************************
 36 Independent: Blair and Chirac seal nuclear deal 

By John Lichfield in Paris 

Published: 10 June 2006 

Britain and France created a body yesterday to share civil
nuclear expertise, suggesting the Government is moving towards
the nuclear option to solve long-term energy needs. 

Tony Blair said after a summit with the French President,
Jacques Chirac: "I'm aware [that nuclear energy] is a very
controversial issue. I think, of course, there should be a very
full public debate. But I think this is a classic case that the
decisions we take today as political leaders will be felt in 15,
20 or 30 years. I don't want people looking back and saying,
'What were those guys doing when the facts were very clear?'" 

Mr Blair and M. Chirac have set up a Franco-British "nuclear
forum" in which government officials, experts and the energy
industry will "discuss nuclear co-operation". Talks will cover
aspects such as research into new nuclear power stations and how
to manage nuclear waste. 

Since France has the world's most developed nuclear energy
sector - with 60 nuclear plants supplying 80 per cent of its
electricity - the new forum is a strong signal of the direction
of British Government thinking. Mr Blair said he did not wish to
pre-empt the government's long-term Energy Review, due to be
published next month. But at the open-air summit, held at the
Elysée Palace in Paris, he repeated his previous statement that
nuclear power was "right at the top of the agenda". 

He pointed to the need to find a "clean" option to replace
ageing, first-generation UK nuclear plants and North Sea oil and
gas. 

"The fact is, we have 20 per cent of our electricity today from
nuclear power. In 15 or 20 years' time, that's gone," the Prime
Minister said. "Today, we are 80 or 90 per cent self-sufficient
as Britain in gas and oil. In 15 or 20 years, we will import 80
to 90 per cent. 

"Therefore, if I look at it from the point of view of energy
security or from the point of view of clean energy and climate
change, to be in a position where we can't even replace the
existing nuclear capacity seems to me to be a very big problem." 

French officials welcomed Mr Blair's decision to increase
cooperation with France on nuclear power, saying it might offer
the possibility of a lucrative cross-Channel market for France's
nuclear power industry. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 37 Detroit News: New nuclear plant needed to alleviate power problems - 

06/11/06

[Detnews.com]  		 			

Todd McInturf / The Detroit News                        

Scott Westrick, left, and Jeff Bates work on an electrical line
in Fraser. Brownouts and power losses have hit parts of Metro
Detroit this spring. 		 					 					 					 						 

New nuclear plant needed to alleviate power problems 
Capacity OK today, but soon will be overburdened 	 	

The Detroit News                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
						 									 										 											
Lights out Reasons cited by utility companies for brownouts: 

+ Tree limbs that tear down wires account for more than 60
percent of problems at DTE Energy. 

+ Overcapacity in newly developed areas. 

+ Reluctance to allow electricity poles or substations near
homes and businesses. 

+ On average, two vehicles a day run into DTE electric poles.
											 											 											 												 	 	 	 	
Michigan's long-term electricity needs won't be solved by
conservation or the construction of substations in growing areas
of the state. Those will help, but at least one new major power
plant needs to be built, and it should be nuclear.

With the summer's hottest days quickly approaching and the
inevitable temporary loss of power from storms or strained
systems, we're reminded of the urgency that's needed on this
issue. Already communities in Macomb County and some other parts
of Metro Detroit have had days without electricity.

Growth contributes to some of the power problems. And residents
often make the situation worse with their not-in-my-backyard
attitudes about power lines, transformer boxes and substations.
Customers have to work with the system, too.

But since electric company executives all say there's enough
capacity to meet the state's needs this summer, more must be
done on the delivery and service end to protect consumers from
brownouts.

Michigan residents and businesses pay more for electricity than
their counterparts in nearby states and deserve commensurate
service.

"Over the past 30 years, there's been little to no investment to
the transmission grid, and over that time there have been
growing constraints on the system," says Lisa Aragon, a
spokeswoman for ITC Transmission Co., which delivers electricity
and works with utilities across the state.

ITC has spent more than $240 million in capital improvement
money since 2003 to address capacity issues, Aragon says.

DTE Energy, which serves 2.1 million customers in Michigan, is
investing $350 million this year in its distribution network,
says Steve Kurmas, executive vice president of energy
distribution.

Those enhancements will help keep the system humming, which the
Michigan Public Service Commission says is needed to maintain
reliability standards through 2009.

After that, questions remain.

No new base load power plant (main facilities that generate core
power) has been built in Michigan in the past two decades. The
commission says construction of at least one new plant, and
possibly two is needed by 2014 or before. Given the length of
time it takes to get permits, build and fire up a new plant, the
time to get started is now.

And the method of delivery should be nuclear power, which,
thanks to new technology and standards, is safer and cleaner.
Electricity generated at nuclear plants also is cheaper than
that produced at gas-fired plants and reduces dependence on
foreign oil.

Michigan needs to get its electricity issues in order. Brownouts
today could be blackouts tomorrow and that's no way to attract
business or new residents to the state. 								 							 							
						 					 					 					 						
© Copyright 2006 The Detroit News. All rights reserved. 	 	 	 	
*****************************************************************
 38 baltimoresun.com: Asia turns to plants for fuel - 
 
Governments seek crops to cut oil dependence    

Associated Press
        
Originally published June 11, 2006                      

FARIDABAD, India // Indians know better than to eat the 
plum-sized fruit of the jatropha bush. It's poisonous enough to 
kill.
 
But with oil prices surging, the wild jatropha is experiencing a 
popularity of sorts - as a potential source for fuel for trucks 
and power stations. The government has identified 98 million 
acres of land where jatropha can be grown, hoping it will replace 
20 percent of diesel consumption in five years.
 
"We have found that we can produce biodiesel from it. If we can 
keep the price down, the future looks bright," says R.K. 
Malhotra, who oversees the Indian Oil Corp.'s research center 
that is running tests on the oil.
 
All across Asia, governments are searching for crops that can 
help them offset a dependence on imported oil that can only 
increase as their economies soar. Palm oil and sugar cane are the 
dominant crops in the region, but everything from coconuts to 
castor oil to cow dung is being tested for fossil-fuel 
alternatives such as ethanol and biodiesel.
 
Most experts also believe that, using current technologies, there 
isn't enough land to make a serious dent in oil consumption. Some 
scientists say production will consume more conventional energy 
than it will save, and environmentalists came out this month 
against plans by Indonesia to convert millions of acres of rain 
forest on the island of Borneo into palm oil plantations.
 
Georgia Tech professor Arthur Ragauskas, who co-authored a study
of biofuels published in Science magazine, sees other potential
pitfalls.
 
"One criticism of biofuels is that if you want to go from 2
percent to 20 percent, you would have to direct so much of that
agriculture from food to fuel that there would be real
competition between the two," he said in a phone interview.
"Even worse, if we have a famine in part of the world, we would
have to make a decision as a society between food or fuel."
 
Alternative fuels are less than 1 percent of current fuel usage
in most of Asia, and experts say their large-scale use is years,
if not decades, away.
 
Still, "every country in Asia is trying to commercialize and put
up legislation on biofuels," said Conrado Heruela, a
renewable-energy specialist with the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Agency. "Right now, the target is not that big, but it will be
very significant in the long term."
 
Ethanol, distilled mostly from corn in the United States and
from sugar in Brazil and Asia, is mixed with gasoline. Biodiesel
comes mostly from rape seed in Europe, vegetable oil in the
United States and palm oil, coconut oil and jatropha in Asia. It
is mixed with diesel.
 
Ethanol produces 13 percent less greenhouse gases than fossil
fuels, a study published recently in Science magazine found,
while the U.S. Department of Agriculture says biodiesel can
reduce carbon emissions by 78 percent.
 
Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej has a car that runs on palm
oil and he has been touting the substitute fuel to his nation
for more than 20 years. Today, hundreds of gas stations in the
capital, Bangkok, sell gasohol - gasoline with 10 percent
ethanol - and it's slightly cheaper than regular gas.
 
Thailand also grants the sugar industry tax breaks to produce
ethanol and is following the United States in a plan to replace
the toxic fuel additive MTBE with ethanol. Still, supply is not
matching demand.
 
On some Pacific islands, whose isolation makes oil imports more
costly and vulnerable to market shifts, power companies are
looking for other sources.
 
"The use of alternative fuels is very much the topic of the
moment among the small utilities in the Pacific," said Jean
Chaniel, the general manager of Unelco Vanuatu, whose company
runs some generators on 5 percent coconut oil.
 
The Fiji Electricity Authority plans to switch entirely to
renewable energy by 2011.
 
India says it wants to increase its use of renewable energy from
the current 5 percent to 25 percent by 2030. Much of this will
come from nuclear plants, but it is also examining wind power
and other methods including jatropha.
 
About half of India drives on gasoline with 5 percent ethanol,
and the government aims to increase that to 20 percent in the
next decade.
 
In China, the government is promoting ethanol and is financing
nuclear, hydroelectric and solar power, aiming to increase
renewable energy sources from 7 percent currently to 15 percent
by 2020.
 
Malaysia, the world's largest producer of palm oil, has issued
10 licenses for plants to produce biodiesel for export, mostly
to the European Union, which has mandated that all fuels contain
5.75 percent biofuels by 2010.
 
baltimoresun.com (TM) and sunspot.net (R) are copyright © 2006
*****************************************************************
 39 FT.com: Blair to rule out nuclear power plant incentives

By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent

Published: June 11 2006 22:12 | Last updated: June 11 2006 22:12

Tony Blair is to rule out financial incentives to rig the market
in favour of new nuclear power plants and will make a commercial
case for them when he unveils government energy strategy.

The prime minister, who is due to announce the findings of a
review in July, plans to tackle head-on cabinet sceptics and
Labour party critics who said the cost of replacing Britain’s
ageing nuclear capacity will be unaffordable and require huge
subsidies.

Whitehall officials said Mr Blair, who has stressed the
strategic and environmental case for nuclear power, is to draw
on internal economic analysis that suggests it will be a more
cost-effective way of generating electricity than both gas and
coal.

The government study, which has been peer-reviewed and discussed
with the Treasury, says soaring gas prices and the rising cost
of tradeable carbon permits will make the construction,
operation and decommissioning of nuclear plants commercially
attractive.

The findings, officials said, made it unlikely that the
government would sanction financial incentives to make nuclear
more competitive against other sources of power generation.

Ministers had ruled out direct subsidies, but some nuclear
proponents argued that intensive energy users should be obliged
to source power from new plants. Instead, the licensing and
planning regime will be streamlined to cut upfront investment
costs and accelerate building. Mr Blair hopes next month’s
“green light” will kickstart thebuilding of up to 10 plants
on existing sites. He believes such investment will ease the
country’s projected dependence on Russian gas and help cut
carbon emissions.

But he faces an uphill task to win over critics. Doubts about
the affordability of nuclear energy, and the uncertain cost of
decommissioning in particular, have caused sharp differences in
cabinet, with several ministers concerned that the taxpayer
could end up footing the bill.

Though Downing Street and the Treasury are in broad agreement, a
cabinet discussion that touched on clean-up liabilities for
existing plants, all but one of which are due to be
decommissioned by 2025, was said by one of those present to have
caused consternation. One senior minister described the
£70bn-plus cost as “bloody massive”.

Mr Blair and Gordon Brown, who threw his weight behind nuclear
power in a newspaper article on Saturday, believe a clear policy
statement, coupled with simpler planning and licensing, will be
enough to stimulate private investment in new plants.

Official projections of the cost of nuclear electricity
generation are thought likely to come in close to industry
calculations of ÂŁ24 per megawatt hour for advanced reactors, a
figure that includes cash for decommissioning and would make
nuclear cheaper than gas and coal.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 40 JS Online: More power plants may be in the pipeline 

Utilities share vision of future

By THOMAS CONTENT

Posted: June 9, 2006

Think Wisconsin's power plant and power line building boom is 
nearly done? 

  For more information on the state's energy outlook, see Energy
2012, a draft of the state's Strategic Energy Assessment, at 

Think again. 

Wisconsin has spent billions on new power plants and new power
lines, but utilities have plenty more projects in mind for the
next decade. 

That includes the likely addition of new major power plants by
We Energies, Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay and
Wisconsin Power & Light Co. of Madison, between now and 2015 -
not including the coal-fired power plants already under
construction. Add to that at least $3 billion more spent on new
and improved transmission lines by American Transmission Co.,
including major power lines in north central Wisconsin, Dane
County and another link between Wisconsin and Illinois. 

The result is that state ratepayers will continue to pay more
due to upward pressure on electricity prices because of
construction, with the hope remaining that some relief will come
from the high cost of natural gas used to make electricity. 
More plants may be needed


In separate question-and-answer sessions with the Journal
Sentinel, executives from the four Wisconsin-based utility
holding companies, American Transmission Co. of Pewaukee and two
customer groups discussed key energy issues. 

The utility executives agree that much has been done to avert
the power reliability crisis that hit the state in the late
1990s. But they see a need to build even more power plants and
transmission lines to meet demand that's rising by 2% a year. 

Leaders of customer groups agree that more power plants may be
needed, but ask whether energy efficiency and conservation can
play a bigger role to hold prices down. 

The talk of the continued need to build even more plants comes
amid sharp jumps in electricity prices in recent years that have
raised questions about the state's energy competitiveness.

Wisconsin ranked lowest in rates among eight Midwest states as
recently as the 1990s, but now ranks highest in residential
rates, second highest in industrial rates and fourth-highest in
commercial rates, according to federal Energy Information
Administration data. The state Public Service Commission and
utilities caution that price increases in other states could
help the state's competitiveness. That includes rate increases
that hit customers in Michigan earlier this year and will hit
Illinois residents as soon as next year. 

Following are excerpts of the Q-and-A sessions: 

Q: What's the biggest issue your company and the state face when
it comes to energy and electricity in particular? 

Gale Klappa, Wisconsin Energy Corp.: Our biggest challenge is
execution on the construction program (of new coal plants), and
continuing to focus on customer satisfaction in a very difficult
price environment. It's really the same challenge (for the state
as a whole) that we're facing, because other utilities are
needing to go build infrastructure, so basically it's going to
be to execute on the construction plans that have been approved. 

Larry Weyers, WPS Resources Corp.: The biggest challenge in
Wisconsin for the next few years is to get our transmission
system put in place, because with the Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, MISO, we have access to a much
larger regional resource of generation, if we just have the
transmission capacity to get the energy in. 

Besides that, we're going to have to decide what type of
generation is going to be built in the future. Are we going to
build more coal-fired plants in this state? Are we going to seek
to build nuclear plants? Are we going to use more gas in the
state? 

Bill Harvey, Alliant Energy Corp. "The biggest challenge that
still confronts our state is its transmission infrastructure. It
has been deficient for decades. It is still deficient today. . .
. The creation of the American Transmission Co., which is
singularly focused on development of transmission infrastructure
in the state of Wisconsin was a great institutional step in the
right direction, but ATC still has to go through the process of
siting, certificating and building transmission infrastructure
in this state. 

I begin to perceive increasing levels of public resistance to
that occurring. 

And as an old guy that's been around this industry for a long
time, I flashback very quickly to the early to mid-1980s where
we saw the same sort of dynamic occurring: What happened in
response to that dynamic . . . was everybody threw up their
hands and said the heck with it: It's impossible to get
meaningful levels of new transmission built in this state. I
hope that doesn't happen again, because the needs of the state
have been obvious for decades, and it's going to take a lot of
courage on the part of American Transmission Company, a lot of
courage on the part of Wisconsin regulators and elected
officials to stay the course to getting the infrastructure built
in this state that's been so sorely needed for so long. 

Gary Wolter, MGE Energy Inc. The biggest challenge is the
infrastructure challenge, and infrastructure in constructing
plants and constructing transmission and those challenges
include how to get it approved, how to finance it, rate impacts,
the siting questions, environmental, so there are a lot of
subsets to the challenges and then getting them built so they
can operate, which is huge also. 

So I think both on the generation and the transmission side, we
have those infrastructure challenges, and we also have the
regulatory challenges of an entirely new market - sorting the
MISO market out so it works for the state of Wisconsin. 

Jose Delgado, American Transmission Co.: The biggest thing is
that we proceed in looking forward. It is very easy to get stuck
in the moment. But if you don't act now you have to forecast the
consequences. 

We are in a market network. It used to be that it wasn't. Since
transmission has opened there is market, in Wisconsin. We need
to be better connected, and we need to be able to move energy
around, so there's more options. Whenever you have options, you
can control your costs better. 

Charlie Higley, Wisconsin Citizens' Utility Board: It's the
rising cost of producing electricity from conventional means,
and then right behind that is the shock of new infrastructure -
utilities proposing to build new facilities. Tightly woven with
that are rising prices for fossil fuels. The cost of energy, the
cost of electricity and then the cost of the infrastructure:
Those are going to continue to be concerns going forward. We're
in a rising cost era and we're all going to see more plans by
utilities for power lines and power plants. 

Todd Stuart, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group: It's cost and
rates and what we do with conservation and efficiency to help
blunt or help mitigate the rate impacts. Energy policy seems to
swing from going between one ditch to another - you're only in
the middle as you're careening toward each side. Ten years ago
we were worried about reliability and now that we're starting to
build to meet energy demands and reinforce system reliability,
now we've got to bear that cost. . . . We need to have
reliability, but we need to do it in a way where our rates are
cost-competitive. 

Q: What do you think Wisconsin consumers may not understand or
you would like them to understand about rising energy costs in
general, or rising electric rates in particular: 

Klappa, Wisconsin Energy: I don't think customers understand
that we've absorbed all day-to-day cost increases. With our rate
agreement with the commission we're not going to change base
rates through 2007. That is a major effort to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the corporation. 

And then on fuel, we have - because of the policy decisions that
were made by the state in the '90s - we've become overly reliant
on imported power from natural gas, and because these
construction programs take so long, there's no near-term fix. We
can't begin to fix that until '09 and 2010 (when the new
coal-fired power plants in Oak Creek open). But we're on the way
to fixing it. 

Weyers, WPS Resources Corp.: Customers need to fully understand
that rates have been rising for the past five years in Wisconsin
because we are in an expansion program where we're building new
generation and new transmission to serve our reliability needs
in the future. Those construction programs are going to be
coming to an end, at least for our company, very soon. In 2008,
we will complete Weston 4 (power plant) and the Arrowhead-Weston
transmission line. The upward pressure on rates will be relieved
to some extent." 

Harvey, Alliant: 

Electric customers have gotten a double whammy over the course
of the last four years. They're paying for new bricks and mortar
as a part of the utility rate base and they're paying
substantially increased costs for both fuel for those plants and
purchased power that's bought in the wholesale marketplace.
That's why we've seen what we've seen happen to Wisconsin rates
over the last several years. That comes on the heels of the
state having been an extraordinarily low-cost provider of
electricity. 

Wolter, MGE Energy: In any construction cycle over the last 40
years you've had significant increases when you're building
infrastructure. We do what we can to mitigate those
consequences, but frankly we're seeing across the country, we're
seeing more increases (in other states). We hope we get through
the cycle and get back to those periods we've had from the
mid-'80s to mid-'90s where your rates are more or less flat and
certainly a lot less than inflation. That's where we all would
like to get to. 

Delgado, ATC: We have to make sure that in the environment of
rising fuel prices we have options that on the average reduces
our costs. We have always done that - through efficiency,
through the diversity of fuel, the ability to move energy
around. If you think short term you make some very stupid
decisions in this business. Some people say when costs are going
up, don't invest. In this business you can't do that. When the
costs go up you do invest so you have a better day. You've got
to have a better day, and if you don't invest, all you're doing
is floating up and down like a cork in the ocean. 

Higley, CUB: We kind of dodged the bullet this past winter that
it was milder than expected, that made a big difference on
natural gas heating bills, the electric bills are a lot more
difficult - there is outcry about the growing electric bills but
it's also kind of like a shrug of the shoulders because people
have a hard time knowing how to deal with that. How can they
fight back? So that's one reason why we're here to help with
that fight. 

Stuart, WIEG: The biggest thing people don't understand is that
there's no free lunch - that energy policy rarely is right on -
totally balanced. . . . My members are looking for ways of
controlling those costs. 

Do we need to build in certain areas? Can we conserve more? Can
we use alternative financing mechanisms? The way we purchase
fuel - is that being done in the most prudent way possible -
we've got to give hard analysis to everything. Are the
utilities' organizations as lean as possible? Are they
conserving as much as they can? Those are the questions we've
got to ask. 

From the June 11, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel 
*****************************************************************
 41 AFP: India, US to work out details of nuclear energy trade this week
    
 Sun Jun 11, 4:07 PM ET 		 	 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Diplomats from India and the United States will 
hold talks this week to outline the practical steps needed under 
a deal to increase cooperation in civilian nuclear energy, 
officials said. 

A team from the US State and Energy departments and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will arrive in New Delhi late Sunday, a US
embassy spokesman said. 

"The talks will be spread over three days beginning Monday," the
spokesman said. It "reflects a desire to establish a framework
for broad-ranging peaceful nuclear cooperation." 

According to an article posted on the US State Department
website, the agreement reached during US President George W.
Bush" /> President George W. Bush's visit to India in March
paves the way for sanctions on the sale of civilian nuclear
technology sales to India to be lifted. 

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and has been
banned by the United States and other countries from buying fuel
for reactors and other related equipment as a result. 

The March deal, still awaiting a green light from the US
Congress, will allow India access to civilian nuclear technology
by amending the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

In return, New Delhi has agreed to place 14 of its 22 atomic
reactors under international safeguards. 

Meanwhile, the "123 agreement" that will be negotiated this
week, and also needs approval by the US Congress -- will outline
the rules of the proposed nuclear trade between New Delhi and
Washington. 

Both countries will try and work out differences over a
provision in the "123 agreement" that bars New Delhi from
conducting atomic tests, officials said. 

New Delhi has also objected to a provision giving the United
States the legal right to halt nuclear cooperation if India
tests a nuclear weapon. 

New Delhi wants assurances that the flow of technology,
including reactors and fuel, will not be interrupted. 

"If Congress refuses to modify the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
the administration could move ahead with the 123 agreement, but
it would have to issue annual presidential waivers to India for
the nuclear trade," the US State Department said on its website. 

"These waivers would have to be submitted to Congress for
approval each year." 

According to US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns,
Washington gave New Delhi a draft of the 123 agreement in March. 

"The bilateral 123 agreement is largely a technical agreement
that will not entail a tremendous amount of give and take ...
because we've resolved the issues. 

"They will simply be reflected in the final bilateral agreement.
I think that agreement should proceed expeditiously," Burns was
quoted as saying in March. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 42 Los Angeles Times: A few more nukes! - 

8:04 PM PDT, June 11, 2006

Environmentalists need to face the fact that nuclear power is
less dangerous than fossil-fired global warming. 	By George
Monbiot, George Monbiot writes an environmental column for the
Guardian of London (www.monbiot.com). His book "Heat: How to
Stop the Planet Burning" will be published in Britain in October.

 WHEN I TELL my "green" friends that I am rethinking nuclear
power, they respond with outrage. I am an environmentalist, and,
to a large extent, the green movements in the developed world
arose from public concern about atomic energy. 

For about 30 years we have seen nuclear power as dangerous, its
radioactive wastes as unmanageable, the industry as incompetent
and untrustworthy. In the environmental camp, any softening of
this opposition is seen as a betrayal.

But climate change and falling energy reserves demand that we 
reopen the question. The nuclear industry now claims that nuclear 
power is the most reliable answer to the global warming caused by 
the overuse of fossil fuels. It argues that new technologies make 
it safe and cheap. 

I've spent the last year searching for a way to cut carbon
emissions by 90%, which is necessary to prevent runaway global
warming. One of the hardest problems is how to generate enough
electricity. My sympathies lie with renewable power. Alongside a
massive energy-efficiency program, it plainly provides part of
the answer. But it cannot supply all of our electricity needs.
The rest must come from somewhere, and to dismiss nuclear power
without considering what the alternatives involve would be
irresponsible.

I still detest the nuclear industry and its efforts to hoodwink
the public about its costs, its dangers and its record. But I've
reluctantly concluded that some of its arguments have merit. 

It is true, for example, that a disaster on the scale of
Chernobyl is highly unlikely to happen again because no new
power station will be built without a containment vessel, which
prevents most radiation from escaping in an accident. But the
mining, processing and use of uranium will continue to be
accompanied  as they always have been  by leaks into the
environment.

It now looks as though radioactive waste can be stored safely.
The Finnish authority responsible for nuclear waste disposal has
developed a method that looks foolproof. The problem is that it
is expensive, and the nuclear industry has a long record of
cutting corners. One British company was caught throwing nuclear
waste into open shafts it had dug above crumbling coastal
cliffs. Another admitted that it had been keeping plutonium in
uncovered ponds for more than 30 years. Workers at the U.S.
Geological Survey, which is responsible for testing the Yucca
Mountain waste repository in Nevada, falsified the rates of
water percolation, apparently to make the site seem safer than
it is. 

After reading reams of conflicting data, I now also believe that
global supplies of uranium are not the limiting factor many
feared. On the other hand, the threat of nuclear terrorism can
never be wholly dismissed, and the more fissile materials that
are extracted and refined, the more opportunities there will be
for people to obtain them. But although the radiation released
by accidents or terrorists could kill hundreds or perhaps
thousands of people, climate change caused by burning fossil
fuels threatens hundreds of millions.

Though nuclear power is plainly less dangerous than climate
change, I would still like to avoid building new plants if
possible. But the real danger is this: If we oppose nuclear
power without demonstrating that there are viable alternatives,
we become, in effect, lobbyists for the coal industry. In
Eurasia, there are still abundant supplies of natural gas, but
in North America, gas production has already peaked and is in
long-term decline. Already, coal supplies 32% of U.S.
electricity, while natural gas supplies 24% and nuclear power
10%. As 90% of remaining U.S. fossil energy reserves take the
form of coal, gas generators are likely to be replaced by coal
plants. The same applies to aging nuclear generators, if they
are not replaced by new ones.

If you believe that burning coal sounds more benign than nuclear
power, I invite you to turn on your computer and search for
images of the "mountaintop removal" being carried out by
coal-mining companies in the Appalachians. It looks as if a
nuclear disaster already has happened. The forests have been
flattened, the hilltops blown off, the valleys filled with
sterile rubble. Coal is also the worst of all fuels as far as
climate change is concerned. It contains 40% more carbon per
unit of energy than gas. 

But if fossil fuels and nuclear power are bad choices, could 90%
of the electricity in the United States be generated by greener
means? There is no doubt that, if it could be harnessed, the
U.S. has enough ambient energy to provide all the electricity it
now uses. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute points
out that the wind in a few counties in the Dakotas is, in
theory, sufficient to supply the entire nation with electricity.
Though no one is suggesting that all U.S. energy should be drawn
from one source, the development of cheap, high-voltage direct
current, or DC, lines of the kind now used in Brazil, Sweden and
Australia would permit even the most remote sources to be
exploited. The problem with transporting power has been that the
electricity load carried by traditional alternating current, or
AC, systems declines as the distance increases. But DC systems
don't suffer such "line losses." In principle, DC lines could
open up wind and wave power across the entire U.S. continental
shelf, and solar electricity throughout its deserts.

 What about the cost? Although estimates vary widely,
electricity from large-scale wind farms appears to be cheaper
than electricity from either nuclear power or coal, and its
costs are falling fast. Even solar thermal electricity, a more
expensive technology than wind, is now cost-effective in some
places. A report published last year showed that during times of
peak demand in Southern California, the cost of electricity
produced by solar thermal plants is roughly equal to the
wholesale price of conventional power. Peak demand in sunny
places, driven by air-conditioning, coincides with maximum solar
output. 

The problem with alternative energies is that the coincidence of
demand and supply is by no means guaranteed. Power companies can
fire up their standby coal plant when demand rises, but they
can't turn on the wind or ask the sun to shine. This problem can
be partly overcome by using long-distance DC cables: When
there's a flat calm in New York, there could be a gale blowing
in Chicago. The wider the net from which electricity can be
drawn, the more reliable ambient power becomes. But beyond a
certain point  perhaps 50% or so of total supply  power from
intermittent sources cannot be guaranteed. Part of the remainder
could be supplied by burning biomass such as straw or wood. But
farm waste is limited, and mass planting of fuel crops has
implications for water tables and the global food supply.

So, with gas growing scarcer, where do Americans find the rest
of their power? It seems to me that the U.S. has only two
choices: either to build a new generation of nuclear plants or
to find a genuinely acceptable, nonpolluting means of mining and
burning coal.

Such a means might exist, if underground coal gasification
fulfills its early promise. In principle, you can partly combust
underground coal seams, capture the gas they produce and scrub
the pollutants from it, producing either methane or hydrogen.
The methane can be burned in power stations and the carbon
dioxide in their exhausts extracted and buried, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by about 90%. The hydrogen could be
piped to people's homes and used in mini-generators to provide
both electricity and heat. But unless great care is taken,
underground combustion could contaminate supplies of
groundwater. 

Picking "clean coal" or nuclear power is not a choice I would
like to make. But if there is one thing I have learned in
studying our energy systems, it is that there are no painless
solutions. 

*****************************************************************
 43 Telegraph: Nuclear stations may stay on line to bridge the gap
 
Monday 12 June 2006 

  [telegraph.co.uk]

By Stephen Seawright (Filed: 12/06/2006)
 
For months, the Government has been softening the public up to
the idea of more nuclear power stations. 

Tony Blair declared last month that nuclear power is "back on
the agenda with a vengeance". He added last week for good
measure: "It is very difficult to see how you are going to be
able to have a secure energy supply in the future unless you are
replacing at least the nuclear power stations that are going to
be decommissioned." 

Nuclear power provides 19pc of Britain's electricity needs today
and Mr Blair wants to keep it at that level. Maintaining a
diverse range of power sources should deliver a greater security
of supply, Mr Blair believes. 

Yet the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power
is set to drop to 7pc by 2020 if older plants are closed as
scheduled. Replacement plants cannot be built in time to make up
the shortfall, which raises the next question in the energy
debate: should Britain's ageing reactors be kept running for
longer than originally planned until enough new plants are
built? 

Four of Britain's oldest nuclear plants, called Magnox reactors,
are still running but will be closed by 2010. Relatively small
and inefficient, with some of them up to 40 years old, few
expect these reactors to be saved from decommissioning. 

However, Britain's eight other nuclear plants, which are owned
by British Energy, could have their lives extended. Seven are
earmarked for closure by 2023. 

The decision on whether to extend the lives of the seven
advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) plants rests with British
Energy. The lure of extra revenue from extending for another few
years is clear, especially against the backdrop of high
electricity prices. Last September British Energy extended the
life of the Dungeness B reactor in Kent by 10 years to 2018. 

However, extending the lifetime of nuclear plants also carries
risks and costs. Older reactors suffering from wear and tear
frequently require extra investment to meet safety standards set
by the Nuclear Safety Directorate, the industry regulator. 
Not only can costs rise but revenue can be hit as reactors often
have to be turned off during additional safety tests. 

Plus, if a large safety concern rose in future years the plant
could still be closed by the regulator. 

"They could invest quite a lot of money and still be failed by
the Nuclear Safety Directorate," said Tony Ward, director of
power and utilities at Ernst & Young. 

The biggest problem for British Energy's AGR reactors comes from
cracking graphite bricks, which are a critical component of the
nuclear core. In more severe cases plants may have to be shut
down by the Nuclear Safety Directorate. 
British Energy declined to comment for this article but the

company warned in 2004 that four plants - Hinkley Point B,
Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland - may not be
able to be extend their lifetimes because of cracked graphite
bricks. Prolonged outages at Hartlepool and Heysham reactors
within the past two years were required following the discovery
of graphite cracks. 

No technique is known that can eliminate the cracks but the
Nuclear Safety Directorate has required British Energy to carry
out more frequent inspections of the bricks. 

In light of such difficulties, some nuclear engineers are
questioning whether the plants can be used for much longer. 
Independent nuclear engineer John Large said: "These reactors
were designed for a 30-year life. I am rather sceptical about
the success of extending these." 

The scope for extending the lifetimes of most of British
Energy's reactors is less than in other countries. In America
some reactors have been given the go-ahead to run for up to 60
years as they use the more advanced pressurised water reactors
(PWRs). Britain has only one PWR plant, Sizewell B, which opened
in 1995 and is earmarked for closure in 2035. 

Yet to return nuclear to providing a fifth of the country's
electricity needs by 2020 KPMG estimates that British Energy
will need to extend the lifetime of three more AGR plants after
Dungeness. 

Rob Cormie, head of the energy group at KPMG Corporate Finance,
said: "What we are advocating is lifetime extensions to some of
the British Energy plants and in between time we start
advancing, planning and pre-licensing new reactors." 

KPMG assumes the earliest a reactor could start being built
after all the planning approvals are obtained would be 2011 with
no more than an average of two gigawatts capacity built every
three years. 

Britain's nuclear capacity today is 11.9 gigawatts. Such a
building speed would be relatively fast given that it took 15
years to complete Britain's last plant, Sizewell B. 

If British Energy does not or is not allowed to extend the
lifetime of its nuclear plants, alternative energy sources will
need to be found. British Energy has yet to decide which or how
many nuclear plants may have their lives extended. New nuclear
plants look to be almost a certainty but the prospects for
Britain's existing nuclear fleet are still unclear. 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 44 Record Online: Closing Indian Point ...

/www.recordonline.com

  June 11, 2006 

It can be done, if the state has the will to do so. 

After spending a year and a million dollars of taxpayers' money
studying the possibility of replacing the Indian Point nuclear
reactors, the National Academy of Sciences came to a not
terribly startling conclusion. Yes, the scientists said in a
report released last week, the nuclear plant on the Hudson River
can be replaced. There are no technical obstacles to that. But,
they also said there are considerable "political, regulatory,
financial and institutional" obstacles to accomplishing that
change.

In other words, simply wanting Indian Point closed - for
whatever reasons - is not nearly enough, not if the state wants
to continue to have a reliable power supply for New York City
and its suburbs, including the Lower Hudson Valley.

Such is the contentiousness of the debate over keeping the
nuclear plant open, the report was immediately cited by both
sides as vindication of their positions. Rep. Nita Lowey,
D-Harrison, who got federal grant money to conduct the study and
who wants the plant closed because of concerns about its ability
to withstand a terrorist attack, said the study shows Indian
Point is not necessary for the region's future energy needs.

Jim Steets, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant
owner, said the report demonstrates the crucial role Indian
Point plays in the region's power grid as well as in keeping the
air clean.

They're both right, but given the reality of the state's
political and governmental climate, all those who have been
calling for the plants to be closed or not be relicensed when
the current licenses run out in 2013 and 2015 are going to have
do something that hasn't been done before: put together a
comprehensive, reliable, environmentally sound energy plan to
meet the future power needs of the region. And fast.

That means deciding on what types of power should replace the
nuclear power and getting the new energy sources in place
quickly. Indian Point supplies 23 percent of the power for the
region and burns no fossil fuels, which means it does not
pollute the air. It also pays millions in local property taxes,
provides hundreds of jobs and supplies relatively inexpensive
electricity.

Where would the new power plants be located to replace Indian
Point? What generators would be upgraded? Where would the
natural gas lines and power lines run? How would they be funded?
How would carbon dioxide emissions be controlled? Could
government bureaucracy and local opposition to new plants be
dealt with quickly enough to ensure no loss of power in a
changeover and, indeed, a meeting of expanded future needs? What
would it cost to shut down Indian Point and who would bear that
cost?

There are legitimate questions about Indian Point, notably about
the effectiveness of its evacuation plan in case of major
accident or terrorist attack. Plant owners and nuclear
regulators have regularly attested to the plant's security, but
calls for its closure have grown since 9/11. Those who want this
now know it can be done without sacrificing power to the region
- but it won't be easy and it won't be cheap. There are some
serious decisions to be made. 
  
Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record,
serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills.

© Orange County Publications. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 The Day: State Agency Seals Some Records In Whistleblower Case  
    

  By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\, Millstone\/business 
trends E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324   
  
  Published on 6/11/2006 in Region » Region Briefs

The state agency investigating allegations of retaliation 
involving a whistleblower with security concerns at Millstone 
Power Station ordered confidentiality Friday for certain 
personnel records.

 The state Department of Public Utility Control approved a joint 
motion for a so-called protective order from Millstone owner 
Dominion and the former employee making the complaint, Sham 
Mehta. 

Mehta has alleged that he lost his job after raising concerns 
about the routine disabling of a security fence at the heart of 
the nuclear complex. Dominion maintains the company downsized the 
Employee Concerns Program he worked in and that the job 
elimination had nothing to do with his complaint.

 In allowing confidentiality, the DPUC found that disclosing 
information about current and former nonsupervisory Dominion 
workers, job selection relating to certain positions, and 
personal contact information would constitute an invasion of 
privacy. DPUC staff and commissioners would have access to the 
information as part of their investigation, but the public would 
not, the agency ruled. Waterford  

[TheDay.com] Site Map 

Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, 
CT  |  © 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator] ~ YN 
~                   
*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: Nuclear inquiry can't hurt: Kohler

11/06/2006: 

Reporter: Alan Kohler     

ALAN KOHLER: It is surely a very difficult political sell, in
general, to claim that an inquiry into something is a bad idea.

But that seems to be what the leader of the Opposition, Kim
Beazley, has decided to try. He, and everyone else for that
matter, knows that asking Ziggy Switkowski and five others to
report on the issues around nuclear energy by the end of the
year can't hurt, and it certainly doesn't mean the Government
wants nuclear power stations up and down the east coast. It
wants, and is having, an inquiry into it. The most common
response so far has been, "I'm not having a nuclear power
station near my place. No way!" Which is fair enough, and the
chances of that happening while any of us are alive remain close
to zero. 

Kim Beazley and other opponents of nuclear energy should read the 
terms of reference. The first of them is that the taskforce must 
examine the capacity for Australia to increase uranium mining and 
exports in response to growing global demand. In other words, 
this is mainly an inquiry into the Labor Party's ban on new 
uranium mines. 

The issue of nuclear power stations in Australia is secondary. 
The taskforce has been asked to look into whether, in the 
longer-term, they might become economically competitive and might 
reduce greenhouse gases. The answer to that will almost certainly 
be "they might". 

Now, the Government's political opponents might want to make a 
fuss about merely asking that question, but what they really 
should be focused on is arming themselves with good arguments by 
year's end about why Australia should not fully enjoy the 
benefits of possessing 40 per cent of the world's uranium ore. 
They are about to get hit by a small but sharp truck named Ziggy. 


Please note: Transcripts on this website are created by an
independent transcription service. The ABC does not warrant the
accuracy of the transcripts. 

VIDEO: 

Alan Kohler talks about the nuclear inquiry.

*****************************************************************
 47 AU ABC: Nuclear power issue a political distraction

Insiders - 11/06/2006: 

Broadcast: 11/06/2006 
 
Political commentator with the Financial Review Laura Tingle says 
the whole nuclear power issue is a bit hard for the Federal 
Government to manage. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: And this week, Paul Kelly is on assignment
overseas. We are joined instead by political commentator with
the Financial Review, Laura Tingle. Good morning, Laura. 
LAURA TINGLE, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning, Barrie. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: On the nuclear inquiry first, and all sorts of
suggestions that the panellists have conflicts of interest and
pre-conceived ideas. Any substance in any of these concerns? 

LAURA TINGLE: Well, I think Barry that it's not quite Mr Burns
on the committee, but there are obviously a lot of people who've
got very strong nuclear connections. I suppose you've got to
wonder about any political inquiry, whether that's going to
happen, and I think the Prime Minister has a reasonable point in
saying any really detailed inquiry is going to require a level
of expertise that's going to probably prejudice towards the
industry. But I think, in some ways, we've already seen the
complexities of this issue politically, in terms of who's on it
and what they've had to say. At least two of the committee
members have been talking about carbon emissions trading, which
is an issue that the Government's still very reluctantly
addressing. And I think it just shows how the whole issue is a
bit hard to manage already for the Government. I think, at a
political level, that the nuclear power issue - we've still got
to regard as - in terms of domestic nuclear power - as a
political distraction. The crucial issue is really about
enrichment and mining and, in some ways, the issue about the
conflict of interest feeds towards reinforcing people's concerns
about nuclear power, and away from some of those issues which I
think are really at the heart of the terms of reference that the
Prime Minister has set out. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah, you did say that the nuclear power issue a
distraction but it's been quite a distraction. That's the one
the media has been concentrating on, I suppose, but it does go
much further than that. 

LAURA TINGLE: Well, it does. I mean, obviously they're looking
at nuclear power, but that's the bit that's the most
economically marginal. Most people are starting, as this inquiry
starts, most people are saying, "Well, we're not really sure
that's going to work." But what can work, and where the global
pressures, if you like, and particularly the pressures from the
Bush administration are on the question of whether Australia
expands its mining and uranium - mining and export of uranium,
and also, whether we get into the enrichment business. Now, this
is a really interesting issue, and a much more contentious one,
I think, in a lot of ways. The Government's public position at
this point is that we won't mine and enrich uranium and then
bring back the waste, but certainly that's the pressure from
what's known as the nuclear, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
this proposal put forward by the Bush administration and
certainly people involved in this committee have been pushing
this idea - so-called 'nuclear leasing'. The Government's
position is, at this stage, "No, we won't do this. We won't ship
it out and bring it back." But without doubt the commercial
pressures will be there that Australia tries to do that, or
should be doing that, if you like. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: And on the economy: certainly on the face of it,
two impressive figures. Unemployment at 4.9 per cent and a
growth figure beyond 3 per cent. 

LAURA TINGLE: Well, that's right. It's the first time we have
growth back above 3 per cent in some time. That's obviously
great news. But we're at one of those historical points in the
longer-term economic cycle where interest rates around the world
have started to move up, and good economic news as a result
actually makes people shiver a bit, because it does put
pressures on interest rates in the longer-term. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: And finally, confirmation that the Cornelia Rau
case is anything but an isolated one. 

LAURA TINGLE: Well, that's right, and combined with the
allegations that have appeared in the last couple of days about
rape and drug use in various immigration centres around
Australia, this issue isn't going to go away and, I think, given
the Government's been so aggressively pursuing the issue of
domestic violence and drug use and problems in the Aboriginal
communities and beating up the state governments about this, I
think the combination really puts the pressure back on the
Government and on Amanda Vanstone to not only come clean about
this, but if it's OK to put pressure on about one group of
people who are being disadvantaged and badly treated, they're
going to have to do the same about people that they're looking
after. 

BARRIE CASSIDY: Laura, thanks for your time this morning. 
LAURA TINGLE: Thanks, Barrie. 

*****************************************************************
 48 SNA: Bulgaria's Fourth Nuclear Unit Switched off Grid

Sofia News Agency

"Sofia Morning News" 

Business: 10 June 2006, Saturday.

Unit 4 of Bulgaria's only operating nuclear power plant at
Kozloduy has been switched off the grid due to scheduled repair
works.
 
The reactor will stay off until the middle of July, during which
time the other three units will operate at increased power,
Kozloduy's press office announced.
 
During the maintenance, the equipment will undergo preventive
repair as scheduled and the 440 MW reactor will be refuelled for
operation during the new fuel cycle.
 
Kozloduy, which is Bulgaria's only nuclear power producer, has
closed units 1 and 2 under pressure from the EU, and in 2002
committed to shut down Soviet-type units 3 and 4 by the end of
this year.
 
There has been much controversy whether the closures are
necessary, or the reactors might be safe enough to keep working
for several more years.
 
The latest commissioned reactors of Kozloduy - five and six -
are of a more modern design and will remain in service.
 
Official estimates have shown that after closing the reactors
Bulgaria will probably withdraw from its position as top energy
exporter in the Balkans.

Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the
future.

 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright
&Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

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
*****************************************************************
 49 AFP: India, US to work out details of nuclear energy trade this week
     
ZealandPakistanSingaporeTaiwan Sunday June 11, 06:37 PM 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Diplomats from India and the United States
will hold talks this week to outline the practical steps needed
under a deal to increase cooperation in civilian nuclear energy,
officials said. 

A team from the US State and Energy departments and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will arrive in New Delhi late Sunday, a US
embassy spokesman said. 

"The talks will be spread over three days beginning Monday," the
spokesman said. It "reflects a desire to establish a framework
for broad-ranging peaceful nuclear cooperation." 

According to an article posted on the US State Department
website, the agreement reached during US President George W.
Bush's visit to India in March paves the way for sanctions on
the sale of civilian nuclear technology sales to India to be
lifted. 

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and has been
banned by the United States and other countries from buying fuel
for reactors and other related equipment as a result. 

The March deal, still awaiting a green light from the US
Congress, will allow India access to civilian nuclear technology
by amending the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

In return, New Delhi has agreed to place 14 of its 22 atomic
reactors under international safeguards. 

Meanwhile, the "123 agreement" that will be negotiated this
week, and also needs approval by the US Congress -- will outline
the rules of the proposed nuclear trade between New Delhi and
Washington. 

Both countries will try and work out differences over a
provision in the "123 agreement" that bars New Delhi from
conducting atomic tests, officials said. 

New Delhi has also objected to a provision giving the United
States the legal right to halt nuclear cooperation if India
tests a nuclear weapon. 

New Delhi wants assurances that the flow of technology,
including reactors and fuel, will not be interrupted. 

"If Congress refuses to modify the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
the administration could move ahead with the 123 agreement, but
it would have to issue annual presidential waivers to India for
the nuclear trade," the US State Department said on its website. 

"These waivers would have to be submitted to Congress for
approval each year." 

According to US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns,
Washington gave New Delhi a draft of the 123 agreement in March. 

"The bilateral 123 agreement is largely a technical agreement
that will not entail a tremendous amount of give and take ...
because we've resolved the issues. 

"They will simply be reflected in the final bilateral agreement.
I think that agreement should proceed expeditiously," Burns was
quoted as saying in March. 


   Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 50 NEWS.com.au: 'Nuclear terror risk won't cow us' - 

From: AAP                       

By Maria Hawthorne

 June 11, 2006

JUSTICE Minister Chris Ellison said the potential for a
terrorist strike on a nuclear reactor was no reason for
Australia to rule out nuclear power. Labor, the Greens and some
security experts have warned that a nuclear power plant would be
an obvious target for a terrorist attack.

 But Senator Ellison said federal cabinet did not consider the
terror threat when deciding to hold an inquiry into nuclear
energy.

 "When you look at sources of energy you don't look at any
potential terrorist threat," Senator Ellison said the Nine
Network.

 "You look at what is best for the community and the way forward.

 "Energy sources are very important for the future of any
community and I think we're not about to be stymied or
restricted in that approach because of any threat of terrorism.

"I mean, we're going to continue living in the way we do. Once we 
change that, the terrorists win."

 A prime ministerial taskforce will report back by the end of
the year on whether Australia should develop a nuclear industry.

 Senator Ellison said cabinet discussed a range of measures to
protect infrastructure, but said a nuclear power plant was no
more a target than the electricity grid or a rail network.

 Greens leader Bob Brown said Senator Ellison's position was
"daft".

 "It's daft to say the least and it's really pig-ignorant of the
dangers of nuclear material coming into the hands of
terrorists," Senator Brown said.

 "It does make the threat of terrorists getting nuclear
materials or targeting a reactor real, and it must be a
consideration for any inquiry."

 Senator Brown said nuclear reactors and the transportation of
nuclear material held a vastly different attraction for
terrorists than coal-fired power stations or windmills.

 "We're in an age of handbag-sized nuclear bombs and so-called
dirty bombs, where the gaining of nuclear materials that can be
spread by conventional explosives are real options for
terrorists," he said.

 Opposition frontbencher Stephen Smith said the whole debate was
a distraction from Australia's reliance on oil from the Middle
East and soaring petrol prices.

 "If the Government wanted to have a good hard look at nuclear
power, why wasn't nuclear power part of the Government's
so-called energy white paper less than two years ago?" Mr Smith
said to the Ten Network.

 "We don't think that the economics are there for nuclear power
stations in Australia, let alone the national security risks
that go with that and the waste disposal risks that go with
that."

 Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the
taskforce was stacked in favour of nuclear power.

 "This is like asking the AFL commissioners to inquire into
what's the best footy code for Australia – it's been stacked
with nuclear proponents," Mr Albanese said to ABC television.

 In his fortnightly column with national newsagency AAP,
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley stressed Labor's commitment to
renewable energies like solar and wind power.

 "It is important to be categorical here – I firmly believe
nuclear power is the wrong way to go for Australia," Mr Beazley
said. 		  		 		 		 			Search for more stories on this topic on ,

| | | | | | Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
 51 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power a terror risk - Greens - 

From: AAP                       

June 11, 2006

CABINET'S failure to consider whether a nuclear reactor would be
a terrorist target before ordering an inquiry into nuclear
energy was "daft", the Australian Greens say. Justice Minister
Chris Ellison said cabinet did not take terrorism into account
when deciding to set up the inquiry because it was looking into
energy sources.

 "When you look at sources of energy you don't look at any
potential terrorist threat," Senator Ellison said to Nine
Network.

 Senator Ellison said cabinet discussed a range of measures to
protect infrastructure, but said a nuclear power plant was no
more a target than the electricity grid or a rail network.

 Greens leader Bob Brown said Senator Ellison was ignoring the
potential for terrorists to get their hands on enriched uranium
and nuclear fuel to create weapons.

 "It's daft to say the least and it's really pig-ignorant of the
dangers of nuclear material coming into the hands of
terrorists," Senator Brown said.

"The Government doesn't understand that their paving the way for 
nuclear enrichment or reactors in Australia encourages Indonesia, 
which has plans for up to 12 nuclear reactors and which the 
Government knows has real problems with terrorism.

 "It does make the threat of terrorists getting nuclear materials 
or targeting a reactor real, and it must be a consideration for 
any inquiry."

 Senator Brown said nuclear reactors and the transportation of
nuclear material held a vastly different attraction for
terrorists than coal-fired power stations or windmills.

 "We're in an age of handbag-sized nuclear bombs and so-called
dirty bombs, where the gaining of nuclear materials that can be
spread by conventional explosives are real options for
terrorists," Senator Brown said. 		  		 		 		 			Search for more
stories on this topic on , our news archive service. 


| | | | | | Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
 52 Sydney Morning Herald: Terror no reason to rule out nukes - govt - 

www.smh.com.au
 
June 11, 2006 - 11:44AM

Justice Minister Chris Ellison says the potential for a
terrorist strike on a nuclear reactor is no reason for Australia
to rule out nuclear power.

Labor, the Greens and some security experts have warned that a
nuclear power plant would be an obvious target for a terrorist
attack.

But Senator Ellison says federal cabinet did not consider the
terror threat when deciding to hold an inquiry into nuclear
energy.

"When you look at sources of energy you don't look at any
potential terrorist threat," Senator Ellison told the Nine
Network.

"You look at what is best for the community and the way forward.

"Energy sources are very important for the future of any
community and I think we're not about to be stymied or
restricted in that approach because of any threat of terrorism.

"I mean, we're going to continue living in the way we do. Once
we change that, the terrorists win."

A prime ministerial taskforce will report back by the end of the
year on whether Australia should develop a nuclear industry.

Senator Ellison said cabinet discussed a range of measures to
protect infrastructure, but said a nuclear power plant was no
more a target than the electricity grid or a rail network.

Greens leader Bob Brown said Senator Ellison's position was
"daft".

"It's daft to say the least and it's really pig-ignorant of the
dangers of nuclear material coming into the hands of
terrorists," Senator Brown said.

"It does make the threat of terrorists getting nuclear materials
or targeting a reactor real, and it must be a consideration for
any inquiry."

Senator Brown said nuclear reactors and the transportation of
nuclear material held a vastly different attraction for
terrorists than coal-fired power stations or windmills.

"We're in an age of handbag-sized nuclear bombs and so-called
dirty bombs, where the gaining of nuclear materials that can be
spread by conventional explosives are real options for
terrorists," he said.

Opposition frontbencher Stephen Smith said the whole debate was
a distraction from Australia's reliance on oil from the Middle
East and soaring petrol prices.

"If the government wanted to have a good hard look at nuclear
power, why wasn't nuclear power part of the government's
so-called energy white paper less than two years ago?" Mr Smith
told the Ten Network.

"We don't think that the economics are there for nuclear power
stations in Australia, let alone the national security risks
that go with that and the waste disposal risks that go with
that."

Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the
taskforce was stacked in favour of nuclear power.

"This is like asking the AFL commissioners to inquire into
what's the best footy code for Australia - it's been stacked
with nuclear proponents," Mr Albanese told ABC television.

In his fortnightly column with AAP, Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley stressed Labor's commitment to renewable energies like
solar and wind power.

"It is important to be categorical here - I firmly believe
nuclear power is the wrong way to go for Australia," Mr Beazley
said. 	

© 2006  AAP

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 53 AU ABC: Terrorist threat should not stop nuclear debate: Ellison.
        
11/06/2006. ABC News Online
 	
Update: Sunday, June 11, 2006. 12:42pm (AEST) 	 

"Push ahead ... Justice Minister Chris Ellison says the terrorist 
threat should not stymie the nuclear debate." 

The Federal Justice Minister says the threat of terrorism
against nuclear facilities should not deter the country from
entering the nuclear cycle.

 Senator Chris Ellison has just returned from the United States
and Britain, where he says he discussed the terrorism threat to
infrastructure.

 But with a federal inquiry considering nuclear power, he says
terrorism should not stifle the debate. 

"We're not about to be stymied or to be restricted in that
approach because of any threat of terrorism," Senator Ellison
said.

 Meanwhile the Federal Opposition has renewed its attack on the
nuclear inquiry, calling it biased.

 Former Telstra chief and nuclear physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski
is leading the investigation into the need for nuclear power and
uranium enrichment in Australia.

 The Opposition opposes such moves and yesterday the New South
Wales state Labor conference passed a motion against nuclear
power.

 Federal Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has
told ABC TV's Insiders program that the inquiry is pointless.

 "This is like asking the AFL commissioners to inquire into
what's the best footy code for Australia - it's been stacked
with nuclear proponents," he said.

 "The Prime Minister has said that it's inevitable that
Australia will develop nuclear power, so it's an inquiry in the
best terms of Yes Minister." 

*****************************************************************
 54 [DU-WATCH] The Mother of All Scams rears its ugly arse in Oz
 
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:04:30 -0500 (CDT)

Yes, folks, it's about DU - - -

The short version Gittus Report (about 9 pages) is at:

http://www.ansto.gov.au/Nuclear_Options_Paper_May061.pdf

Pithy coverage, though, is just below.  
Go to the end of this post a post-script (npi)*  by the compiler - - -

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1655802.htm
Broadcast: 05/06/2006

Nuclear power debate heats up
Reporter: Matt Peacock

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. By this time tomorrow night, we'll 
probably know who the Federal Government is going to commission to inquire 
into the viability of nuclear power in Australia and although that inquiry 
won't be asked to consider possible sites for power stations, a report 
released today by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology 
Organisation, ANSTO, suggests that up to five nuclear power stations would 
be needed along the east coast. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, wants what 
he's called a "full-blooded debate" on the subject, including issues of 
cost, nuclear waste and weapons proliferation. Government ministers cite the 
need to rein in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions as part of their 
motivation for considering going nuclear, although most environmental groups 
say that's not the answer. But another question mark over nuclear power goes 
to the economic feasibility, and whether investors will play without the 
promise of substantial Government subsidies. Matt Peacock reports.

TV ADVERTISEMENT: We need reliable electricity for the 21st century, but we 
also need clean air. With nuclear energy, we can have both.

MATT PEACOCK: This prime-time ad may have been pitched at American 
television viewers, but, it seems, some Australian Government ministers have 
been watching.

TV ADVERTISEMENT: Nuclear - the clean air energy.

BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: We have a responsibility in 2006 to have a 
responsible and mature debate in our country about whether there is a place 
for nuclear power generation.

IAN MACFARLANE, INDUSTRY AND RESOURCES MINISTER: From enrichment of uranium 
through to the possibility of generating nuclear power from uranium and 
then, of course, the safe disposal of the waste.

MATT PEACOCK: And today, the Government's nuclear research organisation 
released a study that says nuclear power makes economic sense.

IAN SMITH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ANSTO: It is economically viable. All the 
international reports from the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Japan, 
Canada show that, in fact, nuclear power is the cheapest way of producing 
electricity. The report that we commissioned to test the Australian 
conditions comes to the same conclusion.

DR MARK DIESENDORF, INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, UNSW: It's a 
complete rubbish and if one of my students produced something like that, 
they would fail.

MATT PEACOCK: According to environmental scientist Mark Diesendorf of the 
University of NSW, the ANSTO study assumes Government subsidies. He believes 
that nuclear will cost almost three times as much as coal.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: The study does not reveal the most fundamental, basic 
parameters of the problem; it doesn't tell us the basic capital cost of the 
nuclear power station; and it doesn't tell us the interest rates used on the 
capital, in order to calculate the cost of electricity. All it does is 
present us with a bottom line that suggests that given some subsidies from 
the Federal Government, nuclear power might become competitive.

MATT PEACOCK: That message is reinforced from the top end of town, too. Greg 
Houston is an energy specialist with the global economic consultants, NERA.

GREG HOUSTON, ENERGY CONSULTANT, NERA: And it's only going to happen, 
really, if the Government is willing to pick up the tab or pick up a lot of 
the tab.

MATT PEACOCK: And by 'tab' what are you talking about?

GREG HOUSTON: Billions of dollars. Billions of dollars.

MATT PEACOCK: In the US, though, President George Bush has seized on a 
revitalised nuclear industry as the answer to global warming.

GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: Nuclear power helps us protect the 
environment. And nuclear power is safe.

MATT PEACOCK: And with almost half the world's uranium reserves, Australia 
should at least be considering the nuclear option, according to the US 
industry's Scott Peterson.

SCOTT PETERSON, US NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: It makes sense, I think, for 
Australia to look really at diversifying their electricity production 
portfolio - certainly taking advantage of the coal resources that you have, 
but really looking at the vast uranium resources that you have; looking at 
enrichment technology to convert that into fuel for reactors; and looking at 
the new advanced reactor technology that's certainly well advanced over the 
last generation.

MATT PEACOCK: That generation will hardly be missed. Demolished last month, 
this plant in Oregon cost more to decommission than to build. During its 
troubled 30-year history, its customers paid a high price for their 
electricity. Once their power bills soared by 600%.

PETER CONNOLLY, SIERRA CLUB: It is sold as that it will be too cheap to 
metre; the nuclear power would be so cheap, you wouldn't even have to bill 
people for the energy. Well, now, 50 years later, it's been - we've seen 
that nuclear power has been the most expensive way ever found to boil water.

MATT PEACOCK: Environmentalists, like the Sierra Club's Peter Connolly, say 
nuclear's downsides of proliferation, safety and cost just don't make it 
viable.

PETER CONNOLLY: Trying to solve the problem of global warming by switching 
to nuclear power is like trying to get off cigarettes by going to crack.

MATT PEACOCK: The next generation reactors, though, says the industry will 
be safer.

SCOTT PETERSON: Essentially, they've eliminated a lot of the pumps, valves, 
piping, wiring in them; made them much easier to build modulely; and, 
really, from a safety standpoint, are taking advantage of gravity rather 
than pumps and valves to move water up.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: The reality is that any nuclear power stations built in 
the next few years would be the conventional old, dirty and dangerous 
nuclear power stations.

MATT PEACOCK: And Diesendorf even doubts that the new plants will save on 
greenhouse gases.

DR MARK DIESENDORF: Temporarily, it's true that nuclear power is low in its 
carbon dioxide emissions, but if you add up the emissions from the mining 
and milling and enriching of uranium, the building of the power station, its 
demolishment at the end of its life, the managing of nuclear waste, these 
become significant. Particularly, once we run out of high-grade uranium ore.

MATT PEACOCK: Currently, Australia exports raw uranium yellow cake; the next 
stage in the nuclear fuel cycle is enrichment. Here, at Lucas Heights, CEO 
and founder Michael Goldsworthy's company, Silex, has developed new laser 
enrichment technology that's just been bought by the US giant, General 
Electric.

MICHAEL GOLDSWORTHY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SILEX: I can't tell you exactly how it 
works because it's a classified technology, but essentially lasers can 
discreetly excite one isotope and not the other isotope and cause an effect 
which enables you to separate them.

MATT PEACOCK: President Bush has proposed that countries that enrich uranium 
form a kind of nuclear cartel. They would then rent their nuclear fuel out 
to user countries and take back the waste. It's whether Australia should 
join this new nuclear club that John Howard is now addressing.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER (19 MAY): It's not something that we're 
proposing at this point, certainly to join. And it's designed to reduce the 
number of people who process nuclear fuel, and we'll obviously keep a very 
close look at it and we'll follow it very carefully.

MICHAEL GOLDSWORTHY: I think we should be part of the club, because we have 
more uranium than anyone else in the world and secondly, our Silex 
technology is Australian-born and grown and it is going to the United 
States. So, I think, there is some scope there for Australia to be part of 
that process.

MATT PEACOCK: But for Greenpeace CEO Steve Shellhaven, any enrichment just 
makes the proliferation risk greater.

STEVE SHELLHAVEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, GREENPEACE: 20 or 30 countries have the 
technology to make nuclear weapons if they choose, and if Australia goes 
down the nuclear path and starts exporting more uranium to nuclear weapons 
countries, or if it starts to enrich uranium and spreading that material 
around the planet, then we'll get more countries that will be tempted to 
create nuclear weapons.

MATT PEACOCK: Finally, it comes down to money, and the question will be 
whose?

GREG HOUSTON: The only way it seems that you could imagine investors wanting 
to support nuclear would be if the Government mandated that they had to. So 
a lot of Government support, including taking care of the liabilities that 
exist at the end of any plant's life. Don't think investors are going to be 
rushing to this one without a lot of Government support.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And we'll follow this story up when the commission of inquiry 
is announced.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1655802.htm
) 2006 ABC | Privacy Policy

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1655783.htm

Last Update: Monday, June 5, 2006. 8:00pm (AEST)

Independence concerns: Professor Gittus runs a nuclear plant insurer.
ANSTO dismisses conflict of interest claims
By Stephen Long for PM

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has 
dismissed concerns about the independence of a report which has found 
nuclear power is price-competitive with coal-generated electricity.

The Greens have questioned the neutrality of the report's author, Professor 
John Gittus.

Professor Gittus runs Lloyd's of London Syndicate 1176, which insures almost 
all of the world's nuclear power stations.

But the head of ANSTO, Ian Smith, has defended the independence of the 
report.

"To say that's a conflict of interest is really stretching the point in that 
there's not likely to be a nuclear power station in Australia for 10 years," 
he said.

"How it was insured is not something that will be influenced by this 
report."

But Dr Mark Diesendorf, who researches sustainable energy and ecological 
economics at the University of New South Wales, is not convinced.

"My understanding is that [Professor Gittus's] very deeply embedded in the 
nuclear industry himself and that's he's held a number of positions in 
there," Dr Diesendorf said.
"It seems to me that there is a clear conflict of interest here."

Findings questioned
The ANSTO report is called Introducing Nuclear Power to Australia.

Both the organisation and the Federal Government maintain it shows that 
nuclear power is the world's cheapest source of energy.

But some of its key findings appear to undermine the economic case for 
nuclear power.

The report shows that unless the Government took on more than half the 
financial risk of building a first-of-a-kind reactor, nuclear energy would 
not be viable.

It says the nuclear power generated would cost twice as much as coal-fired 
power, and any private operator that took on the costs and risks would 
quickly go into liquidation.

Dr Diesendorf says this contradicts the claims that nuclear power is cheap, 
cost-effective and viable.
"I draw the opposite conclusion," he said.

"The report shows that very large subsidies would be required for nuclear 
power if it was introduced in Australia.

"What's more, the report uses as a case study for the economics, a nuclear 
power station that doesn't actually exist at present except on paper.
"So really this is pie in the sky."

The report says it would be cheaper to being producing nuclear power if 
Australia copies an established style of reactor.

But even then, the report says Government would need to pay more than 14 per 
cent of the construction cost to make it viable.

It would also need to subsidise the energy produced to the tune of about 21 
per cent for 12 years.

Insurance risks
The report also assumes that Government bears at least half the liability 
for any nuclear accident.

Mr Smith concedes that without that provision, nuclear power would be 
uninsurable.

"I think that nuclear viability is another topic which traditionally in the 
world, governments have picked up," he said.

"They've never had to pay anything for it but they have in fact undertaken 
to cover that risk because it then provides a greater degree of certainty in 
a difficult market to insure the risks."

Dr Diesendorf says this is further evidence that nuclear energy is not 
viable.
"That contradicts the claim that this is economic, because the financial 
risk has to be part of the market process," he said.

"So what this is saying is that the Australian Government wants to continue 
the same kind of subsidies to nuclear power that have been given over the 
last few decades in the United States and Britain.

"We're talking really about $US90 billion subsidy in the United States over 
the last 50 years."

 Questions are being asked tonight about the credibility of a new report 
promoting Australian nuclear power, because of its author's financial links 
to the nuclear industry.
[RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3]

 Related Stories
Nuclear power could 'damage' international relations
Four nuclear plants needed for economic viability: ANSTO
PM warns against nuclear 'fear campaign'
Howard tight-lipped on nuclear inquiry boss

Ex-Telstra chief to head nuclear review

) 2006 ABC | Privacy Policy
This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, 
Reuters, CNN and
the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.
AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time which is 10 hours ahead of UTC 
(Greenwich Mean Time)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1655716.htm

Credibility of nuclear report questioned
PM - Monday, 5 June , 2006  18:13:28

Reporter: Stephen Long

MARK COLVIN: Questions are being asked tonight about the credibility of a 
new report promoting Australian nuclear power, because of its author's 
financial links to the nuclear industry.

Professor John Gittus examined the economic case for power for the 
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO.

Professor Gittus happens to run a company that insures the vast majority of 
the world's nuclear power stations.

The Government and ANSTO are claiming that the report shows that nuclear 
power makes economic sense. And yet the detail of the report finds that 
building nuclear power stations would not be viable without massive 
Government support.

Economics Correspondent Stephen Long has been looking at the small print.

STEPHEN LONG: The report's called "Introducing Nuclear Power To Australia", 
and the disclosure comes on page 264 of its 267 pages.

It says the author, Professor John H Gittus, runs Lloyd's of London 
Syndicate 1176. It insures almost all of the world's nuclear power station, 
and makes big profits from that endeavour.

But the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which 
commissioned the report, denies that undermines its credibility.

ANSTO's Executive Director is Ian Smith:

IAN SMITH: To say that's a conflict of interest is really stretching the 
point, in that there's not likely to be a nuclear power station in Australia 
for 10 years, how it was insured is not something that will be influenced by 
this report.

STEPHEN LONG: But some experts say Professor Gittus is a paid up member of 
the nuclear club. Dr Mark Diesendorf researches sustainable energy and 
ecological economics at the University of New South Wales.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well my understanding is that he's very deeply embedded in 
the nuclear industry himself, and that's he's held a number of positions in 
there. And I have actually heard that he's actually runs a company that 
insures nuclear power stations.

STEPHEN LONG: Indeed it's disclosed that he runs a Lloyd's company that is 
the biggest insurer of nuclear installations, and insures just about all the 
nuclear installations in the world.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well then it seems to me that there is a clear conflict of 
interest here.

STEPHEN LONG: ANSTO and the Federal Government maintain the Gittus report 
shows that nuclear power is the world's cheapest source of energy. In fact, 
some of its key findings appear to undermine the economic case for nuclear 
power.

It looks at the cost of a new style or first of a kind reactor. And it shows 
that unless the Government took on more than half the financial risk of 
building it, nuclear energy would not be viable. It would cost twice as much 
as coal-fired power, and any private operator that took on the costs and 
risks, the report says, would quickly go into liquidation.

Mark Diesendorf says this contradicts the claims that nuclear power is 
cheap, cost effective and viable.

MARK DIESENDORF: I draw the opposite conclusion. The report shows that very 
large subsidies would be required for nuclear power if it was introduced in 
Australia.

And what's more, the report uses as a case study for the economics, a 
nuclear power station that doesn't actually exist at present except on 
paper. So really this is pie in the sky.

STEPHEN LONG: It'd be cheaper if Australia merely copied an established 
style of reactor. But even then, the Government would need to pay more than 
14 per cent of the construction cost to make it viable. And it would need to 
provide to subsidise the energy produced to the tune of about 21 per cent 
for 12 years, the report finds.

The report also assumes that Government bears at least half the liability 
for any nuclear accident, without which Ian Smith at ANSTO concedes, nuclear 
power would be uninsurable.

IAN SMITH: I think that nuclear viability is another topic which 
traditionally in the world, governments have picked up. They've never had to 
pay anything for it, but they have in fact undertaken to cover that risk 
because it then provides a greater degree of certainty in a difficult market 
to insure the risks.

STEPHEN LONG: Mark Diesendorf says this is further evidence that nuclear 
energy isn't viable.

MARK DIESENDORF: Well that contradicts the claim that this is economic, 
because the financial risk has to be part of the market process. So what 
this is saying is that the Australian Government wants to continue the same 
kind of subsidies to nuclear power that have been given over the last few 
decades in the United States and Britain. And we're talking really about $US 
90 billion subsidy in the United States over the last 50 years.

STEPHEN LONG: Britain meanwhile is now facing a 90 billion pound bill for 
the cost of cleaning up its ageing nuclear reactors. And that could lead to 
a rethink of plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in 
the UK.

MARK COLVIN: Economics Correspondent Stephen Long.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1655716.htm

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/chaucer/history.jsp

The history of Chaucer Syndicates Limited traces back to 1922, with the 
formation of Stewart and Hughman Limited (SHL) as a managing agency to 
manage Lloyd's syndicates. SHL was subsequently renamed Stewart Syndicates 
Limited (SSL), part of the Stewart Group, and, in 1996, became Chaucer 
Syndicates Limited (CSL).

In 1997 Hayward, Brick Stuchbery Holdings Limited (HBSH) was created to 
acquire CSL from the Stewart Group. The HBSH Group merged with Aberdeen 
Lloyd's Insurance Trust PLC (ALIT) in 1998, and the resultant group was 
renamed Chaucer Holdings PLC (the Group).

ALIT had been floated on the London Stock Exchange in 1993 as one of the 
first listed vehicles to provide investors with a limited liability 
participation in the Lloyd's market through participation on a number of 
syndicates.

Chaucer was created to form what is known as a Lloyd's Integrated Vehicle 
(or ILV), i.e. a company that controls both the managing agency services and 
underwriting capital provided to the syndicates under its management.

At the time of the merger, Chaucer managed four syndicates and provided 
underwriting capital to a number of other syndicates. The syndicate 
participations were sold in 1999 and, for the 2000 year of account onwards, 
the company focused its managing agency skills and underwriting capital on 
the 'in-house' Syndicates 587, 1084 and 1096.

In 1999, Chaucer acquired a Danish reinsurance operation, which was renamed 
Chaucer Underwriting A/S, from Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation. The 
operation, which commenced underwriting in 1990, was acquired to enhance 
Chaucer's ability to service and develop new and existing business within 
the European market.

During 2000, Chaucer introduced syndicate management services for third 
party insurance companies, specifically, Mitsui Sumitomo (Syndicate 3210) 
and Broadgate Syndicate 1301, now owned by Clal Insurance.

In 2001, Chaucer raised #18.5m through a new share issue to provide 
additional capital for underwriting and to acquire BRIT Insurance Holdings 
PLC's 17.9% interest in Chaucer Dedicated Limited, a Group controlled 
corporate member that supplied underwriting capacity to the in-house 
syndicates.

Additional funds were also raised in 2002 and 2003 to support underwriting 
and to take advantage of the favourable market conditions. In August 2002, 
Chaucer raised #19m in new shares and #20m in convertible unsecured 
subordinated loan stock and, in May 2003, raised an additional #40m in new 
shares.

In December 2002, Chaucer assumed the management of Cox Syndicate Management 
Limited's Nuclear Syndicate 1176 for the 2003 and subsequent years of 
account. The transfer allowed the company to continue development in its 
third party syndicate management division.
    [NOTE]
Nuclear Syndicate 1176 has, and continues to be, one of the most profitable 
syndicates at Lloyd's over recent years.

The merger of the three in-house Syndicates, 587, 1096 and 1084 was approved 
in August 2003 and a new divisional structure implemented for the newly 
combined operation, Chaucer Syndicate 1084.

For the 2004 year of account the underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate 
1084 was #400m and Nuclear Syndicate 1176 was #15m. The Group's underwriting 
interest in these syndicates is #310m.

In 2004, Chaucer acquired GE Frankona Limited's entire #51m interest on 
Syndicate 1084 to increase the Company's ownership to 98% of the syndicate 
for 2005. The Company also reached agreement with Quanta Capital Holdings 
Limited to provide managing agency services to its new Lloyd's venture, 
Syndicate 4000.

For the 2005 year of account the underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate 
1084 is #400m and Nuclear Syndicate 1176 is #18m. The Group's underwriting 
interest in these syndicates is #372m.

CSL, our wholly owned subsidiary, is the second largest managing agency at 
Lloyd's in 2005 with a total syndicate capacity under management of #853m.

In September 2005 CSL announced a minority buy-out of capacity on Syndicate 
1084 taking the Group's ownership to 100% of the capacity for the 2006 year 
of account.

In November 2005 the Group signed an agreement with PxRe Reinsurance Company 
to acquire its wholly owned subsidiary, PxRe Limited, which provides all the 
capital for Syndicate 1224, which ceased underwriting in the 2000 year of 
account, will close into Chaucer's Syndicate 1084, subject to the agreement 
of the reinsurance to close.

For the 2006 year of account the Underwriting capacity of Chaucer Syndicate 
1084 is #450m and Nuclear Syndicate is #22.5m. The Group's Underwriting 
interest in these syndicate's is #427m.

CSL is the third largest managing agency at Lloyd's for 2006 with a total 
syndicate capacity under management of #919m.

http://ww7.investorrelations.co.uk/chaucer/history.jsp 

-=-=-=-=-=-=

You know, I get so tired of hearing complaints about scientific cred.  

Gentle reader, do read the above again, about Professor John Gittus, scientist and businessman.

Yes, it is related to DU, we're talking about the next generation of DU factories - more reactors means more enrichment means more DU.    Silex, the Australian laser enrichment technology, promises to ramp up nuclear enrichment (and proliferation and DU production) like never before.

And those of you who crap on ad nauseum, about about Leuren and Doug and Bob and Miraki damaging the campaign, try to connect the dots - - -

Cheers,
Robert

* -  no pun intended

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
*****************************************************************
 55 SPI: Government, plaintiffs wait through Hanford downwinder appeals
    
[seattlepi.com] [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]   

Saturday, June 10, 2006 · Last updated 1:47 p.m. PT 

By SHANNON DININNY ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER                         

RICHLAND, Wash. -- At south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear
reservation, government workers continue cleaning up the mess:
clearing debris, tearing down buildings, and freeing soil and
groundwater of the toxic, radioactive brew left from 40 years of
plutonium production for the nuclear weapons arsenal. 		

Residents who have lived downwind of the site continue their
work as well - the work of waiting. 		

Since 1990, more than 2,300 people have sued over health
problems they believe were caused by exposure to radioactive
emissions from Hanford over the years. 		

A judge dismissed six of the 12 initial cases. A jury rejected
four more during two trials last year. Just two people, who
suffered from cancer, won damages against the government and the
contractors that managed the federal site at the time. The
awards totaled about $550,000. Both sides have appealed all of
the rulings. 		

The government, meanwhile, has spent millions of dollars
defending the cases. For some, that point - and the plaintiffs'
lack of success at trial - would raise questions about the
viability of the remaining cases. 		

But Darlene Martin, whose husband of 45 years died from cancer,
said the two victories give her hope. The losses are a "slap in
the face" to the people who are sick or who lost loved ones, she
said. 		

 [advertising] "Why not take those millions of dollars and make
restitution to these people?" Martin asked. "I want them to say
yes, we did it, and yes, it did cause this cancer, and yes, it
did kill your husband." 		

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
Contractors operated reactors and other facilities that
historical documents say resulted in intentional and accidental
releases of toxic chemicals and radiation. 		

Residents only learned of the emissions when the government
declassified thousands of documents in 1986. 		

People in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and the Marshall Islands have
received compensation for being exposed to radiation during the
atomic buildup. Downwinders at the Hanford site have had a more
difficult time. 		

"Most of the people who have been harmed by the nuclear weapons
program in the United States have received some kind of
compensation, one way or another," said Louise Roselle,
plaintiffs' attorney based in Cincinnati. 		

But in Eastern Washington, "the government refuses to recognize
the harm and has not compensated them," she said. "That's hard
to explain." 		

Health studies have offered differing opinions on whether
Hanford downwinders suffered substantial or chronic exposures
that threatened their health. 		

The downwinder cases are largely based on the release of
iodine-131, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear weapons
production. 		

Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid, which regulates the
body's metabolism. Most of the plaintiffs have thyroid
conditions, such as cancer, hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism.
To succeed at trial, plaintiffs had to prove they were "more
likely than not" harmed by radioactive iodine gases released
during Hanford operations. 		

That can be difficult to prove, in part because thyroid
disorders are not caused only by exposure to radiation. 		

Richard Eymann, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the
two victories show downwinders with cancers can win their cases.
And attorneys learned a great deal from the losses, particularly
that they need to simplify their case. 		

"We're very confident in retrying those cases and additional
cases, that we can prevail," he said. 		

Attorneys for the contractors have said all along it is not
possible to link their clients' activities to the downwinders'
health. The government, which indemnified the contractors under
the Price-Anderson Act, must pay any damage awards. 		

The verdicts proved that most of the claims have no merit, said
Kevin Van Wart, whose Chicago law firm is representing General
Electric Co., E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co. and UNC Nuclear Inc. 		

"For us, the prospect of a successful defense is only going to
get stronger - and the score is already 10-to-2," Van Wart said.
		

A new wrinkle was added in March, when a jury awarded more than
$553 million to more than 12,000 residents near the Rocky Flats
nuclear site outside of Denver. The jury ruled that Energy
Department contractors allowed plutonium from the weapons plant
to contaminate nearby land. 		

Attorneys have said that state and federal laws will likely
limit the payout to $352 million, in a case that also dates back
16 years. The defendants plan to appeal. 		

Regardless, the Colorado verdict should change the way the
federal government views its risk in downwinder cases, said
Roselle, who also was a plaintiffs' attorney in the Rocky Flats
case. 		

If it were a corporation instead of the federal government, the
defendant might say, "Maybe I need to limit my risk. Maybe I
need to settle these cases," Roselle said. 		

Nothing in the Colorado case applies to Hanford, Van Wart
countered. The Rocky Flats case was a class-action case
involving property damage, while Hanford involves a series of
personal injury claims where the key issue is causation. 		

A settlement offer remains on the table, Van Wart said. Under
the proposal, those with thyroid cancer who had met a set
threshold for exposure would receive $150,000. Those with
thyroid diseases or nodules would receive less, he said. 		

Eymann called the settlement offer unworkable. By his
estimation, the total offer amounts to about $15 million -
nowhere near enough to cover his clients' medical bills. 		

"I just know that the settlement figure would be less than we
would receive by verdicts overall," he said. 		

Darlene Martin agrees. Her husband Dave, who grew up in the
small town of Connell northeast of Hanford, died last fall at
age 66. 		

"We watched him die for nine years, inch by inch. In the end, he
couldn't see and he couldn't talk. All he could do was squeeze
my hand," she said. "Dave made us promise that we would not let
this drop, that we would continue on, and I'm keeping my
promise." 		

--- 		

On the net: 		

http://www.hanford.gov 		

http://www.downwinders.com 	                 

[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 56 TheStar.com: How many minutes to midnight?
 
Sun. Jun. 11, 2006. | Updated at 09:47 PM 

A high-level panel convenes to check the state of the `doomsday 
clock'

JOHN POLANYISPECIAL TO THE STAR

The timing of my arrival in Chicago last weekend for a
discussion of doomsday scenarios with the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists had, of course, nothing to do with the concurrent
arrest of 17 alleged terrorists in my hometown of Toronto. But,
as usual, one can make a link. The 17 could turn out to be a
bunch of ignoramuses who mistook crime for idealism. Nations
that defend their ideals with nuclear weapons could some day
invite comparison, genocide being an acknowledged international
crime.

The meeting in Chicago was occasioned by the need to re-set, or
maybe re-vamp, the Bulletin's famous "doomsday clock." For 60
years, starting in 1947, the hands of that clock, pictured on
the front cover of the magazine, have warned of the degree of
nuclear peril. The artist who designed the clock set the hands
at seven minutes to midnight, for aesthetic reasons. 

It didn't take long, however, for the editors to realize that it
might, from time to time, be re-set. At first it ticked year by
year toward midnight, reaching a frightening two minutes to by
1953, the year that the United States and the Soviet Union both
exploded primitive hydrogen bombs. The much vaunted secret of
the bomb, on which peace was supposed to depend, seemed no
longer to be a secret.

Ensuing decades saw the minute hand draw back from midnight as
arms-control agreements (many proposed in the Bulletin) became a
part of the international debate. But the hand crept forward
again as U.S.-Soviet relations stumbled over familiar issues:
"deadlocked talks," "conflict in Afghanistan," "repression of
human rights," "terrorist activities" and the "widening gap
between rich and poor nations."

But hope remained, as it always will. In 1990, democracy came to
Eastern Europe with a rush. Then both super-powers signed the
long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The
custodians of the clock set it back to an unprecedented 17
minutes to midnight.

It didn't last. Poorly guarded nuclear stockpiles in Russia,
coupled with the burgeoning interest of states and "non-state
actors" (terrorists) in acquiring nuclear weapons, caused fresh
alarm. When, in 1998, India and Pakistan elected to become
nuclear powers, the hands of the clock moved forward again, at
first to nine minutes to midnight and then to the canonical
seven minutes to midnight where they had begun. 

There the clock hands stand today, as they did four years ago.
The clock, now grown a little faint on the cover of the
Bulletin, appears to have stopped. The participants in the
Chicago meeting were there to examine its state. Not
surprisingly, they found that the clock ticks on, though we no
longer see its hands as clearly.

The experts around the table included specialists in pandemics
induced by genetic engineering, mayhem from cyber-warfare, and
enveloping goo from uncontrolled nano-technology. 

Shivering in their air-conditioned meeting room, they lamented
the imminent fuel shortage as well as the ominous signs of
global warming. But in the background at all times lurked the
peril that heightens others: the instruments of Armageddon.

To some, this reference to nuclear weaponry will seem quaint. A
political scientist at the meeting, who draws his audiences from
students with an interest in current affairs, distributes
questionnaires to his class at the start of term to assess their
level of knowledge. A typical question is: "How many nuclear
weapons remain in the world?" Answers range chaotically from
zero up.

The present nuclear arsenal is estimated to comprise some 30,000
nuclear warheads. Additionally, there are stockpiles of nuclear
materials — enriched uranium and plutonium — sufficient to
construct about 30,000 more. As for the destructive power of
such devices, it is enough to note that the appearance of a
small aircraft bearing one would, in the ancient language of
TNT, correspond to the simultaneous arrival of 10,000
conventional bombers over that point.

This was the reality that confronted the founders of the
Bulletin half a century ago. It has not changed, except in its
magnitude and complexity. Many nuclear weapons have been
retired, but new ones have taken their place. In parts of the
world, notably in the U.S. and Russia, thousands, mounted on
missiles, are kept ready for firing in minutes. 

The decision to fire them will be made on an ad hoc basis, under
the worst possible circumstances. Listen to the cautious report
of the Center for American Progress, entitled "Restoring
American Military Power (Washington, January 2006):

"The decision to use nuclear weapons rests with the president
alone. There is no formula at the president's disposal. The
president would have to make the call during a period that is
likely to be characterized by significant uncertainty and
enormous stress, with time being of the essence."

At the same time, new uses are being suggested for nuclear
weapons by influential zealots in the U.S., new capabilities by
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, new rationales (deterring
terrorist attack) by President Jacques Chirac of France. 

Meanwhile, arms control moves at a glacial pace, if at all. The
only agreement that can affect the worst excesses of the nuclear
age is the 2002 Moscow Treaty (the Strategic Offensive Reduction
Treaty — SORT) that is supposed to reduce the number of
intercontinental ballistic missiles in the U.S. and Russia to
about 4,000 in total by 2012, over 20 years after the Cold War
ceased to provide any justification for their existence.

Old habits, one might say, die hard. But that is too complacent
a summary. Military postures and the threats they entail can be
expected ultimately to translate into actions. No nation will,
of course, want to use nuclear weapons. All will, however, want
to prevail, and, failing that, to escape humiliation. These are
difficult demands to meet at every hand in a world of towering
weaponry.

The greatest danger stems from misunderstanding. Since the
purposes of nuclear weapons, with their vast potential for
destruction, will forever be unclear, their very existence is an
invitation to misunderstanding.

The la la land of unreality extends, however, well beyond the
nuclear. 

From the vantage point of nuclear-armed China, to give an
alarming example, Taiwan is a part of the mainland. From the
vantage point of Taiwan, a democracy, it just as clearly is not. 

On the other side of the world the United States, with the
conventional and nuclear forces at its command, is committed to
maintaining both these conflicting realities by means of a third
dubious proposition, namely that this U.S. commitment
constitutes a vital national interest. The Cuban Missile Crisis
provided a less obvious fuse leading to the nuclear powder keg.

The future, the participants in Chicago agreed tritely, is
replete with unknowns. Nuclear terrorism represents a
frightening prospect. How, though, would it figure on the scale
of doomsday? Most obviously if a terrorist attack were planned
to provoke nuclear war.

And global warming? That is a very real threat, in the longer
run. It does not take much imagination to picture protest and
panic among its multitude of victims. 

Rather than wait for help, they may resort to arms. The wider
the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, the more fearful the
consequences.

One comes back to the same point. It is vital to reduce our
decades-long addiction to nuclear weapons, to decrease their
number, end their production and outlaw their use. This, of
course, presumes a concern for the primacy of law over war, a
quest we have temporarily abandoned. 

Temporarily, since we shall discover that we have only a limited
amount of time. We would do well to keep an eye on the clock.


Nobel Prize Laureate John Polanyi is a professor at the 
University of Toronto.

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 57 Bristol Press: City, state veterans leaders seek munitions study

By Steve Collins,

06/10/2006

BRISTOL - During a campaign stop in Bristol, U.S. Senator Joe 
Lieberman said he may try to amend a defense spending bill next 
week to add money for a study about the impact of depleted 
uranium munitions on the health of veterans.

 "We need an independent study," the Connecticut Democrat said
Friday.
 				 			
Advocates for veterans have been saying for years they are
concerned that the weakly radioactive, dense metal used in
modern-day munitions may have exposed hundreds of thousands of
soldiers to a range of health hazards.

 They argue the U.S. government has done little to follow up the
reports or lend a hand to veterans who may be suffering because
of exposure to the material.

 State Representative Roger Michele, a Bristol Democrat from the
77th District, called depleted uranium "the Agent Orange of this
war" and asked for Lieberman's help in raising the issue on the
federal level.

 Michele, who co-chairs the General Assembly's Veterans Affairs
Committee, said it is a big issue and that comprehensive testing
is needed to find out what's really gone on with it.

 He said that soldiers are coming home from battle with a range
of health problems that might be connected to depleted uranium.

 Michele said he believes that depleted uranium is "causing an
awful lot of problems, like birth defects" and that a testing
regimen is needed for returning veterans to find out how
widespread the problem is.

 City Councilor Art Ward, a Democrat who works as a veterans
counselor for the state, said that experts haven't pinpointed
particular problems but most think there's a major issue with
depleted uranium.

 "It's more obvious that it is than it isn't," Ward told
Lieberman during the senator's campaign stop at Carmine's
Italian Grill.

 Lieberman said that if there is a question, the federal
government has a responsibility to veterans to find out answers.
He said that a defense appropriations bill that the Senate plans
to take up Monday would be a good vehicle for adding funding to
cover the necessary study.

 "It may be that we can get an amendment in to get a study,"
Lieberman said. "It's short notice, but I think we can do it."
 
©The Bristol Press 2006                                         

©2006 The Bristol Press -- a Journal Register Property. All
Rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 58 FOX 12: Downwinder Rally

Boise - 

Downwinders wanting to be heard, and seeking justice. 

Victims and their families gathered in Emmett Sunday demanding
answers and resolve.   

Organizers of the  rally say repercussions of nuclear testing
during the 1950's are still being felt in the small community,
and that besides raising awareness about their plight, they want
government officals held accountable for recognizing Idaho
Downwinders . 

"I have forty members of my family that have been affected since
the '50's, ten  have died from cancer." 

The illnesses may differ, but the stories remain remarkably
similar for Downwinders and their families. 

Many believe the health problems from cancer to diabetes are
directly linked to nuclear testing that took place in the Nevada
desert some 50 years ago. 

Helen Scott lost both her husband and son from complications of
cancer.  

"I don't know of any other place it would have come from except
being on the farm in the early years." 

Today, Helen and dozens others are demanding justice and
attention to the Downwinder plight 

Currently, the government is compensating victims of nuclear
fallout in several western states, but not those affected right
here in idaho.   

"Why would they not pay Idaho, they've paid Nevada and other
states? Why not Idaho when we got hit the hardest?" 

Helen says politicians are turning a blind eye to the issue at
stake.   

"Why are we being ignored? Why didn't we get added?  The
senators from idaho said they would fight for it, but i don't
think they've done much of anything." 

Representative Calos Bilao says he sympathetic to downwinders,
and that government leaders needs to start listening.   

"The only reason that this has come forward is that certain
individuals within the community have brought it to make it a
headline issue. That's the only way we're going to get our
congressional leaders to respond."   

Tona says five hundred people in hard hit Emmett are suffering
or have died from the effects of nuclear fallout, but she says
rallies like today's are about more than government
compensation.   

"Its not necessarily about compensation, but about innocent
people being tested on by their own government."   

      All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KTRV. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 UPI: Atomic vets angry over delays
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

6/10/2006 8:01:00 PM -0400                              

AUSTIN, Texas, June 10 (UPI) -- About 1,400 compensation claims
from U.S. military veterans who served in bomb test areas and
bombed cities in Japan are waiting for review. 

Men who believe they have cancer because of long-ago exposure to
nuclear fallout are bitter about the delay, the Austin (Texas)
American-Statesmen reported. 

Thomas Caffarello of Orlando, Fla., monitored radiation levels
during atomic bomb tests in the Marshall Islands in 1948. He
suffers from thyroid cancer, urinary bladder cancer and skin
cancer, which he blames on his exposure to radiation. 

"They're waiting for all of us to die," he told the newspaper. 

A federal advisory panel, the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose
Reconstruction -- which includes physicists and doctors --
believes that only one in 1,000 of the veterans have cancers
that can be blamed on their military service. The estimate is
based on the amount of exposure. 

The panel held a two-day hearing in Austin on Thursday and
Friday. 

"There's a misunderstanding among the entire American public,"
said retired Navy Vice Admiral James Zimble, the board's
chairman and a former Navy surgeon general. "There's an
unrealistic fear of ionizing radiation."

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 60 Guardian Unlimited: Reid Calls for More Intelligence Oversight
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday June 11, 2006 7:01 AM

AP Photo NY134 

By KEN RITTER 

Associated Press Writer 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid made a
pitch Saturday to enlist bloggers as a Democratic force in
upcoming elections, and said he'll ask Congress for stiffer
reporting requirements for the president and the intelligence
community. 

``I know fighters when I see them. You're fighters,'' Reid said
as he began a warmly received keynote speech to the YearlyKos
Convention of Internet bloggers at a Las Vegas Strip resort. 

Reid, D-Nev., said he intends to introduce legislation in coming
days to hold senior Bush administration officials accountable
for statements on Iran - similar to the Democratic fight to hold
them accountable for their statements about the Iraq war. 

``The White House cherry-picked and politicized intelligence to
sell the war,'' Reid said. ``All of us as Americans need to know
if we were intentionally misled, I think we were, to go to war
in Iraq, so we can make sure it never, never happens again.'' 

The audience of about 1,000 at the Riviera hotel-casino ballroom
included members of a liberal blogosphere who became involved in
politics during Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean's bid for president in 2004. 

They cheered a video produced by a 15-year-old conference
attendee that cast first-ever conventioneers as patriots,
motivators and - over images of headlines reporting President
Bush's low approval ratings - representatives of a national
majority. 

``This is a paradigm shift taking place,'' said Ann Reinhart,
45, a writer from Los Angeles who said she contributed money
recently to campaigns in Montana and Connecticut. ``People are
finding their voice. People are doing it themselves.'' 

Many waved placards that were provided reading ``Give 'Em Hell,
Harry,'' and applauded Reid's declaration that ``Iran cannot and
will not be another Iraq.'' 

``Because of you, no attack will go unanswered,'' Reid told the
audience. ``Because of you, no lie will avoid the truth.'' 

Reid's proposed bill, called the Iran Intelligence Oversight
Act, would require an updated national intelligence estimate on
Iran, with an unclassified summary made public. 

It also would require the president to report to Congress his
objectives and strategies for Iran. 

The administration's national intelligence director would have
to show Congress that he has a process in place for reviewing
administration officials' statements and ensuring they are
consistent with the work of professional intelligence analysts. 

``I have no doubt the White House won't like this requirement,''
Reid said, ``but after Iraq, the American people deserve nothing
less.'' 

Responding to Reid's remarks, the White House declined to
address the senator's proposals directly. 

``We are pursuing a diplomatic solution to the current situation
with Iran,'' said Christie Parell, a White House spokeswoman.
She pointed to the most recent European proposal calling for
Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing before
entering talks aimed at defusing tensions over nuclear
development. 

``We look forward to a response from the Iranian regime,''
Parell said. ``And we look forward to continuing to keep
Congress informed as we pursue a diplomatic solution.'' 

Reid, who lives about an hour south of Las Vegas, was the top
Democrat among several at the convention. Others included Sen.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former presidential candidate and
retired Gen. Wesley Clark, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and
Dean. 

``Democrats may be a minority in Congress, but we speak for the
majority of Americans,'' Reid said. ``I believe that. Don't
you?'' 

Republican party spokesman Tucker Bounds characterized the
convention as proof that ``the squeaky wheels, no matter how
wobbly, get all the Democrats' oil.'' 

Convention executive Gina Cooper dubbed the four-day gathering,
``people-powered politics in action.'' Some attendees who spent
four days putting faces to words posted by Internet Web log, or
blog, authors and readers, saw strength in their numbers. 

``I think what we've learned is, we've got a community,'' said
P.Z. Myers, 49, a University of Minnesota biology professor from
Morris, Minn. ``It's more than people just sitting and chatting
over the wires.'' 

--- 

On the Net: 

YearlyKos: http://www.yearlykos.org 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 61 GLW: Martin Ferguson and the nuclear debate
 
http://www.greenleft.org.au Green Left Weekly"

Jim Green 

Labor’s resources spokesperson Martin Ferguson is leading the
charge for the ALP to drop its opposition to new uranium mines.
This is despite the fact that a recent Newspoll found that 78%
of ALP voters, and 53% of Coalition voters, oppose more uranium
mines. 

A number of Ferguson’s arguments in favour of new uranium mines
are circular. He argues that with or without a change of ALP
policy, Australia is likely to become the world’s largest
uranium supplier with the planned expansion of the Roxby Downs
mine in South Australia. 

That is true, but it’s hardly an argument for supporting new
uranium mines. Ferguson ignores the options of phasing out, or
immediately stopping, the uranium mining and export industry. He
argues instead that Labor’s no-new-mines policy is “half
pregnant” and illogical. But it is logical as a phase-out policy
which avoids potential legal challenges and compensation claims
that would arise if a future Labor government immediately
stopped uranium mining. 

Ferguson claims that the existing policy discriminates in favour
of existing uranium mining companies and against other potential
uranium miners. He ignores the option of levelling the playing
field by putting an end to uranium mining altogether. 

In a March 20 briefing paper, which Ferguson is circulating
within the ALP and to trade unions, he states: “State and
Territory Labor governments which have knowingly allowed uranium
exploration, will come under pressure to allow the development
of discoveries within the next few years: if they reject mining
applications, it will raise questions about sovereign risk for
mining investors in Australia.” 

But uranium exploration companies are well aware of Labor’s
policy of opposition to new uranium mines. Labor state
governments or a future Labor federal government face no legal
risk. Further, state Labor governments could put an end to the
current situation whereby they allow, and sometimes subsidise,
uranium exploration. 
Clean energy options
 

In the January 13 Australian, Ferguson stated that, “Abandoning
traditional base load power in favour of renewables would result
in an indefinite global economic depression condemning hundreds
of millions of the world’s poorest people to starvation”. 

Rubbish. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
concedes that small-scale renewable energy sources are the most
appropriate options for the billions of people living in rural
areas of Third World countries. A phased transition from dirty
and dangerous energy sources — fossil fuel and nuclear power —
to renewable energy sources can be achieved at modest cost.
While the costs will accrue over the decades, renewables are in
some cases cheaper than the dirty and dangerous energy sources
(especially if externalities are accounted for), and the expense
of renewables can be off set by savings made through energy
efficiency and conservation measures. 

A vast body of research gives the lie to Ferguson’s claims on
the economics of clean energy. 

For example: 


  + A 2003 report from AEA Technology to the UK Department of
Trade and Industry calculates that annual abatement costs of
about 0.5% GDP will suffice to achieve greenhouse emissions
reductions of 60-70%, and that over a 50-year period annual
growth of GDP will only be reduced by about 0.01% p.a. 


  + The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy has identified
that energy consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and
residential sectors could be reduced by 20-30% with the adoption
of commercially available technologies with an average payback
of four years. 


  + Energy efficiency measures are shown in a US study to
deliver almost seven times the greenhouse gas emissions
reductions as nuclear power per dollar invested. 


  + A May study by AGL, Frontier Economics and the World Wide
Fund-Australia shows that Australians could pay as little as
$250 each — or 43 cents per week per person over 24 years — to
achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the
electricity industry by 2030. 

Ferguson frequently cites growing energy demand in China and the
Chinese regime’s plan to expand nuclear power. In fact, it is
planning to increase nuclear’s share of electricity generation
from 2% to 4% and to increase the share of renewables to 15%.
Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage China to abandon its nuclear
expansion plan and to increase its renewables target to 17%
instead? 
Social and environmental impacts
 

Ferguson has been largely silent on the negative impacts of
uranium mining on Aboriginal communities. At a public debate in
Melbourne on June 5, he was repeatedly asked to explain what he
intends to do to redress the indefensible situation whereby the
Roxby Downs mine is exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage
Protection Act. He avoided the question. 

In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states that, “Not all uranium
suppliers enforce the same world class safety and environmental
standards as Australian State and Territory Governments”. 

But the safety and environmental standards at Australia’s
uranium mines are inadequate. The Roxby Indenture Act, which
exempts Roxby Downs from the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Act,
also exempts the mine from the South Australian Environmental
Protection Act and the Water Resources Act. 

A 2003 report by the Senate References and Legislation
Committee, endorsed by the ALP committee members, found “a
pattern of under-performance and non-compliance” in the uranium
mining industry. It also identified “many gaps in knowledge and
found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent
of contamination or its impact on the environment”, and it
concluded that changes were necessary “to protect the
environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible
damage”. 

It’s difficult to understand Ferguson’s promotion of the nuclear
industry given that he is well aware of the intractable waste
management problems. In a speech to a uranium conference on
October 11, 2005, he said: “We do not even have a solution for
the safe disposal of low and intermediate level nuclear waste
generated in our own country, let alone a clear view of the
solution for high level nuclear waste generated around the globe
from nuclear power operations.” 

In his March 20 paper, Ferguson states Australia “has the
opportunity to lead the world as a responsible supplier of
uranium for peaceful purposes” by, among other things,
“stewarding uranium from cradle to grave”. It’s hard to know
what he means other than Australia accepting high-level nuclear
waste produced in nuclear power reactors around the world, in
particular from countries using Australian uranium. 
Export revenue and jobs
 

Ferguson also states that, “States and Territories, particularly
South Australia and the Northern Territory, are dependent on new
mines, including uranium, for future jobs, economic growth,
exports and revenue”. 

No they aren’t. Uranium exports account for less than one half
of 1% of Australia’s export revenue. Even with the proposed
tripling of uranium production at Roxby Downs (which will double
Australia’s overall exports from the current level of 10-12,000
tonnes annually), it is highly unlikely that uranium would
account for more than 1% of export revenue. 

Ferguson argues that permitting new uranium mines will allow
unions like the Australian Workers Union to pursue coverage and
ensure mines are world class, open up more mining jobs for
members, and ensure the safety of workers. 

Uranium mining makes even less of a contribution to employment
than it does to export revenue. Uranium mining companies are
notoriously anti-union. There is limited union coverage of
uranium industry workers, and none at all at Roxby Downs. 

There will be more jobs — and safer and unionised jobs — by
pursuing a clean energy future. As Neale Towart wrote in Workers
Online in February: “For workers, the scope for decent and
rewarding work in the renewables sector far outstrips the
potential employment in the current energy industry regime. Job
creation in Europe through various renewable energy scenarios
developed in 2002 show the vast potential. Greener energy
sources in general employ far more people than more polluting
sources. Nuclear power sustains around one sixth of the jobs
sustained by wind energy, per unit of power produced. Wind
energy is four times better than coal at sustaining jobs.” 
Nuclear weapons’ proliferation
 

At the June 5 debate, Ferguson conceded that there are many
serious problems with the IAEA’s safeguards inspection system,
which attempts to prevent the military use of ostensibly
peaceful nuclear facilities and materials. 

There are several sets of problems with the IAEA’s safeguards
system: 


  + A range of technical and practical problems, such as the
routine accounting discrepancies arising from factors such as
the unavoidable imprecision in estimating the rate of production
of plutonium in nuclear power reactors. 


  + The safeguards system is chronically under resourced. IAEA
director-general Dr Mohamed ElBaradei recently complained that
the safeguards system operates on a “shoestring budget ...
comparable to a local police department”. 


  + According to ElBaradei, the IAEA’s basic safeguards
inspection rights are “fairly limited” and the system “clearly
needs reinforcement”, and he has complained about “half-hearted”
efforts to strengthen the safeguards system. 


  + The NPT enshrines an “inalienable right” of member states to
all “civil” nuclear technologies, including dual-use
technologies with both peaceful and military applications. In
other words, the NPT enshrines the “right” to develop a nuclear
weapons “threshold” or “breakout” capability. 

Ferguson did not challenge these arguments, so it’s difficult to
see how he can support Australia’s uranium export industry. 

Ferguson said last August 23 that “Australia is one of the most
responsible exporters of uranium in the world”. But Australia’s
uranium is as likely to be diverted to the production of weapons
of mass destruction as any other country’s uranium. All uranium
exporting countries are entirely reliant on the inadequate and
under-resourced safeguards inspection system of the IAEA. 

[Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the
Earth. See the new FoE publication, Yellowcake Country:
Australia’s Uranium Industry, at
<http://www.foe.org.au>.] 

From Green Left Weekly, June 14, 2006. 

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW   	 
*****************************************************************
 62 Baltimore Examaminer: EnergySolutions buys nuclear waste firm - 

Examiner.com
 
Sunday, June 11, 2006   									 									

 Earle Eldridge, The Examiner

 Jun 10, 2006 7:00 AM (1 day ago)                                                                               BALTIMORE -

EnergySolutions, a private nuclear waste treatment firm based in
Salt Lake City has completed its $396 million purchase of
Duratek, Inc. in Columbia, S.C., buying up Duratek’s 14.9
million outstanding shares at $22 per share, company officials
said.

By Friday, Duratek had changed its name to EnergySolutions and
its stock symbol DRTK was no longer trading on the NASDAQ market.

Duratek, formed in 1990, helps utilities and governments process
low-level nuclear waste on site prior to shipment. It has about
1,200 employees nationwide with about 100 in Columbia
responsible for administrative work, said Diane Brown,
Duratek’s vice president of investor relations.

For Duratek, the acquisition made sense because the company was
looking to build its international business, Brown said.

“Our services are complimentary,” Brown said. “We are both
well known in the industry.” 

Steve Creamer, CEO of EnergySolutions, said Duratek will help
the company move into more markets.

“Duratek is an integral part of our company and our objective
to be a major international nuclear service supplier committed
to meeting the needs of government and the nuclear industry.”

Robert E. Prince, CEO of Duratek, who will step down, said the
acquisition “provided very significant current value for our
shareholders.”

Group opposes Acquistion

The acquisition was opposed by Healthy Environment Alliance of
Utah, (HEAL Utah) an environment advocacy group based in Salt
Lake City.

With the acquisition, EnergySolutions now controls two of the
three sites in the nation where nuclear waste can be disposed,
said James Groenewold, director of HEAL Utah.

HEAL Utah fears that with fewer players, there won’t be much
competition, which creates checks and balances for the nuclear
waste industry, Groenewold said.

eeldridge@baltimoreexaminer.com 									 									Examiner
					 								   								      								   	 														
									 										 									 									 										 											
*****************************************************************
 63 SF Chronicle: Waste storage dilemma crimps nuclear future

Sunday, June 11, 2006

[Mark Somerville, a radiation protection physicist, gazes ...]
[The concrete foundation for a new waste storage facility ...]
[PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is on the central coas...]
[Susan and Jack Biesek live near the plant and worry about...]
More... 

Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County -- In a quiet, 
air-conditioned room deep inside the Diablo Canyon nuclear power 
plant sits a small pool filled with water colored an unnatural 
blue. It's packed with radioactive waste. 

The pool holds roughly half of all the used fuel ever pulled
from the plant's reactors. The other half sits in a second
concrete tank nearby, slowly cooling beneath 25 feet of water.
Some fuel rods have been there about 20 years. 

Both pools are nearly full. Neither was designed to store this
much waste. But there's nowhere else to put it. 

The government long ago promised Diablo's owner, Pacific Gas and
Electric Co., that it would haul away the waste and entomb it
deep below Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But, in the face of
unrelenting opposition from Nevada residents irate over the
prospect of becoming a dumping ground for nuclear waste, the
repository never opened. 

With the nation's appetite for energy growing, the U.S. nuclear
industry appears poised for a renaissance. President Bush has
made building nuclear plants, for the first time in decades, a
cornerstone of his energy policies. And some former foes are
willing to give the technology another look, lured by the
promise of generating abundant power without belching greenhouse
gases from more fossil fuel plants. 

But the industry and its supporters in Washington still have not
resolved one of the biggest issues that derailed nuclear power
in the 1970s and 1980s -- what to do with the waste, which
remains radioactive for thousands of years. Yucca Mountain
remains bottled up by Nevada politicians. 

One alternative would be to recycle spent fuel rods, extracting
radioactive material for reuse and reducing the amount of waste
that would need to be stored. But the idea has long been blocked
by fears that plutonium removed from old rods could fall into
the hands of terrorists or rogue countries trying to build
nuclear weapons. 

So Diablo and other nuclear plants must keep their waste on-site
-- indefinitely. PG installed replacement racks that pack more
rods into Diablo's pools and has even started building another
storage facility that could cost up to $200 million on a
hillside behind the plant. 

"The government hasn't lived up to its contracts, so what's
happening now is Plan B," said David Vosburg, a PG project
manager. "The extra racks are filling up. The same thing's
happening across the country." 

Extra storage sites next to nuclear plants, however, won't solve
the problem. They will just buy time. 

"You just have to hope that there's a national solution, because
this won't be a Diablo issue -- it will be a national issue,"
said Richard Hagler, project engineer for the new storage
facility. 

Anyone living near a nuclear plant also lives near a long-term
storage site for radioactive waste. Those facilities aren't
long-term by the standards of engineers, who must consider what
happens to radioactive material over centuries. Homeowners,
however, find themselves spending decades close to used fuel
rods, with no end in sight. 

"They promised us that the waste would be removed and the
government would come to the rescue," said Jack Biesek, 58, who
lives in a lushly wooded canyon about 7 miles downwind of
Diablo. "I think it's going to stay there. The handwriting's on
the wall." 

Without a long-range solution for the waste problem, America's
much-heralded "nuclear spring" may never come. 

"Obviously, waste storage is the elephant in the room," said
Frank Bowman, president and chief executive officer of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying group. 

America now has roughly 40,000 metric tons of spent radioactive
fuel, according to the institute, with another 2,000 metric tons
added each year. Even if Yucca Mountain opens, the nation would
soon need another facility just like it. Reprocessing the fuel
would relieve that pressure, but it's far from clear that reuse
will ever happen. 

"If we don't recycle, we're going to have to build a new Yucca
Mountain every few decades," said U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary
Clay Sell. 

Used fuel rods are hot and highly radioactive when they emerge
from a reactor. Both the heat and the radioactivity drop
substantially within the first several years, the radiation
falling by a factor of 1,000 in a decade, according to the
Nuclear Energy Institute. But the rods remain dangerously
radioactive for many thousands of years. 

Diablo Canyon has relied on its twin spent-fuel pools to store
waste since the plant began commercial operation in 1985. 

They sit not far from the towering containment domes that hold
Diablo's reactors, separated from the outside world by steel
walls and concrete floors. The plant refuels every 18 to 21
months, plugging some new rods into the reactors and
transferring old ones to the storage pools. 

Standing 12 feet tall, each rod is a metal tube filled with
uranium pellets -- the source of the plant's power. The rods are
narrow, about the width of a fat pencil, and are bundled into
assemblies that weigh 1,350 pounds each. Workers maneuver the
assemblies into the pools through a series of water-filled
channels to keep the fuel cool, making sure it never touches
open air. A crane grabs the assemblies underwater and lowers
them into waiting racks. 

Each pool was designed to hold 270 assemblies. Now, the racks
have been reconfigured to store 1,324. 

One pool already has 1,064. The other, 1,100. 

"Five percent of the state's electricity generation for the last
20 years is sitting in that pool," Vosburg said, as a current of
circulating water rippled the surface. The water, surrounded by
concrete walls 6 feet thick, dissipates heat coming from the
fuel rods and shields the outside world from radiation. Boric
acid, added to the water to absorb neutrons, gives the pool its
deep blue tint. 

Later this year, PG will install temporary racks in both pools
to provide 154 more storage slots each. Even so, they will run
out of room by 2010. 

So PG, like operators of the nation's 64 other nuclear power
plants, is trying to make do. 

On a shaved-off hillside overlooking the plant, workers pour the
concrete floor for Diablo's next storage facility. Instead of
using a pool, PG will seal old fuel assemblies inside
20-foot-tall canisters lined up like squat obelisks on an open
field. There will be no walls or ceiling of any kind -- just the
canisters themselves. 

The technology is called dry cask storage, and it isn't new. Its
use at Diablo, however, has alarmed many of the plant's
long-standing opponents. 

They fear that the field, which could eventually hold 138 casks,
will make an even more alluring target for terrorists than the
plant itself, perched on a rocky stretch of the central
California coast. A commandeered jet, they say, could approach
Diablo from the water, fly over the plant and crash into the
casks, spewing radioactive material into the air. 

"How is that safe from terrorism, especially when there's no 'no
fly zone' at the plant?" asked Rochelle Becker of the Alliance
for Nuclear Responsibility. "California needs to know, how much
radioactive waste are we willing to store on our coast, for how
long?" 

Last week, a federal court ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission should have examined the possibility of a terrorist
assault on Diablo before giving PG permission to build the dry
cask facility. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco ordered the commission to study what threat an attack
could pose to the local environment. However, a PG spokesman
said construction will continue during the review, with the
first casks scheduled to be loaded with fuel next fall. 

The company considers the facility secure. 

Standing above the field, PG engineer Hagler sketched out
possible lines of terrorist attack. Fly a commercial airliner in
from the west, over the ocean, and the hillside would rip off
the plane's right wing before it could reach the casks. Approach
from the east, and the pilot would have to hug the contours of
several protecting hills before making a swift, steep plunge
into the field. 

Those obstacles wouldn't matter as much to a small plane. But
small aircraft, he said, lack the mass to smash open the
steel-and-concrete casks. 

"An aircraft that size? It'd be like a bee hitting a
windshield," Hagler said. "I know the cask is going to win." 

To some neighbors, terrorism isn't the only issue. They object
to the possibility that Diablo's waste will never leave, staying
decade after decade on the coast they love until its presence
becomes permanent. 

"This whole area is going to be a carbuncle ruined for
millennia," Biesek said. 

Since 1976, he has lived in nearby See Canyon, along a stream
shaded by oak and pine trees. He and his wife, Susan, have long
opposed the plant. They keep a Geiger counter in the house,
although it needs new batteries. 

The Bieseks question whether any storage technology can isolate
nuclear waste from the environment forever, particularly in a
place prone to earthquakes and other disasters. If radioactive
material from Diablo found its way into an aquifer or the ocean,
they said, who knows how widespread the effects could be? 

"It's not like this backyard dump is just our dump," Susan
Biesek said one recent morning, as birdsong filled the canyon's
cool air. "Where do you move that's safe?" 

Such talk drives nuclear engineers to distraction. Used nuclear
fuel does pose risks, they say, but those risks can be
controlled. 

"I hate the word 'dump,' " said Mark Somerville, a PG physicist
specializing in radiation protection. "I sympathize with people
who, like we did, thought there'd be an endgame where things
would be handled long term. ... But it's anything but a dump.
It's a very carefully controlled process." 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration keeps pushing to open Yucca
Mountain and recycle used fuel. Storing waste on-site, Deputy
Energy Secretary Sell said, is safe but won't solve the problem. 

"As an interim solution, it's acceptable," he said. "As a
long-term solution, it's not." 

E-mail David R. Baker at . 				
Page A - 1 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 64 DenverPost.com: Trainload of debate on nuke storage

  Article Launched: 06/11/2006 01:00:00 AM MDT  

Environmental groups vow to fight a Utah tribe's plan. If 
approved, waste would likely roll on Denver tracks.

  By Michael Riley Denver Post Staff Writer  

      Leon Bear, leader of the Skull Valley Goshutes, stands on 
the road near where a nuclear fuel rod storage facility would be 
built. Despite some Goshutes' concerns, Bear says it's his 
responsibility to protect the tribe's future. (Post / Helen H. 
Richardson)       
    
Skull Valley, Utah - The rumble of trucks along Utah 196 is the
only thing breaking the silence that swallows the cluster of a
dozen mostly empty houses. Tumbleweeds roll across an empty
baseball field. Abandoned cars litter overgrown lots. 

The home of the Skull Valley band of Goshute Indians - all 120
members - is 18,000 acres of mostly cheatgrass and sagebrush.
But it's also the focus of one of the biggest political disputes
in the West, a bitter controversy over America's nuclear- waste
policy and a clamorous environmental debate. 

The Goshutes have signed a deal with a consortium of utilities
to create a temporary storage site on their reservation, 45
miles west of Salt Lake City, for as much as 40,000 metric tons
of spent fuel rods that once powered nuclear reactors. 

The idea is controversial: Seal the radioactive rods in 4,000
concrete and steel casks, surround them with two 8-foot fences,
and let them sit for decades in a kind of nuclear parking lot
until a more permanent solution is ready. 

Much of that waste would probably travel to the reservation by
train through Denver. 

Environmental groups call it irresponsible. Some of the tribe's
own members say it violates American Indian values. The governor
of Utah has vowed to lie down on the railroad tracks to stop the
project. 

But over the past six months, federal officials have made key
decisions that signal an important shift in the country's
strategy for handling nuclear waste. 

Those moves, analysts say, make it likely that the Goshutes'
project or something like it will become a reality within the
next few years. 

For tribal leaders, the waste site is a way to revive a dying
reservation, where only about 15 tribal members still live
permanently. They say it will provide jobs and millions of
dollars in lease payments to pay for a health clinic, housing
and infrastructure. 

As for environmental concerns, Leon Bear, the tribe's chairman,
points out that his reservation is flanked by an Air Force
bombing range on one side, a low-level nuclear disposal facility
on another. 

"How can you violate something when it's already been violated?"
Bear asked. 

The state of Utah sees it differently. State officials have
created new laws, sponsored a federal wilderness area and taken
the U.S. government to court in a nearly decade-long struggle to
halt a project it says is a threat to the state's largest city. 

"We will leave no stone unturned," said Mike Lee, chief counsel
for Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. "It may take years, but ... we will
end this plan and dance gleefully on its grave when it's dead." 

But with the Bush administration pushing nuclear power as a
means to bolster energy independence, the winds from Washington
appear to be blowing the Goshutes' way. 

In February, Private Fuel Storage, as the project is known,
received an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 

After nearly a decade of bureaucratic wrangling, one of the last
significant hurdles is a pending permit from the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, which manages land outside the reservation's
borders. 

"To people on the northeastern seaboard, we're just the square
states," Lee said. "We have a whole lot of space, and a lot of
it's good for nothing but cacti and prairie dogs." 

Costs and potential dangers 

A 14-foot spent fuel rod assembly weighs 1,000 pounds and
contains highly radioactive isotopes of plutonium, neptunium and
cesium, among others. A terrorist trying to sneak part of an
unshielded rod out of a plant would die of radiation exposure
before reaching his car. 

In the open air, the radiation from an exposed rod travels only
a few hundred feet. But if damaged casks are caught in a fire,
critics say radioactive material carried by the debris in smoke
could irradiate a city dozens of miles away. 

It is precisely those attributes that have made the national
debate over 

      The Goshute reservation hopes to lure back residents with
jobs and social services. Teresa Bear, 20, with 11-month-old son
McCoy, has returned to live with her mother. Behind her are
Teresa's brother Tyi, 3, left, and another child. (Post / Helen
H. Richardson)       
    

where the rods should go and how to get them there long and
bitter. 

The country's long-standing plan is to bury the waste deep in
Yucca Mountain in Nevada, where it could be sealed off for
millennia. But that plan is at least 15 years behind schedule,
plagued by technical and political problems. The delay has
thrown America's nuclear energy policy into disarray. 

The waste now sits at 72 reactor sites nationwide, in cooling
ponds and casks. In at least eight cases, the reactors have long
since closed, their owners maintaining a security force simply
to guard what is essentially very dangerous garbage. 

Analysts estimate it costs utilities at least $500 million a
year to store and guard the waste. Dozens of nuclear plant
owners have sued the federal government for failing to take
title when it promised, in 1998. 

Government lawyers have already lost several of those cases, and
the ultimate liability is likely to reach into the billions,
said Steven Kraft of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry
lobbying group. 

"Our position is clearly that we believe the federal government
needs to begin moving this fuel off of our sites. There is a
law. There's a contract," Kraft said. "It is in our view a far
sounder thing to do to move the fuel to a central facility where
... it is easier to deal with." 

Many key decision-makers are coming to that realization as well.
In March, the NRC granted Private Fuel Storage a license to open
an interim repository on the Goshute reservation. 

Last month, the House Appropriations Committee approved a
massive energy bill that pilloried the Energy Department's lack
of progress on Yucca Mountain and allocated $30 million for the
agency to begin establishing an interim storage site, either on
its own or through a private venture like Private Fuel Storage,
or PFS. 

The funds must still be approved by the full Congress. 

Analysts say momentum also is coming from a major push to begin
building nuclear power plants again, after a 28-year hiatus. 
President Bush last year signed the 2005 Energy Policy Act, 
creating incentives for utilities to build nuclear plants, 
including loan guarantees, production tax credits and federal 
risk insurance. 

Ten new plants are under consideration, but no utility has
applied for a construction permit, citing barriers from cost to
a lack of a place to put waste. 

"People used to say, 'You can't build new nuclear plants until
you solve the waste problem.' ... Now it's 'We're going to build
nuclear plants, so you better solve the waste problem,"' Kraft
said. 

Post-Sept. 11 terrorism fears 

In its licensing studies, the NRC found that the casks proposed
for the Goshute storage site could be safely left in the open
for decades. When Utah officials raised the possibility of an
Air Force jet crashing into a waste canister while using the
nearby bombing range, modeling showed there was less than a
one-in-a-million chance that radiation would be released. 

But critics point out that the nation has never tried to move
such a large amount of nuclear waste in a short period before
and that pronouncements of the effort's safety depend on every
single cask conforming perfectly to specifications. 

Kevin Kamps, a radioactive-waste expert for the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service, which opposes the PFS project,
said that a 2000 quality- assurance audit of one of the largest
cask manufacturers found widespread welding flaws and other
serious manufacturing errors. 

Nor did the NRC's licensing panel consider the possibility of a
terrorist attack on the site, ruling that it was outside the
panel's authority. 

But Utah officials say that in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world,
4,000 casks of highly radioactive material make a particularly
luring terrorist target. 

A 1998 military test showed that the casks could be virtually
obliterated by a TOW anti-tank missile, leading to a significant
release of radioactive material. 

Utah has passed laws prohibiting transport of nuclear waste on
its roadways, but those were struck down by a judge. 

In a state where politicians traditionally oppose wilderness
designation of public lands, Utah's congressional delegation
last year proposed the Cedar Mountain wilderness, a desolate
section of land that also happened to be in the path of a
planned rail spur that would have carried waste to the
reservation. 

Sponsors now say they will load the waste onto massive trucks
near Interstate 80 and drive it to the proposed site, a step
Utah says represents a hazard to local traffic. 

"We will do whatever we can to stop" the waste, said Denise
Chancellor, Utah's assistant attorney general, "just like PFS
will do anything they can to try to get it there." 

"A piece of the American pie" 

At the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation, abandoned cars litter
overgrown lots. On the door of a small community center, a
bacteria alert warns residents not to drink the water. And the
tribe is paid to take truckloads of garbage from Salt Lake City. 

But where others may see desolation, tribal leader Leon Bear
sees potential. 

Neither PFS nor the tribe will disclose the specifics of their
deal, but some tribe members say it could mean at least $40
million for the Goshutes over 50 years. 

They can already see benefits. Along a narrow and pocked road,
new modular homes sit on blocks, paid for through the
exclusivity agreement the band has signed with PFS. But many sit
empty because their owners now live in Salt Lake and other
cities where they have gone to find work. 

The lease payments from PFS could pay for health care, a clinic
and new infrastructure, Bear said. And the storage site could
provide jobs to tribe members as security personnel or
technicians for decades to come. 

But the bargain's costs are visible as well. 

Sitting at a broken picnic table outside a rundown home, Margene
Bullcreek said that, so far, the money has been dished out to
those members of the band who back the project, while opponents
are excluded. 

"We respect the air, the water and the mountain. We respect the
eagle," Bullcreek said. "All that is more important than these
promises of having millions of dollars." 

Bear said his job is not to protect the past but preserve a
future. 

"I'm a traditionalist up to a certain point, but you can't go
back and live in a wickiup," a traditional Goshute dwelling made
from sagebrush, Bear said. 

"I was raised in the '70s, when it was all about promoting
economic development. I was taught I could have a piece of the
American pie. 

"Most of our kids are going to school, trying to get an
education," he said. "That's what I'm looking at." 

Staff writer Michael Riley can be reached at
mriley@denverpost.comor 303-820-1614.   
      
 All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 65 AU ABC: Labor MP commited to uranium mining 'phase out'. 

11/06/2006. ABC News Online

First Posted: Sunday, June 11, 2006 . 10:08am --> Last
 
Federal Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says
he will continue to push to phase out of uranium mining once
current contracts expire.

 Sections within the Labor Party are pushing for the "no new
mines" policy to be scrapped in favour of an expansion of
uranium mining.

 But Mr Albanese has told ABC TV's Insiders program that there
is no need for a change, as when current contracts run out,
there will be no new ones.

 "It's a policy that I believe gets the balance right in that it
recognises the problems with the nuclear fuel cycle, but also
recognises that an economically responsible position is to
guarantee all existing contracts," he said.

 "So in effect it's a phase out policy." 

*****************************************************************
 66 Knox News: Next stage of massive Y-12 cleanup project coming up

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 
                                
June 11, 2006

OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy and environmental 
regulators have agreed on the next stage of cleanup at the Y-12 
nuclear weapons plant - a four-year project that will cost about 
$45 million, eliminate a radioactive scrap yard and excavate 
polluted soil from dozens of sites inside the high-security 
complex. 

The federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars 
on environmental projects at Y-12 over the past 20 years. The 
early remediation focused on off-site discharges into local 
creeks and capping or cleaning up waste sites that were fouling 
the groundwater with chemicals and radioactive materials. 

The primary objective of the next phase - beginning around 2009 - 
is to reduce contamination within the plant to "protect 
industrial workers from exposure to hazardous substances," 
according to the Record of Decision signed in April by officials 
from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation. 

Y-12's legacy of pollution dates back to the World War II 
Manhattan Project, when the facility enriched uranium for the 
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. 

The Oak Ridge plant played a critical role in the Cold War 
development of thermonuclear weapons - so-called H-bombs - but it 
also tainted the area with radioactive uranium and released tons 
of mercury and other toxic chemicals into the environment. 

The new cleanup plan establishes guidelines that should protect 
future users at the site, Mildred Lopez-Ferre, a project director 
in DOE's environmental program, said in a telephone interview. 

"We might not be able to get all the contamination that we would 
like to get removed," Lopez-Ferre said. If not, there will be 
"institutional controls" - such as fences, warning signs and 
permit requirements - to keep people away from potential hazards, 
she said. 

Not everyone is satisfied with the plan. 

"We're really glad that DOE is working toward this and coming to 
a point where they're going to be cleaning up the soils, which is 
the source of a lot of contamination that comes down East Fork 
Poplar Creek," said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the 
Local Oversight Committee, which represents local governments on 
environmental issues. 

However, Gawarecki said the Local Oversight Committee and its 
citizens advisory panel were disappointed by the level of cleanup 
being charted. In some areas of the plant, DOE chose not to meet 
standards for "free release'' on future industrial development 
and instead limited the depth of soil excavation to 2 feet, 
instead of 10 feet, she said. 

The Department of Energy, in its report, said Y-12 likely would 
continue its current defense mission for the "foreseeable future" 
- thus eliminating the need to plan for unrestricted uses. 
Gawarecki said that attitude could prove shortsighted, noting 
that the federal government often changes its mind. 

"While aspects (of the cleanup plan) don't please us," she said, 
"there is progress being made. We do think it's going to be 
protective for the designated uses." 

Lopez-Ferre said the new cleanup plan is not the final one for 
Y-12. A future decision document will deal with the final cleanup 
of contaminated soil at Y-12 and other issues pertaining to 
groundwater and surface waters, she said. 

Under the Phase II project for the cleanup, workers will remove 
about 25,000 cubic yards of radioactive metal from a scrap yard 
on the west end of the nuclear weapons plant. 

In addition, about 25,000-45,000 cubic yards of dirt contaminated 
with mercury, PCBs, uranium and other hazardous materials will be 
excavated from the site, said Elizabeth Phillips, DOE's project 
manager. 

If the Y-12 materials meet waste-acceptance rules at DOE's 
nuclear landfill a couple of miles away on Bear Creek Road, they 
will be sent there for disposal, the report said. Otherwise, the 
cleanup wastes will be shipped off-site to another facility, it 
said. 

It's not clear at this point who will be doing the cleanup work. 

Bechtel Jacobs Co. is DOE's environmental manager in Oak Ridge, 
but the company's current contract expires Sept. 30, 2008. 

Lopez-Ferre said DOE is still studying the options and will put 
together an "acquisition strategy" over the next couple of years. 
"We don't know exactly how it's going to be done," she said. 

The cleanup is coinciding with a major modernization program 
under way at Y-12. DOE's Oak Ridge office is hoping to get 
additional funds - as much as $1.5 billion over five years - to 
demolish many of the old nuclear facilities at Y-12 and Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. 

That money has not yet been budgeted, but Lopez-Ferre said DOE 
would try to integrate the accelerated demolition work with the 
soil removal and other cleanup activities. 

Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said, "We are excited 
about getting this cleanup under way and completed in the next 
few years. Anything that we can do to improve Y-12 and to address 
issues of contamination soil and scrap from past operations is a 
plus. This is a positive benefit to our overall long-range 
modernization effort." 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

Copyright Permissions] Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel 
Co.
*****************************************************************
 67 Inside Bay Area: Sandia Labs chief plans to retire

Article Last Updated: 06/10/2006 02:40:28 AM PDT  

Miriam John says it's time for her to move aside to let in 'new 
blood'

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  
    
  The chief of Sandia National Laboratories-California is headed
into retirement, ending seven years as the lab's executive and
25 years as one of the more influential figures in United States
defense science policy. 

Miriam "Mim" John, 57, told staff that she plans to spend more
time at her beach house in Aptos, take a trip to Europe and
polish her golf game. As for the lab, she said, it's time for
new blood. 

In a memo Thursday, she wrote that "my emotions are at both ends
of the spectrum — on the one hand, I'm ready for a change — but
more importantly, you all deserve someone with new ideas to lead
you into the next decade of the division's future. 

On the other, of course, you've been my professional family, my
home, my supporters, my friends in one way or another for almost
28 years now." 

The Princeton-trained chemist has been a demanding yet warmly
regarded head of the lab, a little more than half of which is
devoted to designing and engineering nuclear weapons. The rest
of the lab works on homeland security, biology,
engine-combustion research, hydrogen energy systems and secure
supercomputer and videoconferencing. 

Under John, the California division of Sandia invented one of
the most accurate hand-held chemical detectors, devised software 
to train emergency personnel for terrorist attacks and developed 
ways of safely destroying old U.S. chemical arms. It also 
launched work on new water treatment methods and high-pressure 
storage containers for hydrogen fuel. 

Unlike other Energy Department labs, Sandia's managers from
Lockheed Martin traditionally have stressed getting practical,
nearly finished products out the door over more exploratory,
basic scientific research. 

John plans to keep serving as a scientific adviser to the 
government. The National Academy of Sciences has tapped her for 
multiple panels in recent years, and she serves on the Pentagon's 
Defense Science Board and its Threat Reduction Advisory 
Committee, where she chairs a panel on the future of the U.S. 
nuclear arsenal. 

Her last day as head of Sandia-California is Aug. 31, and Sandia 
executives have begin searching for a successor. 

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.   
                  
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************