*****************************************************************
06/26/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.151
*****************************************************************
   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] Warnings on Iraqi WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored
2 IPS-English POLITICS: Defying U.S. Deadline, Iran Recalls 2005
3 [NYTr] Iran: France Rejoins the Pack
4 Guardian Unlimited: The perils of underestimating Ahmadinejad
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Turkey lauds IRI approach to N-issue 
6 AFP: G8 to press Iran on nuclear row - Japan - 
7 AFP: Ambassador urges 'early' Iran nuclear reply 
8 IRNA: Iran, Turkey keen to expand mutual ties 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Patience As It Considers Deal
10 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: N. Korea Should Reveal Nuclear Plans
11 AFP: Bush: North Korea must detail missile payload 
12 US: [NYTr] CIA Officer: Bush Regime Ignored Warnings about WMD "Erro
13 AFP: IAEA studies enrichment compromise but US remains unimpressed -
14 IRNA: Papandreou: All states entitled to enjoy NPT advantages
15 Guardian Unlimited: Missiles Going in at U.S. Bases in Japan
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
16 US: [wandnukecom] Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap
17 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Tritium found near shuttered nuclear plant 
18 BBC: Ofgem plans Ł4bn energy upgrade
19 US: The Herald: Go-ahead likely for new nuclear stations   
20 US: NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Brunswick Steam Electric 
21 AFP: US Congress expected to clear Indian nuclear deal in first vote
22 UBC: Beloyarskaya nuclear power station hosts RosEnergoAtom and
23 globeandmail.com: 'I don't like nuclear energy'
24 globeandmail.com: Mr. McGuinty's dilemma
25 SNA: Bulgarian Atomic Experts Rise Against Nuke Closure
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
26 RIA Novosti: Putin submits nuclear terrorism convention for ratifica
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
27 US: WTN: NorthStar finds cancer-fighting use for nuclear fuel | 
28 Japan Times: Nuclear firm rapped over radiation
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
29 US: IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Uranium Exports May Boomerang
30 US: NRC: NRC Issues License to Louisiana Energy Services for Gas Cen
31 AU ABC: Dump the tip of nuclear iceberg - Greens
32 AU ABC: Proposed nuclear dump 'too close to town'
33 RIA Novosti: Russia mulling permanent nuclear waste facilities, 
34 E&ED: Appropriations: Domenici to float new Yucca Mountain waste con
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
35 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dig yields ancient culinary secrets
36 DHHS: LANL employee petition 
37 DHHS Oak Ridge employee petition
38 lamonitor.com: DOE plan dissolves health, safety office 
39 KnoxNews: Nuke program growing
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Warnings on Iraqi WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:57:04 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Dave Muller (southnews)

The Washington Post - June 25, 2006; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

By Joby Warrick

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to 
argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, 
veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of 
Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about 
mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected 
of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he 
recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before 
the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand 
descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the 
CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn 
on the television and there it was, again."

While the administration has repeatedly acknowledged intelligence 
failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war, new accounts by 
former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on one of the most 
spectacular failures of all: How U.S. intelligence agencies were eagerly 
drawn in by reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ 
factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found.

Drumheller, who is writing a book about his experiences, described in 
extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert top CIA officials to 
problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in the days before the 
Powell speech. Other warnings came prior to President Bush's State of 
the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003. In the same speech that contained 
the now famous "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium, Bush 
spoke in far greater detail about mobile labs "designed to produce germ 
warfare agents."

The warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no 
visible impact at the top, current and former intelligence officials 
said. In briefing Powell before his U.N. speech, George Tenet, then the 
CIA director, personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab 
claim, according to participants in the briefing. Tenet now says he did 
not learn of the problems with Curveball until much later and that he 
received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else.

"No one mentioned Drumheller, or Curveball," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, 
Powell's chief of staff at the time, said in an interview. "I didn't 
know the name Curveball until months afterward."

Curveball's role in shaping U.S. declarations about Iraqi bioweapons 
capabilities was first described in a series of reports in the Los 
Angeles Times, and later in a March 2005 report by a presidential 
commission on U.S. intelligence failures regarding allegations that Iraq 
possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Drumheller's first-hand 
accounts add new detail about the CIA's embrace of a source whose 
credibility was already unraveling.

More than a year after Powell's speech, after an investigation that 
extended to three continents, the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a 
con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge 
into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on 
wheels.

But in the fall of 2002, Curveball was living the life of an important 
spy. A Baghdad native whose real name has never been released, he was 
residing in a safe house in Germany, where he had requested asylum three 
years earlier. In return for immigration permits for himself and his 
family, the Iraqi supplied Germany's foreign intelligence service with 
what appeared to be a rare insider's account of one of President Saddam 
Hussein's long-rumored WMD programs.

Curveball described himself as a chemical engineer who had worked inside 
an unusual kind of laboratory, one that was built on a trailer bed and 
produced weapons for germ warfare. He furnished detailed, technically 
complex descriptions of mobile labs and even described an industrial 
accident that he said killed a dozen people.

The German intelligence agency BND faithfully passed Curveball's stories 
to the Americans. Over time, the informant generated more than 100 
intelligence reports on secret Iraqi weapons programs -- the only such 
reports from an informant claiming to have visited and worked in mobile 
labs. Other informants, also later discredited, had claimed indirect 
knowledge of mobile labs.

In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files 
for reports of Iraqi weapons threats. Drumheller was asked to press a 
counterpart from a European intelligence agency for direct access to 
Curveball. Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence 
service.

The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid 
assessment, Drumheller recalled. "He said, 'I think the guy is a 
fabricator,' " Drumheller said, recounting the conversation with the 
official, whom he declined to name. "He said: 'We also think he has 
psychological problems. We could never validate his reports.' "

When Drumheller relayed the warning to his superiors in October 2002, it 
sparked what he described as "a series of the most contentious meetings 
I've ever seen" in three decades of government work.

Although no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the 
CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control 
believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be 
fabrications.

"People were cursing. These guys were absolutely, violently committed to 
it," Drumheller said. "They would say to us, 'You're not scientists, you 
don't understand.' "

In January 2003, Drumheller received a new request from CIA headquarters 
to contact the German intelligence service about Curveball. This time, 
Drumheller recalled, the U.S. spy agency had three questions:

Could a U.S. official refer to Curveball's mobile lab accounts in an 
upcoming political speech?

Could the Germans guarantee that Curveball would stand by his account?

Could German intelligence verify Curveball's claims?

The reply from Berlin, as Drumheller recalls it, was less than 
encouraging: There are no guarantees.

"They said, 'We have never been able to verify his claims,' " Drumheller 
recalled. "And that was all sent up to Tenet's office."

When Drumheller listened to Bush's speech several days later, he was 
astonished to hear the mobile labs described in detail.

"Boom, there it was," he said.

A few days later, Drumheller was handed a draft of another key speech on 
Iraq: Powell's remarks to the U.N. Security Council accusing Hussein of 
reconstituting his WMD programs. This time, the speech included an 
obvious reference to Curveball -- an unnamed "chemical engineer" who 
worked in one of the labs -- as well as detailed drawings of mobile labs 
inspired by Curveball's descriptions.

Drumheller said he called the office of John E. McLaughlin, then the CIA 
deputy director, and was told to come there immediately. Drumheller said 
he sat across from McLaughlin and an aide in a small conference room and 
spelled out his concerns.

McLaughlin responded with alarm and said Curveball was "the only 
tangible source" for the mobile lab story, Drumheller recalled, adding 
that the deputy director promised to quickly investigate.

Portions of Drumheller's account of his meetings with McLaughlin and 
Tenet appear in the final report of the Silberman-Robb commission, which 
was appointed by Bush to investigate prewar U.S. intelligence failures 
on Iraq's weapons programs. The report cites e-mails and interviews with 
other CIA officials who were aware of the meetings.

In responding to questions about Drumheller, McLaughlin provided The 
Post with a copy of the statement he gave in response to the 
commission's report. The statement said he had no memories of the 
meeting with Drumheller and had no written documentation that the 
meeting took place.

"If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have 
permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech," 
McLaughlin said in the statement.

In their briefings to Powell on Feb. 4, one day before the secretary's 
U.N. speech, Tenet and McLaughlin expressed nothing but confidence in 
the mobile-lab story, according to Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, 
who was present during the briefings.

"Powell and I were both suspicious because there were no pictures of the 
mobile labs," Wilkerson said. The drawings were constructed from 
Curveball's accounts.

But the CIA officials were persuasive. Wilkerson said the two men 
described the evidence on the mobile labs as exceptionally strong, based 
on multiple sources whose stories were independently corroborated.

"They said: 'This is it, Mr. Secretary. You can't doubt this one,' " 
Wilkerson said.

On the eve of the U.N. speech, Drumheller received a late-night phone 
call from Tenet, who said he was checking final details of the speech. 
Drumheller said he brought up the mobile labs.

"I said: 'Hey, boss, you're not going to use that stuff in the speech . 
. . ? There are real problems with that,' " Drumheller said, recalling 
the conversation.

Drumheller recalled that Tenet seemed distracted and tired and told him 
not to worry.

The following day, Tenet was seated directly behind Powell at the U.N. 
Security Council as the secretary of state presented a detailed lecture 
and slide show about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons program.

Tenet, responding to questions about Drumheller's accounts, provided to 
The Post a statement he had given in response to the Silberman-Robb 
Commission report in which he said he didn't learn of the problems with 
Curveball until much later. He did not recall talking to Drumheller 
about Curveball, and said it was "simply wrong" for anyone to imply that 
he knew about the problems with Curveball's credibility.

"Nobody came forward to say there is a serious problem with Curveball or 
that we have been told by the foreign representative of the service 
handling him that there are worries that he is a 'fabricator,' " Tenet 
said in his statement.

In late summer 2003, seven months after the U.N. speech, Tenet called 
Powell to say that the Curveball story had fallen apart, Wilkerson said. 
The call amounted to an admission that all of the CIA's claims Powell 
used in his speech about Iraqi weapons were wrong.

"They had hung on for a long time, but finally Tenet called Powell to 
say, 'We don't have that one, either,' " Wilkerson recalled. "The mobile 
labs were the last thing to go."

[Staff researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.]

) 2006 The Washington Post Company

       
                                *
================================================================
.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 IPS-English POLITICS: Defying U.S. Deadline, Iran Recalls 2005
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:40:40 -0700

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS EU MM NA HD IP BW NU=20
POLITICS: Defying U.S. Deadline, Iran Recalls 2005 Stall
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Jun 26 (IPS) - Iran's announcement that it will not respond t=
o the formal negotiating offer from the six powers until late August was =
both an expression of confidence and a bit of payback for European stalli=
ng in responding to Iran in 2005.

By refusing to comply with a Jun. 29 deadline, Tehran was communicating t=
o Washington and the three European states (Britain, France and Germany) =
that it is not intimidated either by threats of force or plans for econom=
ic and diplomatic sanctions. The Iranian timetable also appears to be aim=
ed at showing the Europeans and U.S. that Tehran can play the same game o=
f delaying that it believes the Europeans played in their negotiations wi=
th Iran a year ago.

In a speech last Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, =94=
We will study the offer and, God willing, will give our opinion at the en=
d of Mordad.=94 That month of the Iranian calendar ends on Aug. 22, indic=
ating that Iran was delaying its response nearly two months beyond the de=
adline set by the six powers -- the five permanent U.N. Security Council =
members plus Germany.

That brought an expression of impatience from the United States. Presiden=
t George W. Bush immediately responded, =94It shouldn't take the Iranians=
  that long to analyse what's a reasonable deal.=94

A U.S. official told the Associated Press that same day that Secretary of=
  State Condoleezza Rice had already been on the phone with diplomats from=
  the other five nations which signed on to the offer to Iran and had gott=
en their agreement to reaffirm their expectation that they would get an a=
nswer by the Jun. 29 meeting of the Group of Eight foreign ministers.

The two-month Iranian delay in making a formal response to the offer from=
  the six powers appears to parallel a similar delay by the European three=
  in regard to Iran's 2005 negotiating proposal to them under the November=
  2004 Paris Agreement.

While it was still maintaining its voluntary suspension of its enrichment=
  activities under that agreement, Iran had presented a proposal to the th=
ree states in late March 2005 that offered a number of ways in which Iran=
's enrichment programme could be limited to provide =94technical guarante=
es=94 that Iran could not use it to produce nuclear weapons.

These included producing only low-enriched uranium, limiting the amount o=
f uranium enriched, converting all low-enriched uranium to fuel rods for =
use in reactors, so that it could not be further enriched, limiting the n=
umber of centrifuges in Natanz for a relatively long period, and giving t=
he International Atomic Energy Agency a permanent presence at all sites f=
or uranium conversion and enrichment.

The proposal was formally presented by Iran at a technical experts' meeti=
ng on Apr. 29, 2005. Nearly a month later, on May 25, at an EU3-Iran mini=
sterial meeting in Geneva, Iran asked for a quick formal response from th=
e EU. But the EU ministers would only agree to present their comprehensiv=
e package for the implementation of the Paris Agreement by the end of Jul=
y or early August, more than two months later.

It is almost certainly not a mere coincidence, therefore, that Ahmadineja=
d's Aug. 22 date for responding to the six powers corresponds to the two-=
month delay announced by the EU3 at that May 2005 meeting.

That delay was particularly galling to Iranian leaders, because they were=
  convinced that the Europeans were stalling deliberately to await the out=
come of Iran's presidential election on Jun. 24.

It was widely known in diplomatic circles that the Europeans and U.S. wer=
e hoping that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani would win the election.=
  He had been signaling to Western governments that he would reach an agre=
ement to end all uranium enrichment.

In an interview with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group on May=
  27, 2005, Rafsanjani's closest adviser, Mohammed Atrianfar, said =94Rafs=
anjani will cooperate with Europeans for stopping uranium enrichment=94 i=
f elected.

After the strongly conservative Ahmadinejad was elected instead, the EU3 =
gave Iran a proposal in early August that ignored the previous Iranian pr=
oposal completely. It demanded a permanent end to all enrichment and offe=
red no real concessions on Iranian security interests, as had been promis=
ed in the Paris Agreement itself.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that EU officials would have prefer=
red to make a proposal that included security guarantees for Iran. In a j=
oint press conference with Rice on Jul. 5, 2005, French Foreign Minister =
Philippe Douste-Blazy referred to the importance of =94finding a package =
which is credible for Iran=94 that would deal with =94the security of the=
ir country.=94 For that, he said, =94we shall need the United States and =
we shall talk with them before proposing the package...=94

But Rice was unresponsive to the French plea for a more forthcoming propo=
sal. An EU diplomat later acknowledged in an interview with the Internati=
onal Crisis Group -- as revealed in that organisation's publication =94Ir=
an: Is There a Way Out of the Nuclear Impasse?=94 -- that the EU knew in =
advance that its proposal was not responsive to Iran's needs.

The arbitrary two-month Iranian delay clearly suggests a new level of con=
fidence of Iran in its overall position in the confrontation with the Bus=
h administration. Iranian leaders see that the Bush administration has lo=
st domestic political support for its militaristic approach to the Middle=
  East. They also believe the United States understands its vulnerability =
to Iranian retaliation in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East for any U=
.S. attack.

Bush's symbolic concession of offering to sit down with Iran for the firs=
t time, even conditionally, certainly bolstered the Iranian view that the=
  tough bargaining posture Tehran has pursued over the past year -- withdr=
awing its unilateral concessions on International Atomic Energy Agency mo=
nitoring and proceeding with enrichment in response to the U.S. unwilling=
ness to engage in negotiations -- has worked.

A central question for Iran in deciding on its substantive response is wh=
ether it can count on Russia and China to block U.S. efforts to organise =
a six-power move for a Security Council resolution paving the way for san=
ctions against Iran. The Financial Times reported Jun. 18 that two =94reg=
ime insiders=94 said Iran would offer =94talks without preconditions=94 -=
- meaning that it would reject a renewed suspension as a condition for ne=
gotiations.

One of the premises of that plan, according to FT's sources, was that Rus=
sia and China would not go along with a Security Council resolution calli=
ng for sanctions in response to Iranian rejection of suspension. One of t=
he sources said, =94The leadership can't be sure how Russia and China wil=
l react, but are confident they won't reject this outright.=94

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
*****
+POLITICS-US: Strategy Paper Reveals Bush Won't Attack Iran (http://ipsne=
ws.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33692)
+POLITICS: Bush Iran Strategy Suffers Major Diplomatic Defeat (http://ips=
news.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33571)

(END/IPS/NA/MM/EU/IP/HD/NU/BW/GP/KS/06)

=20
=3D 06261735 ORP004
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] Iran: France Rejoins the Pack
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:10:03 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Le Monde diplomatique    June 2006
http://MondeDiplo.com/2006/06/02middleast

Middle East: France rejoins the pack

The US proposal to engage in direct talks with Iran is a clever response 
to pressure from its European allies, although it comes with a damaging 
condition: Iran must supend all uranium enrichment, a qualification that 
Tehran has already ruled out.

by Alain Gresh

An astronaut who left Earth in spring 2003 and returned now would find 
Middle Eastern diplomacy totally confusing. As coalition forces launched 
their assault on Baghdad in 2003, French influence was at its peak, 
particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, and France seemed to be leading 
an anti-United States revolt, bringing together most of global public 
opinion and states as different as Germany, the Vatican, Belgium, Mexico 
and Indonesia. President Jacques Chirac could be proud of the fact that 
his stance had prevented the attack on Iraq turning into a war of 
civilisations.

But three years on, an apparently reunited western world is leaning on 
Iran and Syria, fighting terrorism, restoring normality in Iraq and 
enforcing sanctions against the Palestinian government (see "Palestine: 
Hamas besieged"). France, the US and the European Union agree on every 
issue. As a western diplomat in Washington said: "The democratic, 
civilised nations of the world have rediscovered their common interest in 
a region overshadowed by a series of threats."

The new romance between the Elysee palace and the White House feels more 
like infidelity when seen from the other side, especially from the Arab 
world. This unease is limited so far: Chirac's status in the Middle East 
has allowed him to sustain a popularity there that he no longer enjoys at 
home. But France is not immune to criticism, or even to previously 
unthinkable acts of violence such as the kidnapping of four French 
nationals in Gaza in March. There is a new and nagging question: has 
France exhausted all its credit built up within the Middle East since De 
Gaulle?

The Iranian confrontation has confirmed such fears. The ingredients of the 
crisis are similar to those that led to the war in Iraq: allegations of a 
clandestine programme to build weapons of mass destruction, identification 
with the "axis of evil" and major oil interests. But this time France has 
returned to lead the action beside the US. According to a French diplomat 
involved: "On his first visit to the US as foreign minister, in July 2002, 
Dominique de Villepin tried to warn them about the danger from Iran. But 
the Bush administration was too busy in Iraq to listen. In April 2003 we 
managed to persuade the director general of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, that intelligence on Iran's 
secret nuclear programme, mainly supplied by the US, was reliable. It was 
the Americans who followed us, not the other way round."

France's anxieties about the future of the entire disarmament project, and 
in particular the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), are genuine: the Middle 
East is right next door to Europe. But this is not the only reason why 
France has made the issue a priority. Chirac was already hostile to Iran. 
He had opened relations with Saddam Hussein during the 1970s: like 
President Francois Mitterrand, he supported the secular regime in Baghdad 
against the Islamic revolution.

Chirac also sees the Iranian issue as a chance to re-establish relations 
with the White House after the rupture of spring 2003, when France, along 
with Britain and Germany, was most actively involved. In October 2003 the 
"EU3", with Javier Solana, then secretary-general of the Western European 
Union and high representative for the common foreign and security policy, 
had managed to persuade Iran to agree to a provisional suspension of its 
legal uranium-enrichment activities. But Iranian officials insisted upon 
their "unalienable right" to pursue a nuclear programme. In December 2003, 
Iran tried to demonstrate its goodwill by signing an additional protocol 
to its NPT safeguards agreement, allowing the IAEA to conduct 
comprehensive surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities.

'LET ME TALK TO YOUR AMERICAN MASTER'

At first the US expressed doubts about these developments. But early in 
2005, with Condoleezza Rice's appointment as secretary of state and the 
deterioration of the situation in Iraq, the US administration decided to 
play the European card. President Bush signalled the change of policy 
during a visit to Brussels in February 2005, when he gave his support to 
EU discussions with Iran. In return, the US secured a say in the European 
proposals: Iran would be forbidden to engage in any uranium enrichment, 
even experimental.

In the summer of 2005, following a delay because of US demands, the EU3 
presented its proposals to Iran. In exchange for Boeing aircraft spares 
(1), the chance to join the World Trade Organisation and the promise of 
assistance with its civil nuclear programme, Iran would be required to 
renounce any form of uranium enrichment. Unsurprisingly the Iranian 
government, angered by the EU's rejection of its own detailed proposals 
(2), turned down an offer that a European diplomat described as "a lot of 
gift-wrapping around a pretty empty box" (3). Meeting EU3 representatives 
at the United Nations in September 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 
language was less than diplomatic: "You are just go-betweens. Let me talk 
to your American master".

Despite Ahmadinejad's irresponsible declarations against Israel, Iran's 
ambitions and fears are not unreasonable. This centre of a former empire 
is proud of its history and wants to be a power in the region. It has not 
forgotten a series of foreign interventions, from the CIA-engineered coup 
that overthrew prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 to the Iraqi 
invasion of 1980. No western government made any serious protest when 
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons of mass destruction during that 
invasion. On the contrary: France and the US gave significant support, 
including military assistance, to Saddam Hussein. Attempts to destabilise 
Iran continued, and are still continuing with the vote from the US 
Congress in 2006 of $75m in aid to the Iranian opposition. It is hardly 
surprising that Iran is looking beyond the immediate nuclear issue and 
seeking security guarantees (4).

It is hard not to be sceptical about French government claims that it is 
taking account of Iran's aspirations. As a Arabist diplomat put it: "The 
issue is in the hands of disarmament experts who have only a vague 
understanding of the history of the region, of Iran's position and of the 
fears of its leaders. They see Iranian nationalism as the epitome of evil. 
They are not immune to Orientalist cultural prejudices. It doesn't seem to 
worry them that sanctions against Iran could damage companies solidly 
established there, such as Total or Renault."

SUPPORT AT ANY PRICE?

But is there not a danger that France's desire to secure US support at any 
price has given Bush a right of veto over all negotiations? The current US 
administration is deeply divided over Iran. While some of its members want 
to see military intervention, others seem more cautious, for the time 
being at least (see "United States: spies and generals protest"). The 
result of the debate will depend upon developments at home and in Iraq, as 
well as upon ideological prejudices.

In the spring of 2003 Iran, with the support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 
offered to negotiate with the US. On the table were the nuclear issue and 
the possible ending of support for Hamas and Hizbullah (5). According to 
Colin Powell's chief of staff at the time, Lawrence Wilkerson, "the secret 
cabal [of neoconservatives] got what it wanted: no negotiations with 
Tehran". Is it right for French policy to be dictated by Washington 
cabals?

Europe and the US are getting nowhere. Although Iran has resumed uranium 
enrichment and has limited the number of detailed checks carried out by 
the IAEA, Russia and China have rejected sanctions. Despite repeatedly 
insisting that Iran must take or leave the summer 2005 offer, the EU3 has 
now been persuaded by the US to make new proposals which Iran is unlikely 
to find acceptable. The only resolution to the crisis would be direct 
talks between the US and Iran, as called for by Kofi Annan, Germany and 
Britain. Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, Chirac's diplomatic adviser, recently 
announced that it was time for Washington to start a dialogue (6). 
Unfortunately, despite repeated offers from the Iranians (7), the US 
remains unconvinced.

Are we heading for war? An analyst in Washington said, seriously: "The 
chances are slim: 40% to 50%." Germany and Britain (8) have excluded this 
option, but France has still to make up its mind. Villepin may have 
rejected any military action (9), but other officials insist in private 
that "all the options are still on the table". In a speech on French 
nuclear policy, Chirac explained that "the leaders of any states that 
might use terrorist methods against us, or that might consider using 
weapons of mass destruction in one way or another, must understand that we 
would respond firmly and appropriately. This response might be 
conventional, but might also be of another kind." Despite subsequent 
clarifications, these remarks not surprisingly caused serious disquiet in 
Tehran.

French policy on the Middle East seems to have changed since Villepin, as 
foreign minister, was warmly applauded in the UN for his stance against 
the attack on Iraq. It all seems a long time ago, but the dispute over 
Iraq continues to haunt French policy-makers still shaken by their own 
audacity. Despite the support of most public opinion, official opposition 
to the war has withered under the influence of a tradition of friendship 
and cooperation with the US that even the Gaullists had maintained. Other 
interests have intruded. "There are many issues where we need the US," one 
French diplomat pointed out. "Ensuring that the international 
thermonuclear experimental reactor (10) was built at Cadarache rather than 
in Japan is as important as getting UN cover for our policy in Ivory 
Coast."

FRENCH BASHING

French bashing has certainly damaged bilateral relations, particularly in 
the economic and military spheres. There were no US aircraft at the 
International Paris Air Show at Le Bourget in June 2003, and the 
Department of Defence excluded France from the Red Flag air combat 
exercises in 2004. Politicians, business representatives and some 
diplomats have written directly to Chirac, warning him of possible 
retaliation. The pro-US lobby has wheeled out all its supporters in the 
higher echelons of politics and economics.

The French government wants to repair relations. In April 2003 Villepin 
answered a question in the national assembly: "Obviously Europe and the US 
each have their own responsibilities. This partnership can prove its 
practical usefulness in the Middle East, where it can secure stability and 
peace in Iraq and revive the peace process between Israel and the 
Palestinians. We must fight side by side against the two great plagues of 
our time: terrorism and nuclear proliferation."

Iraq needs sorting out first. For many months France has fought a 
difficult battle at the UN. It has secured a detailed political calendar 
and advocated a significant role for the UN. The US agreed to hold 
elections before the drawing up of a constitution and accelerated the 
transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis. In exchange, France accepted the US 
presence - the coalition forces have become a multinational force approved 
by the Security Council - and appointed an ambassador to Baghdad. France 
will not expect anyone to account for the billions of dollars received by 
the US under the Oil for Food programme which vanished into thin air.

"What were we supposed to do?" a French diplomat asked. "After the 
assassination of Sergio Vieira de Mello (11), there was a major revolt 
among UN personnel, who blamed Kofi Annan for his death. It became 
impossible for the organisation to do anything in Iraq. The EU split, no 
one was listening to us and we noticed a change in our German friends' 
position. In the end we had no interest in seeing Iraq collapse into 
chaos, which could only encourage terrorism and al-Qaida."

With senior politicians distracted by personal disputes, de facto French 
policy in the Middle East seems to be to handle issues on a case-by-case 
basis, driven by individual agendas. Astonishingly, no one in politics 
seems to have noticed - "our policy is no different," everyone keeps 
insisting, "it's the situation in the region that has changed". No one 
seems concerned how this strategy will affect France's standing in the 
Middle East.

Lebanese affairs are the sole responsibility of the president and are 
directly managed by Chirac, whose policy owes less to political analysis 
than to his long-standing personal relationship with former prime minister 
Rafik Hariri, which explains the French U-turn. Chirac had effectively set 
Bashar al-Assad up as Syrian president while he was still heir, attended 
his father's funeral and insisted that the withdrawal of Syrian troops 
from Lebanon could only take place as part of a wider Middle Eastern 
settlement. Then in 2004 he took up a new position alongside the US as the 
godfather of Lebanese democracy.

The White House sees French proposals as a means to increase pressure on a 
Syrian government which it accuses of failing to help combat the Iraqi 
insurgency. In September 2004 Lebanese president Emile Lahoud's term of 
office was extended for three years, providing a pretext for the adoption 
of Security Council resolution 1559, whose broad lines were drawn up by 
Hariri. It calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the disarming of 
the militias, especially Hizbullah. In April 2005, just over two months 
after Hariri's murder, Syrian troops were forced to leave Lebanon.

A year later the euphoria that greeted the "cedar revolution" has 
evaporated. The Lebanese political classes are bogged down in old 
sectarian disputes that have little to do with democracy. Far from giving 
up, on 17 May France secured a new Security Council resolution calling 
upon Syria to delineate a clear border and establish diplomatic relations 
with Lebanon. A diplomat described the position as being "in midstream", 
but France might be in danger of drowning. By vetoing an important 
agreement between the oil company Total and Syria, Chirac has put French 
economic interests at risk.

'A STRATEGIC THREAT'

One issue unaffected by the disagreement between France and the US was 
terrorism. Even during the spring of 2003, when the governments stopped 
talking to each other and the French embassy's usual contacts weren't 
answering calls, close cooperation continued in the war on terror. Roger 
Cohen noted: "Terrorism in Europe and the emergence of Europe as a central 
theatre of the fight between the West and fanatical Islam have prodded 
France, and Europe with it, toward a closer identification with American 
policies in fighting terrorism" (12). France, however, claims that it 
spent the mid-1990s trying to wake the US up to the new terrorist threat, 
but only 9/11 really made the danger explicit.

The extent of this transatlantic collaboration has been revealed by the US 
journalist Dana Priest (13). In 2002 a top secret centre codenamed 
Alliance Base (al-Qaida is Arabic for base) was set up in Paris. Mainly 
funded by the CIA and headed by a French general, it closely monitors 
terrorist networks and attempts to render them harmless. According to 
Priest: "France brings its harsh [antiterrorist] laws, surveillance of 
radical Muslim groups and their networks in Arab states, and its 
intelligence links to its former colonies." Although the French media are 
always ready to denounce the CIA and its illegal practices, they have 
shown no apparent interest in the activities of their own secret services.

Technical cooperation against dangerous terrorist networks might be 
acceptable but the convergence of views on the post-9/11 world is more 
alarming. A recent government white paper on how France should respond to 
terrorism (14) went largely unnoticed because of the furore over the first 
employment contract. The report defines "global, Islamist-inspired 
terrorism" as "a strategic threat" that has become more serious and 
endangers French interests around the world.

According to one of its authors: "It could undermine the country's ability 
to function. Unlike traditional terrorist groups, there is no limit to the 
violence it could unleash. The use of radiological, chemical or even 
nuclear weapons could paralyse the country." The report claims that this 
danger cannot be met without a campaign against "radical Islamism", and it 
warns: "We cannot rule out the possibility that [Islamist terrorism] will 
one day attempt an alliance with the more radical elements of the 
anti-globalisation movement."

This analysis of the threat can only provoke negative reactions in the 
Muslim world. Turkey has protested about the report's choice of words. And 
even if the US term "war" was rejected, the phrase "strategic threat" 
falls not far short of it. The active involvement in Afghanistan of French 
special forces, particularly directed by frequent visits from the defence 
minister, serves to confirm that the French government shares Washington's 
obsession with security.

The final chapter, in contrast to the rest of the contents, argues against 
identifying Islam with terrorism, but that makes little difference. 
According to another French diplomat: "More and more people go along with 
the US and view the Middle East as a problem area, a source of terrorism. 
On top of this, the younger generation of civil servants, many of them 
enarques (15), tend to support the Atlantic alliance, particularly those 
working in departments responsible for security issues. They have nothing 
but contempt for diplomats at the North Africa/Middle East desk, whom they 
refer to as 'the Arab street'. It would be a mistake to underestimate the 
influence on security issues of EU institutions and committees, almost all 
of whose participants share the US point of view."

We will have to wait for the French presidential elections in 2007 to see 
how far these shifts in Middle Eastern policy are structural, and how far 
they are a knee-jerk response to the current situation. The stakes are 
huge. Unless some powerful, independent third voice makes itself heard, 
there is a real danger that the Iranian crisis will help plunge the world 
into a confrontation between Islam and the West. 


(1) The US agreed to lift its embargo on these parts.

(2) On these proposals see http://abcnews.go.com/International...

(3) See Paul Ingram, Preliminary analysis of E3/EU proposal to Iran, 
British American Security Information Council, London and Washington, 
August 2005.

(4) As part of the agreement with the Islamic government for the 
liberation of the US hostages, signed in Algiers in 1981, the US 
government pledged that it would not "intervene, directly or indirectly, 
politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs". They have never 
respected this undertaking.

(5) See Gareth Porter, "Cabal Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks with Iran," Inter 
Press Service, 30 March 2006.

(6) Off-the-record remarks to French journalists reported, in particular, 
by Le Monde, 29 April 2006.

(7) Washington Post, 24 May 2006.

(8) The British press claimed that the removal of Jack Straw from the 
Foreign Office was, among other things, due to his absolute rejection of 
the military option.

(9) Announcement made in London, 10 May 2006.

(10) In June 2005, it was finally announced that this nuclear fission 
project would be built in Cadarache, near Marseille.

(11) UN special representative in Iraq, killed August 2003.

(12) International Herald Tribune, Paris, 1 March 2006.

(13) Dana Priest, "Help from France Key in Covert Operations", Washington 
Post, 3 July 2005.

(14) La France face au terrorisme, La Documentation francaise, Paris, 
2006.

(15) Graduates from the Ecole Nationale d'Administration.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: The perils of underestimating Ahmadinejad
 
Monday June 26, 2006

The Guardian             

[The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a press
conference in Shanghai. Photograph: Elizabeth Dalziel/AP] 
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a press
conference in Shanghai. Photograph: Elizabeth Dalziel/AP
 

 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of American
bogeymen: Libya's Colonel Gadafy, Panama's Manuel Noriega,
Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and
al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden, to name a few.
But by casting Iran's president in the prime target role of
maverick evildoer, the Bush administration ignores the complex
forces that brought him to power last year and his previously
unsuspected political skills, both supporters and critics say.
As domestic opponents have already discovered, underestimating
Mr Ahmadinejad is tempting - and foolish.
                                                                  
The president's rising popularity owes as much to his common 
touch as US enmity. Many ordinary Iranians, while complaining 
about wages, inflation and restricted personal freedoms, approve 
of the Blair-like "national conversation" that Mr Ahmadinejad has 
launched through fortnightly provincial tours and rallies.

"He is a good man. He tries to do his best," said Saeideh, a
student in Shiraz. "My family supported [Mohammad] Khatami [the
former reformist president]. But it is good the way Ahmadinejad
stands up to the Americans."

Mohammad Atrianfar, founder of the main opposition newspaper,
Shargh, admitted that Mr Ahmadinejad had succeeded in
cultivating a popular image, but questioned his authority. "My
impression is that he is just a mouthpiece, an amplifier for
various interests elsewhere," Mr Atrianfar said.

Anti-government intellectuals and secularists also attribute Mr
Ahmadinejad's ascendancy to the backing of clerical hardliners,
as well as the Revolutionary Guards and basij militia. They said
the president owed his job to the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei,
who was primarily concerned with establishing Iran's leadership
in the Muslim world over the rival claims of Arab states such as
Egypt.

Mr Khamenei is said to be gratified by Mr Ahmadinejad's hero
status in the Arab world as a scourge of the Bush administration
and champion of Palestinian rights. At the same time, western
diplomats said there was evidence the president was "learning on
the job". He had toned down his rhetoric and qualified last
autumn's inflammatory remarks on the Holocaust and Israel, they
said. He now says Iran simply wants justice (a key Ahmadinejad
theme) for Palestinians and does not see why Muslims should pay
for past European persecution of Jews.

Yet Mr Ahmadinejad is far from being a puppet of Iran's mullahs
or clerics. A strong current of anti-clericalism permeates the
Islamic republic 27 years after the revolution, largely the
product of perceived corruption and abuse of power. His
advancement came in part because, ironically, he was able to
assume Mr Khatami's mantle as the "anti-status quo candidate", a
source said.

The secret of Mr Ahmadinejad's success was that he had distanced
himself from both the Islamic establishment and the discredited,
mostly middle-class reformers of the Khatami era, building a
third constituency among the working classes, younger voters and
the less well-off.

Siamak Namazi, an independent Tehran political analyst, said:
"Ahmadinejad represents the second generation of
revolutionaries, the foot soldiers of 1979. They are the ones
who fought the war against Iraq, they are the ones who suffered
when Saddam used chemical weapons (whose components were
supplied by the west). They are the ones who now get lectured by
the west about WMD. They feel very suspicious about the west.

They also feel the older generation sold them out." Mr
Ahmadinejad was "politically right but economically ultra-left",
he added.

Some see Mr Ahmadinejad as a product of the pre-revolutionary
period in which Marxist ideas mingled with Sufi mysticism and
Islamic spiritual values. His support for a centrally directed
economy, continued state subsidies and more equal rights for
women can thus be reconciled with his opposition to reform of
Iran's inherently conservative, Islamic-based power structure.

All the same, economic mismanagement and inefficiency may yet be
his undoing. "This is a sick economy dependent on the price of
oil," said Vahid Karimi of the Institute for Political and
International Studies. Structural weaknesses including lack of
investment, a tiny private sector, and capital flight were not
being addressed, a report by 50 prominent economists concluded.

A fast-growing population was increasingly demanding more than
the government was delivering, a western diplomat said. "They
are squandering the oil windfall."

Mr Ahmadinejad's fall, if and when it comes, is unlikely to be
the result of political insurrection, outside intervention, or
his demonisation as America's new bogeyman. Its likely cause
will be more mundane. In Iran, as elsewhere, it's the economy,
stupid.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Turkey lauds IRI approach to N-issue 

  2006/06/26   
  
  11:21:27 Ţ.Ů 
Visiting Foreign Minister of Turkey Abdullah Gul stressed here
Sunday afternoon that he was not carrying a message from other
countries for Iran. 

At a meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the minister
said he was only carrying a message of friendship from the
Turkish people, government and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan for Tehran authorities. 

Gul, who arrived in Tehran Saturday evening for a two-day
official visit, said Ankara believed access to nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes was a natural right of Iran and other
countries. 

Praising Tehran's strategy in dealing with its nuclear issue, he
said Iran's laudable stance has forced "Western countries to
change their language and behavior towards Iran and to favor
negotiation over threats of force or the use of force."
 
President Ahmadinejad, for his part, took the occasion to thank
Ankara for its support for Tehran's legal right to access
peaceful nuclear technology, and stressed the need to maintain
the current calm atmosphere in the international arena.
 
"Maintaining the current calm atmosphere by the two sides will
encourage continuation of the current positive process through
which they can hold more effective and fruitful negotiations for
reaching mutual understanding," stressed the president. 

Referring to the significant role played by Iran and Turkey in
regional and international affairs, President Ahmadinejad said
that exchange of views between Tehran and Ankara was a must to
resolve the problems facing Iraq, particularly in the matter of
restoring peace, security and stability to the war-torn country. 

"Iraq's neighboring states can help in reconstruction and
development of the country by continuing their support
particularly to the country's elected and popular government. 

As for Iran-Turkey relations, the president said that religious,
historic and cultural commonalties had laid the groundwork for
enhanced bilateral ties and cooperation between the two capitals.
 
President Ahmadinejad said that the two neighboring, brotherly
and Muslim states of Iran and Turkey had great potentials to
raise their current level of cooperation both in the regional
and international arenas. 

Besides his meeting with President Ahmadinejad, the Turkish
foeign minister also held separate talks with Majlis Speaker
Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, Expediency Council Chairma Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani and Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security
Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani.   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: G8 to press Iran on nuclear row - Japan - 

 Mon Jun 26, 3:32 AM ET 
		 	 
TOKYO (AFP) - The Group of Eight foreign ministers will urge Iran 
" /> Iranthis week to accept a proposal for talks on its nuclear 
drive unless Tehran responds first, a Japanese official has said. 

Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations 
meet Thursday in Russia to prepare for a summit next month, with 
the crises over North Korea " /> North Koreaand Iran set to 
feature on the agenda.
 
"If we do not receive some positive response from the Iranian
side by the date of the foreign ministers' meeting, I guess the
G8 will strongly urge the Iranian government to respond quickly
and positively to the offer," the foreign ministry official said.
 
The five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain,
China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany
offered the package in mid-June offering incentives and
multilateral talks to Iran.
 
Tehran in exchange would have to temporarily halt uranium
enrichment activities, which lie at the heart of fears the
Islamic republic could develop nuclear weapons.
 
The six countries asked Iran to respond by the end of the month,
but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran would wait until
August 22 to give a formal answer.
 
"We (the G8) as a group are supporting the six countries'
negotiations," the Japanese official said.
 
Japan has maintained close ties with Iran despite the crisis and
is a top investor in its oil industry.
 
The G8 foreign ministers will also discuss North Korea, a
self-declared nuclear power which is feared to be set to launch
a long-range missile.
 
Japan will "take a lead and brief on the current state of the
North Korean nuclear issue as well as the abduction and missile
issues and ask for the understanding and support of G8
countries," the official said.
 
Japan has been campaigning for more international pressure on
North Korea to better account for Japanese civilians the regime
kidnapped in the 1970s and 1980s to train its spies.
 
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso will also hold bilateral
talks with Russia and go to Ukraine during his visit.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Ambassador urges 'early' Iran nuclear reply 

 Mon Jun 26, 7:52 AM ET 
		 	 
TEHRAN (AFP) - Britain's new ambassador has appealed to Iranian 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give an "early response" to an 
international package aimed at defusing concerns over Iran " /> 
's nuclear programme. 

"We hope that Iran will play a full role in regional and 
international affairs," envoy Geoffrey Adams told Ahmadinejad 
during a ceremony to present his credentials.
 
"In that context, we believe that the recent proposals made by
Mr. Solana constitute a sound basis for the resolution of the
nuclear issue, and we look forward to the Iranian government's
early response to them," a British embassy statement quoted him
as saying.
 
On June 6, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented Iran
with an offer -- backed by Britain, China, France, Germany,
Russia and the United States -- of multilateral talks and a
variety of incentives.
 
The offer is conditional on Iran first agreeing to suspend
uranium enrichment work, the focus of suspicions that the
Islamic regime wishes to acquire nuclear weapons.
 
But Iran appears to still reject the key condition and continues
to call for negotiations without any "preconditions".
 
Ahmadinejad has said a reply will be given in late August,
whereas the major powers are calling for a reply before the end
of June, in time for a summit of the G8 group of industrialised
nations in Russia.
 
Commenting on the often strained ties between Tehran and London,
Adams pointed to "a complex and varied relationship" and called
for relations "based on mutual respect and the principles of
international law".
 
In the absence of a US embassy in Tehran, Britain's city centre
compound frequently bears the brunt of anti-Western
stone-throwing, shooting and bomb attacks from regime hardliners.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Iran, Turkey keen to expand mutual ties 

, June 25, IRNA

-- 
Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel in a meeting with the
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul here Sunday said that
given the intertwined historical roots of Iran and Turkey, the
two countries should further expand mutual ties in all domains.

 Stressing that all regional states, including Iran and Turkey
will benefit from stability and tranquility in the region, he
referred to the country's nuclear issue and said that Iran
considers return of the dossier from the UN Security Council to
the IAEA as a positive measure to convert the dialogue based on
threat to one with a peaceful nature.

 Turning to Iran's voluntary suspension of its nuclear
activities as a confidence-building measure, he said, "We have a
clear and rational say and expect the other side to talk to us
in the same way.

 We call for nothing more than what has been authorized by the
agency's laws for all countries.

 "Iran has never intended to proliferate and possess nuclear
weapons and does not consider them as a factor for the progress
and security of world countries."

 The speaker stressed that today, the vigilant conscience of the
world is aware that Iran's nuclear issue is used by the US as a
pretext to put pressure on Iran and declared the readiness of
Majlis to expand inter-parliamentary ties with Turkey.

 For his part, Gul said that access to nuclear technology is the
inalienable right of Iran, adding that such a right has been
acknowledged in Europe's proposal.

 The Turkish minister hoped that given the recent developments
in Iran's nuclear issue, it will be solved peacefully.

 Meanwhile, he said that Turkish parliament is ready to broaden
its cooperation with Iran and called for expansion of relations
between the political parties of the two countries.

 Abdullah Gul, arrived in Iran on Saturday to submit Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's written message to
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and confer with Iranian officials
on issues of mutual concern.


*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Patience As It Considers Deal
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Monday June 26, 2006 3:31 AM
 	
AP Photo VAH112 
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday it was seriously
considering incentives to halt its nuclear program and asked the
United States and other nations to be patient while Tehran
weighs its response. 

But Iran's oil minister warned again that his petroleum-rich
country could disrupt the world's oil supply if the standoff
leads to open conflict. 

``If the country's interests are attacked, we will use oil as a
weapon,'' state television quoted Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh as
saying. 

That would drive oil prices above $100 a barrel, he said. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters that
specialized committees in key state agencies were studying the
nuclear incentives offered June 6 by the United States, Britain,
China, France, Russia and Germany. 

``The package contains legal, political and economic dimensions.
All its dimensions have to be studied,'' Asefi said. ``We
recommend to Europeans that accuracy should not be sacrificed
for the sake of speed.'' 

Asefi said the package required careful study before Tehran
delivered its formal response. 

``The reason that there can't be a speedy response is that we
have to hold serious discussions on the contents,'' he said.

``We are taking it seriously.'' 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would take until
mid-August to respond to the incentives package, prompting
President Bush to accuse Tehran of dragging its feet. 

Although details have not been made public, diplomats familiar
with its contents have said the offer includes economic
incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran
some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct
negotiations. 

The proposal calls for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment -
which can produce peaceful reactor fuel or fissile bomb material
- during negotiations. 

It calls for a long-term moratorium on enrichment until the
international community is convinced that Tehran's nuclear aims
are peaceful. Iran says it only wants to generate nuclear
energy. 

Iran has said it will not give up enrichment but indicated it
may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions. 
Asefi said dialogue was the only way to deal with Iran's nuclear
program, but he rejected the precondition that Iran halt uranium
enrichment before talks start. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, suggested Turkey
could be a ``good bridge'' to resolve differences between Iran
and the West. 

Larijani suggested Turkey play a mediating role after meeting
with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Sunday. 
``Deliberations with friends helps this path, especially friends
that are close to both parties,'' the official Islamic Republic
News Agency quoted Larijani as saying. ``These negotiations and
deliberations can be a good bridge to resolve this.'' 

Gul's trip to Iran came ahead of a visit to the U.S. early next
month. 

Germany and Iran's foreign ministers said Saturday that they
agreed that Iran would meet again with European Union foreign
policy chief Javier Solana to go over the incentive offer.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he expected
the first meeting ``in the next week.'' 

Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil exporter and the
second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries. The Islamic republic exports about 2.5
million barrels a day. 

The oil minister's sharp comments marked the second time in a
month that Iran threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if
Tehran is punished over its nuclear program. 

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also has said the
United States and its allies would be unable to secure oil
shipments passing out of the Persian Gulf through the strategic
Strait of Hormuz to the world markets.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: N. Korea Should Reveal Nuclear Plans
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday June 26, 2006 7:46 PM
 	
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday said North Korea
should heed warnings by China and other nations not to test
launch a long-range ballistic missile. 

Bush called on North Korea to declare ``what they have on top of
that vehicle and what are their intentions.'' 

North Korea has rattled the world with its apparent preparations
for testing a missile that could reach the western part of the
United States. 

``I have made clear to our partners on this issue - that would
be Japan and South Korea and China and Russia - that we need to
send a focused message to the North Koreans and that this
launch, you know, is provocative,'' Bush said, talking with
reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. 

``And I was pleased to hear that the Chinese have delivered that
message to the North Koreans,'' Bush said. ``And we would hope
that the leader in North Korea listen to the Chinese. 

China, a key provider of aid to impoverished North Korea, is
believed to be the only country that has considerable leverage
with Pyongyang. 

Bush said he did not know what North Korea's intentions were. 
``That's part of the problem,'' he said. ``It's a nontransparent
society that ought to be sharing its intentions with the rest of
the world.'' 

On tactics, there is at least one difference with a key ally,
Japan, which said Monday it would consider food sanctions among
other options against North Korea. 

``It is a matter of general policy that we don't believe in
using food as a weapon,'' State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said. 

The official said the United States had been generous in
providing food assistance through the World Food Program. But
U.S. donations were halted over questions about whether the food
was getting to the people for whom it was intended, McCormack
said. 

The World Food Program, meanwhile, has reduced its
contributions, and the United States has not provided any food
aid to that reduced program, McCormack said. 


On another front, the spokesman deflected suggestions by a
number of U.S. senators, including Richard Lugar, R-Ind.,
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that the United
States deal directly with North Korea. 

McCormack said that during the talks North Korea has held with
the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, there
were one-on-one discussions and ``there is a possibility to talk
about a number of different issues'' if the talks are resumed. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Bush: North Korea must detail missile payload 

 Mon Jun 26, 7:59 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush " /> President 
George W. Bushurged North Korea " /> North Koreato disclose what 
is inside a long-range missile that has been spotted on a launch 
site and say whether it plans to fire the rocket. 

"The North Koreans should notify the world of their intentions,
what they have on top of that vehicle and, you know, what are
their intentions," said Bush.
 
"We have not heard from the North Koreans, so I can't tell you
what their intentions are," he told reporters. "That's part of
the problem."
 
At the same time, White House spokesman Tony Snow rejected calls
from some senior US lawmakers to hold direct talks with
Pyongyang outside the stalled six-country negotiations on the
Stalinist country's nuclear weapons programs.
 
"Why, at this point, reward what seems to be possible bad
behavior?" Snow said.
 
US and Asian officials have said North Korea is preparing to
launch a Taepodong-2 missile, which could potentially hit Alaska
or possibly Hawaii, amid a standoff over the communist state's
nuclear program.
 
North Korea fired a Nodong missile in 1993 and five years later
launched a Taepodong-1 over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
 
"I have made clear to our partners on this issue -- that would
be Japan and South Korea
" /> South Koreaand China and Russia -- that we need to send a
focused message to the North Koreans and that this launch, you
know, is provocative," said Bush.
 
"And I was pleased to hear that the Chinese have delivered that
message to the North Koreans. And we would hope that the leader
in North Korea listen to the Chinese," said the US president.
 
Republican Senators Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
" /> Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Chuck Hagel, a
member of that panel, have urged the Bush administration to
consider direct talks with North Korea.
 
"We respect Senator Lugar. We respect Senator Hagel. But we're
not going to back off," said Snow. "Effective diplomacy means
holding a number of states together so that unified they can
assert their influence on North Korea."
 
"Now, if the North Koreans return to the six-party talks,
according to the September 19th agreement, there is an
opportunity, a parallel track for speaking with the United
States," he said.
 
Snow also said that South Korea and China, because of their
economic ties to North Korea, "have far more to say about what
goes on in North Korea than we do."
 
"And, therefore, it's essential to make sure that they're an
integral part of any ongoing discussions with the government in
Pyongyang," he said.
 
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 [NYTr] CIA Officer: Bush Regime Ignored Warnings about WMD "Errors"
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:03:50 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by MichaelP (activ-l)

AFP via Yahoo - Jun 25, 2006
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060625/1/41plw.html

CIA OFFICER CLAIMS US IGNORED WARNINGS ABOUT WMD ERRORS

US administration officials chose to ignore a CIA officer's warnings that 
an Iraqi defector's claims of purported biological labs made by Iraq for 
germ warfare were unproven.

Sunday's edition of The Washington Post quoted veteran CIA officer Tyler 
Drumheller who, it said, "recognized the source, an Iraqi defector 
suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar.

"The CIA officer took his pen," he recounted in an interview, "and crossed 
out the whole paragraph" in a statement to be presented by then secretary 
of state Colin Powell to the United Nations.

"A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before 
the UN Security Council on February 5 (2003) and said: 'We have first-hand 
descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.'"

Drumheller was stunned, the newspaper reported.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," it quoted the man who was 
the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, as saying. 
"But I turn on the television and there it was, again."

The newspaper said that although the US government had "acknowledged 
intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war", new 
accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on "one of the 
most spectacular failures of all".

This was, it added: "How US intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by 
reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ factories in the 
Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found."

Drumheller "described in extensive interviews repeated attempts to alert 
top CIA officials to problems with the defector, code-named Curveball, in 
the days before the Powell speech," The Post said.

Yet "the warnings triggered debates within the CIA but ultimately made no 
visible impact at the top, current and former intelligence officials 
said," it added.

"In briefing Powell before his UN speech, George Tenet, then the CIA 
director, personally vouched for the accuracy of the mobile-lab claim, 
according to participants in the briefing.

"Tenet now says he did not learn of the problems with Curveball until much 
later and that he received no warnings from Drumheller or anyone else," 
the Post said.

In late 2002, the Bush administration began scouring intelligence files 
for reports of Iraqi weapons threats, the newspaper went on.

"Drumheller was asked to press a counterpart from a European intelligence 
agency for direct access to Curveball," who was living in Germany and 
described himself as a chemical engineer.

"Other officials confirmed that it was the German intelligence service," 
the Post said.

"The German official declined but then offered a startlingly candid 
assessment," Drumheller recalled.

"'He said, 'I think the guy is a fabricator,'" Drumheller was quoted as 
saying, declining to name the official.

"He said: 'We also think he has psychological problems. We could never 
validate his reports.'"

Although "no American had ever interviewed Curveball, analysts with the 
CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control 
believed the informant's technical descriptions were too detailed to be 
fabrications," the Post said.

It was Germany's intelligence agency BND that passed along Curveball's 
stories to Washington, the report said.

"Over time, the informant generated more than 100 intelligence reports on 
secret Iraqi weapons programs -- the only such reports from an informant 
claiming to have visited and worked in mobile labs. Other informants, also 
later discredited, had claimed indirect knowledge of mobile labs," the 
report said.

       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: IAEA studies enrichment compromise but US remains unimpressed -
                           
 by Michael Adler Sun Jun 25, 4:37 PM ET 
		 	 
VIENNA (AFP) - The United States remains convinced Iran " /> 
Iranshould not be allowed to do any uranium enrichment work, 
after asking the UN nuclear agency for a technical assessment, 
diplomats said this weekend commenting on a confidential agency 
document obtained by AFP. 

The one-and-half page unofficial text supplied to Washington by 
International Atomic Energy Agency " /> International Atomic 
Energy Agencychief Mohamed ElBaradei gives the IAEA's assessment 
that even reduced enrichment work would help Iran move towards 
"successful long-term sustained centrifuge operation", which is 
needed to make enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear 
power reactor fuel or nuclear bomb material.
 
The revelation of the document, which was drawn up in late May, 
comes as world powers await Iran's response to an offer of talks 
about its nuclear programme, which has raised fears Tehran is 
secretly developing nuclear weapons.
 
The talks, which offer trade and other benefits in return for
Iran guaranteeing its nuclear program is peaceful, can only
start if Iran suspends uranium enrichment.
 
On Sunday, Iran reiterated its stand against preconditions to
launch talks, as Tehran says it has a right under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make nuclear reactor fuel for
what it insists is a peaceful program to generate electricity.
 
"The suspension of enrichment is one step backward," Iranian
foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Instead of
setting preconditions that are both unreasonable and baseless,
we should negotiate."
 
Diplomats say a compromise over enrichment will have to be found
if the talks are to begin.
 
One diplomat close to the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog said it
makes no sense to torpedo talks because of small-scale
enrichment work Iran is already doing and which is not yet a
proliferation risk.
 
"The United States will push very hard until the last minute in
the hope of getting the Iranians to give in but at the end of
the day they will accept some form of enrichment activity" in
order to get talks started, said the diplomat, who requested
anonymity.
 
The oft-repeated US position, however, is that not one
centrifuge should be spinning as this could give Iran
"break-out" knowledge to make nuclear weapons.
 
Among the compromises being considered are letting Iran use the
centrifuge machines which enrich uranium, but empty of the
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feedstock gas that is refined into a
more concentrated form of the isotope U-235.
 
It was to analyze this possibility that the US National Security
Council asked ElBaradei for an assessment when he visited
Washington just ahead of a meeting of six world powers in Vienna
on June 1, a Western diplomat told AFP.
 
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States
defined their proposal at that meeting, which was then presented
to Iran on June 6.
 
ElBaradei was asked three questions, according to the document:
 
-- "If centrifuges were left to spin in vacuum, i.e. without
introduction of UF6, how much would be learnt."
 
-- "What R and D (research and development) could be linked to
the fuel cycle but not involve enrichment and reprocesssing?"
 
-- What kind of inspection regime ("Protocol Plus") would we
need to ensure effective verification in the country?"
 
A Western diplomat said the answer was that Iran could still
learn much from even activities short of actually enriching
uranium and that this "helped the United States, Britain and
France argue persuasively in favor of full suspension as a
precondition." 

The IAEA said Iran could learn from spinning centrifuges empty
such key information as the "life expectancy ... of key
mechanical components" and data "needed for the development of
more advanced centrifuge systems." 

A second Western diplomat stressed that "the question that was
posed to Elbaradei in Washington was merely a technical question
and in no way indicated any change in position or any intention
to change position" by the United States.
 	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Papandreou: All states entitled to enjoy NPT advantages

Tehran, June 26, IRNA

Iran-NPT-Greece 

Former Greek prime minister and Head of the International
Socialist Organization, Georgios Papandreou, said here Monday
that enjoying NPT advantages is the inalienable right of all
countries.

 Talking to reporters after meeting Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki, which he assessed as positive, and hoped that such
talks will contribute to promotion of regional stability and
peace.

 Papandreou expressed satisfaction with his visit to Iran and
ith friendly bilateral relations, adding that it is the time for
Iran to play a decisive role in the history.

 Turning to the goals of the International Socialist
Organization in seeking justice and peace, he said that 165
political parties throughout the world cooperate with socialism.

 He said that the international socialism at the global level
seeks to promote peace and find a solution to the current
conflicts.

 Papandreou referred to Iran as a country free from nuclear
weapons and underlined that such a goal is also confirmed and
pursued by the international socialism.

 "The international socialism seeks ways to reduce militarism at
the global level. It has a long history in establishment of
peace and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world," he
added.

 He referred to Iran's decisive role in promotion of peace and
stability in the region and declared his country's opposition to
proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 Papandreou called on Iran to take initiative and play a
critical role in the world under the current conditions.

 For his part, Secretary General of the International Socialist
Organization Louis Ayala said that the international community
paves the way to facilitate equal access to nuclear energy for
all countries.

 He pointed to Europe's proposal to Iran on its nuclear issue
and stressed that this is a favorable opportunity for Iran to
play a critical role by making a proper decision.

*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Missiles Going in at U.S. Bases in Japan
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Monday June 26, 2006 5:46 PM
 	
By MARI YAMAGUCHI Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - Tokyo and Washington have agreed to deploy advanced
Patriot interceptor missiles on American bases in Japan for the
first time, officials said Monday amid concerns North Korea may
be preparing to test-fire a long-range ballistic missile. 

President Bush said North Korea should heed warnings by China
and other nations not to test-launch the Taepodong-2, which
intelligence reports have said it may be fueling at a launch
site on its northeastern coast. 

``I have said that the North Koreans should notify the world of
their intentions - what they have on top of that vehicle and
what are their intentions,'' Bush told reporters at the White
House. ``We have not heard from the North Koreans, so I can't
tell you what their intentions are. 

``We don't know. That's part of the problem. It's a
non-transparent society that ought to be sharing its intentions
with the rest of the world.'' 

The U.S. and Japan reached an accord on the interceptors this
month after reports of the possible test-firing became public,
and the weapons will be installed on American bases in Japan as
soon as possible, Japan's Defense Agency said. 

Japan's largest newspaper said the interceptor missiles could be
in place by the end of the year. 

The two countries signed a 2005 agreement allowing Japan to
produce Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles for deployment at
Japanese bases. 

It was unclear whether PAC-3 missiles - designed to intercept
ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or enemy aircraft - would be
able to hit North Korea's latest long-range missile, the
newspaper reported. 

Yomiuri Shimbun said the medium- to long-range interceptor may
be unable to shoot down the Taepodong-2, which is believed
capable of reaching parts of the United States. The newspaper
did not cite a source for that assessment. 

The Defense Agency spokeswoman said the sites of the Patriot
deployment and its timing have not been decided. 

Yomiuri Shimbun said that the U.S. military would deploy three
or four of the surface-to-air missile batteries on the southern
island of Okinawa by the end of the year, and send an additional
500 to 600 U.S. troops there. Up to 16 missiles can fit in a
single PAC-3 battery, according to the system's manufacturer,
Lockheed Martin Corp. 

The plan was proposed by U.S. officials during a June 17 meeting
in Hawaii, the newspaper reported, quoting unidentified
government officials. 

Japan's defense chief said that it was not clear if fueling was
taking place, a news report said. 

Defense Agency head Fukushiro Nukaga said in a speech in Osaka
that while ``it appears to be a fact that the missile has been
mounted on a launch platform,'' it was unclear if it was being
fueled, Kyodo News agency reported. 

The North has maintained a self-imposed moratorium on such
launches since 1999. The United States, Japan and other
countries have urged North Korea to halt any plans to test the
missile. Pyongyang has insisted it has the right to test-launch. 
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon arrived in Beijing on
a two-day visit to seek China's cooperation in halting a launch. 
Ban was to discuss ``all matters pertaining to Korea and China,
including the early resumption of six-party talks as well as
North Korea's attempt to test fire a long-range missile,'' he
said to reporters in Beijing. 

``China has been playing a very constructive role for the
maintenance of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,''
Ban said. 

China is the North's key ally and is believed able to exert the
most influence on Pyongyang. Beijing has hosted international
talks on the North's nuclear program, which halted in November
amid North Korean boycott anger over U.S. financial sanctions. 

``I have made clear to our partners on this issue - that would
be Japan and South Korea and China and Russia - that we need to
send a focused message to the North Koreans and that this
launch, you know, is provocative,'' Bush said. 

The missile concerns also have prompted the U.S. to move up a
test of a missile-detecting radar system in northern Japan,
Kyodo News agency reported, citing an unidentified U.S. official
in Washington. 

Kyodo said testing of the high-resolution radar capable of
detecting incoming missiles could start as early as Monday,
weeks earlier than expected. 

Japanese officials said the report could not immediately be
confirmed. 

The X-Band radar has been transferred from a U.S. base in Japan
to the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force's Shariki base at
Tsugaru, 360 miles northeast of Tokyo. 

The radar deployment is part of the joint missile defense
project, which began after North Korea fired a missile, part of
which flew over Japan, in 1998. 

Tokyo and Washington on Friday also signed an agreement to
expand their cooperation on a joint ballistic missile defense
shield, committing themselves to joint production of interceptor
missiles. 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 [wandnukecom] Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:46:51 -0700

<x-flowed>

From:  Bobbie Paul
Subject:  [wandnukecom] Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap
Date:  Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:06:26 -0400
A  long but worthy article.  You can fashion a letter from this info.
Bobbie


Nuclear power: not green, clean or cheap
National Forum
By Mark Diesendorf
June 16, 2006

With growing international concern about global climate change from
human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, the nuclear power industry has
attempted to change the image of its product into that of an energy source
that is “clean, green and cheap”. In reality, all the problems that worried
us about the nuclear industry in the 1970s and 1980s are either unchanged or
have become worse. In the latter case:

*    the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons is worse because the US
and
Australian governments are undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) by selling uranium to non-signatories, India and Taiwan. While the NPT
is far from adequate, it is better than nothing or unilateral US control;
*    since September 11, 2001, the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear
facilities has increased. The fewer the facilities, the safer everyone is;
*    now that several countries have created competitive markets for
electricity, it is clear that the cost of nuclear electricity is even higher
than previously projected (see below); and
*    detailed recent calculations of the CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel
cycle reveal that nuclear energy, based on existing technology, cannot be a
long-term solution to global climate change from the human-induced
greenhouse effect (see below).

This article addresses the last two of these points.

CO2 emissions

The nuclear industry has disseminated widely the false notion that nuclear
energy emits no greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that every step
(except reactor operation) in the long chain of processes that makes up the
nuclear fuel “cycle” - mining, milling fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment,
construction and decommissioning of the reactor, and waste management -
burns fossil fuels and hence emits carbon dioxide (CO2).

Over the past 20 years there have been several calculations of CO2 emissions
from the nuclear fuel cycle. The most detailed calculation comes from Van
Leeuwen and Smith <http://www.stormsmith.nl/> (VLS) (2005).

Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry, VLS find that the CO2
emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are only small when high-grade uranium
ore is used. But there are very limited reserves of high-grade uranium in
the world and most are in Australia and Canada. As these are used up over
the next several decades, low-grade uranium ore (comprising 0.01 per cent or
less yellowcake) will have to be used.

This means that to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of ore will
have to be mined and milled, using fossil fuels and emitting substantial
quantities of CO2. These emissions are comparable with those from a combined
cycle gas-fired power station.

In response, the nuclear industry cites a report by Swedish utility,
Vattenfall, which only considers a single power station and obtains lower
emissions than VLS in the case of high-grade uranium ore and apparently
doesn’t address low-grade uranium at all. This report has not been published
and is not available on the Internet - only a summary
<http://www.environdec.com/reg/e_epd21.pdf> (pdf file 248KB), that does not
reveal most of the assumptions or results, is available.

It is very poor science to cite a report that is unavailable to the public.
Van Leeuwen and Smith’s report, which is based on the analysis of many
uranium mines and power stations, stands unrefuted at present.

In theory, a technically possible solution to the shortage of high-grade
uranium would be to switch to fast breeder reactors, which produce so much
plutonium that in theory they can multiply the original uranium fuel by 50.
Large-scale chemical reprocessing of spent fuel would be necessary to
extract the plutonium and unused uranium, and this has its own hazards and
costs, since spent fuel is intensely radioactive and plutonium is an
excellent nuclear explosive. The “commercial” reprocessing industry has
failed in the US and UK. Only France hangs on.

Fast breeders use liquid sodium as a coolant and so are more dangerous than
ordinary nuclear reactors. So far, fast breeders have all been technical and
economic failures. The largest was the French 1,200 megawatt Superphoenix, a
name that alludes to the mythical bird that burnt itself on a funeral pyre
and then arose from the ashes to live again with renewed youth.

Reality was rather different from the myth: Superphoenix commenced operation
in 1985 as a “commercial industrial prototype”. It operated only
intermittently and very rarely at full power, experiencing leaks from its
cooling system and several other accidents. It was shut down at the end of
1998 after costing an estimated total of about A$15 billion.

At present there are no commercial scale fast breeder reactors operating.
There is a 600 megawatt demonstration fast neutron reactor in Russia, but it
has a history of accidents and does not seem to have ever operated as a
breeder. The pro-nuclear study from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), entitled The Future of Nuclear Power
<http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/>, does not expect the breeder cycle to
come into commercial operation during the next three decades.

In summary, nuclear power, based on existing technologies, is a dead-end
side alley on the pathway to reducing CO2 emissions.

Nuclear economics

In most countries where there is a competitive electricity industry, it is
clear that nuclear electricity is much more expensive than fossil
electricity. In the UK and US nuclear energy is even more expensive than
wind power. More specifically, the MIT (2003) report (cited above) estimates
that the cost of electricity generated by a new nuclear power station in the
US would be US6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (c/kWh), or about AU9c/kWh
Australian. For comparison coal power in eastern Australia costs under
AU4c/kWh. Wind power in US costs US4-5c/kWh and in Australia AU7.5-8.5c/kWh,
depending upon site.

When the UK electricity industry was privatised, the British Government had
to impose a fossil fuel levy to subsidise nuclear electricity. By 1998 the
annual subsidy had reached Ł1.2 billion per year, equivalent to a subsidy of
about AU6c/kWh Australian on each unit of nuclear electricity generated. In
addition, it has recently been estimated by the UK Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority that dismantling Britain’s existing nuclear power stations will
cost about Ł70 billion. Since a full-size nuclear power station (1,000
megawatts or more) has never been decommissioned anywhere in the world, the
costs could turn out to be even higher.

The only new “commercial” nuclear power station under construction in a
developed country is currently taking shape in Finland. The nuclear industry
claims that this demonstrates nuclear energy is competitive in market
conditions. But the power station is being built by a consortium, that
includes a 40 per cent share by the government of Finland, which will sell
its electricity to its own members. Thus the consortium avoids conditions of
a competitive market and so has obtained finance at interest rates far below
market rates. The European Commission is currently considering a complaint
about this practice.

On the global scene, consider the following frank summary of the 1998
electricity generating cost study that was published jointly by the
International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. The raw data
was supplied by the nuclear industries in the countries surveyed, so they
are hardly likely to be biased against nuclear energy. The summary
<http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/birol.htm> was presented by Dr Fatih
Birol, the chief economist and head of the Economic Analysis Division,
International Energy Agency (IEA), at an annual international forum of the
Uranium Institute:

The results confirm the current cost advantage of fossil-fuelled power
generation … Clearly, under BAU [business-as-usual] assumptions the
contribution of nuclear power over the next two decades will be limited.

The harsh reality is, at market interest rates of 10 per cent real or more,
nuclear electricity is uneconomic almost everywhere in the world. It is at
least double the cost of coal power in the US and UK, and would be nearly
three times the cost of coal power in eastern Australia.

The nuclear industry's solution to these harsh economic realities has been
to produce a series of reports on the economics of a "new generation" of
nuclear power stations that only exists on paper at present. In theory such
reactors would be slightly cheaper and possibly slightly safer than existing
models. The latest estimate of “new generation” economics is the report to
ANSTO <http://www.ansto.gov.au/> by leading nuclear industry figure, John
Gittus, claiming that a non-existent nuclear power station, AP1000, would be
competitive with coal power in eastern Australia under certain conditions.

The Gittus report’s conditions are indicated in two alternative scenarios.
One involves substantial government subsidies on the capital and operating
costs of the proposed power station. The other involves "no subsidy",
according to Gittus, just a massive government guaranteed, unsecured,
"insured loan, which would be repaid to government, together with a
retrospective premium, out of revenues from the station once it began to
generate electricity".

But, what if the untried nuclear power station proves to be more expensive
to build and operate than the paper study estimates? That has always been
the case with nuclear power in the past. What if the earnings from
electricity sales prove to be insufficient to repay the additional costs and
the loans? The Gittus report is vague on such details, suggesting that the
government (i.e., the taxpayer) would share the risk. If so, this is a
subsidy dressed up as a loan and neither of Gittus’s scenarios is anywhere
near being economically competitive with conventional coal power.
If this proposal is a good deal for the lender, why is it necessary for the
government to lend anything? Surely, private financial institutions would be
queuing up? Though it's strange that no private investors have funded a new
nuclear power station in the US for over a quarter century, despite massive
subsidies to the industry.

The investor’s choice

The nuclear industry is offering investors and the community a false choice
between coal and nuclear power, which are both dirty and dangerous
technologies. But the real choice is between clean power - comprising a mix
of efficient energy use, natural gas and renewable sources of energy - and
dirty power - comprising coal and nuclear power.

Both coal and nuclear power have severe adverse environmental, health and
social impacts. Both offer big financial risks to investors. That’s why the
Gittus report requests that the government either pay a direct subsidy or
take on much of the financial risk, which is an indirect subsidy. It is
essential that the Australian community does not permit the government
(i.e., the taxpayer) to take on the financial risk of building new
coal-fired or nuclear power stations.

A truly ethical and clean investment portfolio in energy would exclude both
the coal and nuclear industries. Efficient energy use and renewable energy
offer safe and clean investments. Over the past 15 years, wind power has
been both the fastest growing and cleanest energy technology in the world.
Bioenergy is already making valuable contributions to energy supply in
Finland and Austria. China’s target is for renewable energy (mostly wind
power) to contribute 12 per cent of electricity and nuclear only 4 per cent
by 2020.

Meanwhile, huge potential for hot rock geothermal power has been
demonstrated in Australia and a new generation of solar electricity
generators (thin films including CSG cells developed at UNSW, sliver cells
developed at ANU and solar thermal electricity) is coming onto the global
market.

For an article summarising our national scenario study, A Clean Energy
Future for Australia, and related studies on four States, go here
<http://www.bml.csiro.au/susnetnl/netwl54E.pdf> (pdf file 513KB).

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 17 Chicago Sun-Times: Tritium found near shuttered nuclear plant 

June 26, 2006

FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS 

Low levels of radioactive tritium, not posing a health hazard,
have been discovered in ground water at the shuttered Zion
nuclear plant.
 

However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it has collected
samples of water from Lake Michigan and found no traces of the
element, according to William Snell, senior health physicist at
the commission. "We have conducted independent sampling of the
water in the lake and found there was no level of tritium in the
lake," he said.
 
Snell said tritium, a by-product in nuclear power generation,
does not pose health hazards. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency allows 20,000 picocuries of tritium per liter of drinking
water. A monitoring well, drilled by Exelon at the Zion plant,
showed only 680 picocuries, he noted.
 
The nuclear plant has been closed for the past eight years.
State Sen. Susan Garrett pressured Excelon to conduct testing at
the Zion nuclear plant following the discovery of leakage of
tritium in May at Excelon's Briarwood and Byron nuclear plants.
The leakage of the material at either plant is low, according to
Snell.
 
Garrett said she is concerned that ComEd had never tested for
tritium leakage at the Zion plant when it was in operation. "Was
there any leakage before?" she asked, adding that "only now we
are learning about a spill of a leak that has occurred. We need
more oversight and openness and transparency from Excelon," said
Garrett who met with Excelon officials Friday.
 
Excelon could not be reached for comment but company officials
told Garrett further sampling will be conducted and inspection
made to locate the leakage.
 
Meanwhile, Snell said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will
continue monitoring the situation.
 
-- Waukegan News Sun
 
Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 18 BBC: Ofgem plans Ł4bn energy upgrade
 
Last Updated: Monday, 26 June 2006
 
[Electricity pylon]                             

The investments will help improve ageing infrastructure                                                           

UK energy regulator Ofgem has said gas and electricity network 
operators should invest Ł4bn over the next five years to meet 
rising demand. 

The money will be spent enabling the gas network to take more 
imports and linking more renewable energy sources to the 
electricity grid. 

Ofgem is reviewing the investment needs of the four main 
transmission firms and how much they can charge customers. 

The companies have outlined their own spending programmes - worth 
Ł7-9bn. 

Eventually Ofgem will issue price controls within which the 
network operators - National Grid Electricity, National Grid Gas, 
Scottish Power Transmission and Scottish Hydro-Electric 
Transmission - have to run their businesses from 2007 to 2012. 

It suggested that the investment figure could rise to over Ł5bn, 
which would be twice the spending level set during the last 
spending review. 

'Huge challenges' 

Ofgem said customers' bills would be little impacted by the 
investment because the cost of transmitting energy only 
represents about 2% to 3% of energy bills. 

"Britain's energy networks face huge challenges over the next 
five years to respond to changes in the sources of our gas and 
power," said Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem. 

"A variety of import projects to bring gas from areas across the 
world are being built and there are also proposals to greatly 
increase the amount of electricity sourced from renewables," he 
said. 

The announcement comes ahead of the UK's energy review. 

Due next month, it is expected to call for the building of new 
generation of nuclear power stations. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 19 The Herald: Go-ahead likely for new nuclear stations   

Web Issue 2558     June 26 2006      

MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political Correspondent     

  Ministers are today expected to give approval to a new
generation of nuclear power stations for Britain.

 Reports suggested yesterday that the cabinet's Energy and
Environment Committee  chaired by Tony Blair and attended by
senior ministers including Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, the
Industry Secretary, and Douglas Alexander, the Scottish
Secretary  will put the final touches to the government's
recommendations in its energy review.

 Last night, Downing Street declined to comment, saying: "We
don't comment on cabinet committees. We have said the review is
under way and we will publish it when we are ready." 

It is thought publication will come within the next two weeks
with a full House of Commons statement.

 While No 10 has denied reports the Prime Minister has
pre-empted his government's announcement, Mr Blair has made it
clear he is in favour of Britain having a new generation of
nuclear power stations. 

He argues that the nation needs a mix of energy supplies so it
is not overly reliant on foreign gas and oil. He also says an
element of nuclear power is necessary to keep the UK's carbon
emissions down.

 Downing Street has indicated it believes the key matter of
waste management is no longer the problem it once was. 

The issue is vital to the Scottish political context as Jack
McConnell has made it clear that, while this issue remains
unresolved, the executive will not support a new generation of
nuclear power stations. Crucially, the First Minister and his
colleagues are the planning arbiters for Scotland.

 Last week in Dumfries, Mr McConnell appeared if anything to
strengthen his position, saying: "I am not in favour of new
nuclear generation in Scotland until the issue of waste is
satisfactorily resolved. Nuclear waste is virtually permanent
and potentially very, very lethal."

 He also noted that new nuclear stations were "questionable"
because Scotland had a massive renewable power resource "not
just in wind and hydro power but increasingly in marine energy
as well". 

Politically, the nuclear issue is incredibly sensitive in
Scotland, particularly with parliamentary elections due next May
and with the SNP and Liberal Democrats opposed. It is known the
Labour hierarchy recognises that handling the nuclear issue
successfully could be crucial in whether or not it fares well at
the 2007 polls.

 Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire is already being decommissioned.
Hunterston in North Ayrshire is scheduled to shut in six years
along with eight other UK plants. Torness in East Lothian is
expected to keep going until 2023.

 Taking nuclear out of the Scottish equation removes 37% of its
power generation, at 2003 levels. The executive intends to
increase the contribution of renewables to 40% of the total by
2020.

 Key to building as many as 10 new nuclear power stations across
Britain will be making the programme profitable to companies.
Yesterday it was claimed the decision to approve another nuclear
generation would be accompanied by a number of "sweeteners" to
the industry. 

However, such a prospect would become irrelevant in Scotland if
Mr McConnell and his colleagues set their faces against any new
stations north of the border.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant for an Additional 20 Years
 
News Release - 2006-08
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov No. 06-085     June 26, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating
licenses of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2,
for an additional 20 years.
 
The Brunswick plant is located south of Wilmington, N.C., at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River. The licensee, Carolina Power &
Light Co., submitted its license renewal application Oct. 18,
2004. With the renewal, the license for Unit 1 is extended until
Sept. 8, 2036, and the license for Unit 2 is extended until Dec.
27, 2034.
 
The NRCs environmental review for this license renewal is
described in a site-specific supplement to the NRCs Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants (NUREG-1437, Supplement 25), issued in April. The
review concluded there were no environmental impacts that would
preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons.
Public meetings to discuss the environmental review were held
near the plant Jan. 27, 2005, and Oct. 18, 2005.
 
After carefully reviewing the plants safety systems and
specifications, the staff concluded that there were no safety
concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the
licensee had demonstrated effectively the capability to manage
the effects of plant aging. The Safety Evaluation Report Related
to the License Renewal of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-1856) was published in March. In addition,
NRC conducted inspections of the plant to verify information
submitted by the licensee. The reports relating to the Brunswick
renewal are available on the NRC Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/brunswick.html.
 
On May 17, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards - an
independent body of technical experts which advises the
Commission - issued its recommendation that the operating
licenses for Brunswick be renewed. That recommendation is
contained in Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal
Application for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and
2. This document is available on the NRC Web site at this
address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2006/.
 

The Brunswick renewals bring the total number of renewals to 44
reactor units. A complete listing of renewal applications can be
found on the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, June 26, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: US Congress expected to clear Indian nuclear deal in first vote
    
By P. Parameswaran 

[India's military parades its short-range surface-to-surface
Agni ballistic missile in New Delhi.]   

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers are expected to give conditional
backing this week to a US civilian nuclear deal with India in
the first congressional vote on the controversial agreement
since it was first adopted nearly a year ago.

The House International Relations Committee and the Senate
Foreign Relations committee are scheduled to consider the far
reaching deal on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively.

Both the administration of President George W. Bush and Congress
are confident the (Advertisement)
 [ src=] deal would win majority bipartisan support in the
committees before they go for voting in the two full chambers
possibly next month.

"There appears to be pretty strong support" in the Senate
committee for the deal based on a bipartisan bill to be
introduced by Republican Senator Dick Lugar and Democratic
Senator Joseph Biden, Lugar's spokesman Andy Fisher said.

Lugar, chairman of the Senate panel, has posed to the Bush
administration a total of 187 questions on the deal following
concerns by lawmakers over the repercussions of extending civil
nuclear technology to India, which is not a member of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In the House international relations committee, "there is
tremendous support although not necessarily unanimous," said
Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the highest ranking Democrat on the
House International Relations Committee Tom Lantos.

While majority of the House panel's lawmakers are expected to
vote to endorse the deal, they could hold off on a vote to
change US nuclear law until the completion of a final agreement
and safeguards India would be subjected to, congressional aides
said.

"We expect a lot of discussions and committee members with
concerns will have the opportunity to raise them," Weil said,
adding that the House panel's debate would be based on a
bipartisan bill by Lantos and Republican committee chairman
Henry Hyde.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the chief US negotiator
of the deal, also predicted easy passage of the bill.

"I'm not going to be so rash, perhaps foolish to predict a vote
count but we are very confident that we have majority support in
the House and Senate," he said following extensive discussions
with Congressional leaders.

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 currently prevents the United
States from trading nuclear technology with nations not party to
the NPT such as India. It has to be amended for the deal to be
effective.

Under the deal first agreed upon by Bush and Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year, the United States
will aid the development of civil nuclear power programs in
India in return for New Delhi placing its civil nuclear
facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards

India tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998 and is currently
banned by the United States and other mostly industrialized
nations from buying fuel for atomic reactors and other related
equipment as a result.

Some legislators against the deal say it would not only make it
harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran and North
Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent for other countries
with nuclear ambitions.

"We intend to make the case that the purported benefits of this
deal are an illusion, and the risks to the international nuclear
nonproliferation regime are quite real," said House Democratic
Representative Ed Markey.

Last week, a distinguished group of nonproliferation experts
from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to Congress
arguing that the nuclear deal would put the United States in
violation of its central obligation under the NPT -- not
assisting a non-nuclear weapon state in its pursuit of nuclear
weapons.

They charged that the deal could free up India's "limited
domestic nuclear fuel making capacity to produce highly enriched
uranium and plutonium for weapons."

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power reactors
but can also be employed to manufacture the explosive core of
atom bombs.
 
AFP 

*****************************************************************
 22 UBC: Beloyarskaya nuclear power station hosts RosEnergoAtom and
electricite de France Coordinating Board meeting on June 21 to
    June 23. Daily news çŕ 

26.06.2006. 

UralBusinessConsulting
 
 Beloyarskaya nuclear power station hosts RosEnergoAtom and 
Électricité de France Coordinating Board meeting on June 21 to 
June 23Beloyarskaya nuclear power station hosted the meeting of 
RosEnergoAtom and Électricité de France Coordinating Board on 
June 21 to June 23, 2006. 

The Russian party was comprised by the management of 
RosEnergoAtom, Beloyarskaya nuclear power station, Volgodonskaya 
nuclear power station, AtomTrudResource and AtomTechEnergo, the 
French party was represented by the executives of various 
departments of Électricité de France. The attendees updated each 
other on the state of events in the nuclear industries of the two 
countries and discussed their cooperation opportunities. 

The French experts had a chance to look at the activity records 
and the potential of the BN-600 reactor, at the construction site 
of the new BN-800 feeding unit, and at the prospective new 
process platform based on the fast reactors with a closed nuclear 
fuel cycle. 

The French representatives shared their experience gained during 
the construction of the EPR-1600 feeding unit at Flamanville 
(this plant is a ‘sworn brother’ of Volgodonskaya nuclear power 
station) and spoke on managing the unit construction. The meeting 
participants also discussed the issues of operating, engineering, 
control and inspection, and personnel policies. 

    Phone: + 7 343 2575578 © Informational-analitical agency 
«UralBusinessConsulting», 2000-2006 Information, structure, 
conception.   
*****************************************************************
 23 globeandmail.com: 'I don't like nuclear energy'
 	
POSTED ON 26/06/06 
	 		 			
KAREN HOWLETT                   
			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 	 	 		 	 
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty kicked off his campaign for next
year's provincial election by acknowledging that he is no fan of
nuclear power.

"I don't like nuclear energy," he said in a luncheon speech in
London, Ont., as a group of activists from Greenpeace Canada
protested outside the event .
 
These were Mr. McGuinty's strongest words yet against nuclear
power and come just two weeks after his government announced
plans to build the first new reactors in the province in more
than three decades.
 
While radioactive waste is the biggest drawback to nuclear
energy, he said in his speech to about 350 Liberal MPPs and
riding association delegates at the London Convention Centre,
building more coal-fired power plants would set the province
further behind in attempting to reduce emissions that cause air
pollution.
 	 		 			 				 			 		 	 
He said his government struggled with some tough choices in
coming up with a $40-billion energy plan that focuses on nuclear
power, alternative energy sources and conservation.
 
-
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell 
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada M5V 
2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher -->                                     
*****************************************************************
 24 globeandmail.com: Mr. McGuinty's dilemma
 	
POSTED ON 26/06/06 
	 		 			
PETER HAMBLY                    
			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 	 	 		 	 
Hanover, Ont. -- So, Dalton McGuinty doesn't like nuclear energy
(McGuinty: I Don't Like Nuclear Energy -- on-line edition, June
24). Sounds like the Ontario Premier wants to have it both ways
so he might appease to some extent all parts of the energy
spectrum's voters. In any event, who cares what he likes? He
broke so many promises made in the last election campaign, that
as we head into an election year, we will surely ignore anything
he says.
 
Although he can argue with some justification that he has been
forced to make hard choices and that the government has a
responsibility to make difficult decisions, the immediate legacy
of his actions to date is our distrust of future promises and a
fully deserved cynicism of his government's actions.
 	 		 			 				 			 		 	 	 	 	Search Search Archives 		 	 		 	 	
	 	 	 		 				 			 			 	 	 	 						 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	 		 		 		
 © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
 	 	
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada
M5V 2S9 
Phillip Crawley, Publisher
*****************************************************************
 25 SNA: Bulgarian Atomic Experts Rise Against Nuke Closure
     
Politics: 26 June 2006, Monday.

Bulgaria's decision to close Units 3&4 of its only Nuclear Power
Plant should be reconsidered, experts from the Bulgarian atomic
forum Bulatom have announced.
 
The decision contradicts all assessments by international
experts and even the opinion of some EU politicians, Bulatom
state in a declaration.
 
The Council of Europe and the European Commission should
undertake a flexible approach towards the issue and consider the
effect such a closure would have on all the countries in the
region, the companies in Bulgaria's nuclear industry believe.
The International Atomic Energy Agency had stated in a report of
2002 that Units 3&4 have reached a safety level that even
surpasses the Agency's preliminary requirements, Bulatom reminds.
 
A report by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO)
from 2003 also states that Units 3&4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power
Plant are safer and in better condition than half of the
reactors of the same type in the world. Bulgaria's own Nuclear
Regulatory Agency (NRA) have extended the licences of the two
units until 2011 and 2013 respectively. 

The decision to close the units is not a political one, Bulatom
believe, it is economical and is to the best benefit of the
largest European nuclear companies. However, members of the
forum say that it's unclear what the benefit for Bulgaria would
be.
 
The latest EC Monitoring Report was worded in a way that
suggested that Bulgaria should take steps ensuring irreversible
dismantling of Units 1&2 of the plant, to prove its commitment
to their closure. EU rapporteur for Bulgaria Geoffrey Van Orden
has commented that these demands show "unwarranted lack of
trust". The report's wording once again sparked discussions
about the units' closure. Energy and Economy minister Rumen
Ovcharov maintains that any attempt to "save" the nukes would
delay the country's EU accession. Ovcharov stressed his point by
dismissing the power plant's chief Ivan Ivanov for his Ivanov's
attitude towards the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development.

novinite.com

 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright
 
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
*****************************************************************
 26 RIA Novosti: Putin submits nuclear terrorism convention for ratification
 
26/ 06/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, June 26 (RIA Novosti) - President Vladimir Putin Monday
introduced a new convention on the fight against nuclear
terrorism and several other documents for ratification by the
lower house of Russia's parliament. 

Putin signed the International Convention for the Suppression of
Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in New York on September 14, 2005. The
convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in April last
year on Russia's initiative. 

The document "defines the act of nuclear terrorism as the use or
threat to use nuclear material, nuclear fuel, radioactive
products or waste, or any other radioactive substances with
toxic, explosive, or other dangerous properties," and outlines
measures aimed to prevent terrorist acts involving the use of
nuclear or other radioactive materials. 

Putin has also submitted a protocol on Uzbekistan's accession to
Eurasec, a regional body seeking to establish a single economic
zone and comprising Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
and Belarus; and a protocol on formation and operation of
collective security forces under the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, a regional security body founded on October 7,
2002, by Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and
Tajikistan. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 27 WTN: NorthStar finds cancer-fighting use for nuclear fuel | 

Wisconsin Technology Network is an independent news source and
does not represent other companies or organizations discussed in
our articles. 
 
 Company to use small amount of fuel to develop agent for
research                        

Published 06/26/06      

Janesville, Wis. - Fighting cancer and disposing of excess 
nuclear fuel may seem like disparate goals at first glance. 
However, a small company in Janesville has obtained the rights to 
a technology that promises to tackle both problems 
simultaneously.
 
, an early-stage developer of radiopharmaceuticals, will develop
an agent for cancer research and treatment by processing small
amounts of unused nuclear fuel left over from a discontinued
breeder reactor research program.
 
NSN, a producer and developer of diagnostic and therapeutic
radioisotopes, recently acquired the rights to a new technology
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's .
 
Glen Isensee, senior vice president and chief technology officer
for Northstar Nuclear, said he and his colleagues recognized and
linked the demand for medical research isotopes with the supply
offered by the DOE. 

"If there's a good market, why not do something about it?"
Isensee asked.
 
Going to the MATT
 
The technology, Medical Actinium for Therapeutic Treatment
(MATT), is used to produce actinium-225, a medical isotope used
in alpha-immunotherapy treatments. These treatments utilize an
alpha particle-emitting radionuclide carried by targeting agents
such as monoclonal antibodies. The targeting agent attaches to
cancer cells and the radioisotope kills them, ideally minimizing
collateral damage to normal cells.
 
The agreement gives NorthStar the exclusive right to use MATT
for the life of the patents in exchange for fees and annual
royalty payments to INL. Terry Todd, research department manager
for INL, anticipates the partnership will know more about the
design, cost, and timeline for developing the isotope on a
larger scale after nine months of studies.
 
"We're quite optimistic about this working," said Todd. "We're
really excited to be partnered with NorthStar to get this moving
forward."
 
NorthStar Nuclear, a subsidiary of , also located in Janesville,
will work with tens-of-grams of fuel to demonstrate the
technology on small scale and verify the chemistry of the
separation processes. These studies will help develop designs
for a pilot plant capable of processing 500 to 1,000 pounds of
fuel. 

This small plant will produce actinium for testing and clinical
trials within the medical community, but plans to construct
larger facilities await FDA approval.
 
This strategy will sidestep an expensive alternative for
disposing of the unused fuel, called "down-blending," which
would involve mixing the 13 tons of uranium-233 with a very
large amount of natural uranium.
 
"We would rather see it used for [the study] as opposed to being
diluted down," Todd said.
 

© 2002-2006 Wisconsin Technology Network LLC. All Rights
Reserved 

*****************************************************************
 28 Japan Times: Nuclear firm rapped over radiation
 
japantimes.co.jp           

Monday, June 26, 2006

AOMORI (Kyodo) The Aomori Prefectural Government blasted Japan
Nuclear Fuel Ltd., the operator of Japan's first full-fledged
spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, on Sunday after a worker
was exposed to radioactive waste.
 
"I'm filled with rancor. I'm giving a strict reprimand," Aomori
Gov. Shingo Mimura told company President Isami Kojima, who
visited the prefectural government to offer an apology for
Saturday's accident in which the 19-year-old worker was exposed
to a small amount of radioactive waste.
 
The accident follows a similar incident involving another worker
at the plant in Rokkasho in May.
 
Kojima promised additional safety measures, including obliging
its workers to wear masks when handling solid radioactive
material.

 The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 
     
*****************************************************************
 29 IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Uranium Exports May Boomerang
 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:40:38 -0700

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP WD DV EN IP NU WT=20
AUSTRALIA: Uranium Exports May Boomerang
Bob Burton=20

CANBERRA , Jun 25  (IPS) - As a high-level committee appointed by Prime M=
inister John Howard is developing plans for a major expansion of the Aust=
ralian nuclear industry, concerns are being raised that increased uranium=
  exports, especially to China and India, will facilitate further prolifer=
ation of nuclear weapons.

Prof. Richard Broinowski from the University of Sydney's Department of Me=
dia and Communications and former ambassador to Mexico, Korea and Vietnam=
, is alarmed at the government's slipshod approach to uranium exports. =94=
Our export controls have been so degraded that there is no prospect of be=
ing able to trace where our uranium ends up,=94 he said.

In a speech to a national mining industry conference in late May, Howard =
foreshadowed the need for =94a comprehensive debate=94 about Australia's =
involvement in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. His announcement fol=
lowed a meeting in Washington a few weeks earlier with U.S. President Geo=
rge W. Bush, where the two discussed the U.S. government's proposed Globa=
l Nuclear Energy Partnership.

The partnership proposal aims to facilitate a major expansion of nuclear =
power while attempting to address concerns about weapons proliferation by=
  having uranium exporters =91lease' uranium to nuclear power companies an=
d accept high level nuclear waste back for long-term storage.

Australian Greens Senator, Christine Milne, told the Senate on Wednesday =
that the Bush plan could see Australia becoming the global nuclear indust=
ry's preferred location for a high-level nuclear waste dump. =94Central t=
o the global energy partnership of President Bush is to find a way of get=
ting a high-level nuclear waste dump built that will take waste from the =
consortium. So it is not just the countries that you might export to; the=
  whole consortium could negotiate to send the waste back here to Australi=
a,=94 she said.

It is a plan that runs considerable political risks for Howard. In 1998, =
a leaked plan revealed a proposal by a British consortium, Pangea Resourc=
es, to establish a global nuclear waste dump in South or Western Australi=
a. The plan ignited widespread opposition and forced the Howard governmen=
t to distance itself from the proposal.

A new waste dump proposal would also face formidable legislative hurdles.=
  In response to the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980's provincial govern=
ment in Australia have introduced legislation banning the transport, stor=
age and disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

While there is strong community concern about nuclear proposals, major co=
rporations see  benefit in an expansion of the nuclear power industry. U.=
S.- based companies such as General Electric and Westinghouse are looking=
  to sell nuclear reactors to China and India while Australian and Canadia=
n uranium mining companies are hoping to land long-term supply contracts.

At present only three uranium mines operate in Australia, but all are sub=
ject to opposition from environmentalists. BHP-Billiton, which owns the R=
oxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia, is planning a trebling of the=
  mine's output, which would make it the world's largest mine.

Rio Tinto operates the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory, but=
  it has a limited life-span. The company's original plan was to shift to =
processing ore from the nearby Jabiluka mine surrounded by the world famo=
us Kakadu National Park. However, this project was mothballed in 2003 aft=
er a groundswell of opposition from indigenous owners and environmentalis=
ts.

Earlier this year, Howard unveiled an agreement covering uranium exports =
to China when Premier Wen Jiabao visited Canberra. China, which currently=
  has nine reactors and a further two under construction, plans to build a=
s many as 30 nuclear plants. India has suggested it could build as many a=
s 28 new nuclear reactors.

While both China and India are looking for sources of uranium, there are =
concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation with both countries.

China's ambassador to Australia Fu Ying told a mining seminar in=20
Melbourne in December 2005 that the country faced the prospect of a=20
shortfall of uranium to sustain its civilian and military nuclear program=
mes.

For Broinowski, the implications are clear. =94The supply of Australian u=
ranium would simply free up China's domestic supplies for use in its mili=
tary programme,=94 he said.

The expansion of India's nuclear programme faces major hurdles too. Presi=
dent Bush is facing an uphill battle to secure Congressional=20
support to remove legislative bans on the sale of nuclear technology to I=
ndia. Bush has agreed to having only 14 of India's 22 nuclear reactors op=
en to international scrutiny.

Howard has tentatively signalled support for the U.S. position. =94I welc=
ome the fact that for the first time, a lot of India's nuclear capacity i=
s going to be subjected to international inspection,=94 he said ahead of =
meeting in March with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

For others though, the agreement is far from reassuring. =94The U.S.=20
has failed to secure a firm commitment from India to stop producing fissi=
le material for nuclear weapons for example =E0 they are rewarding India =
for bad behaviour,=94 Broinowski warns. (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/EN/DV/WT/BB/=
RDR/06)=20



=20
=3D 06250815 ORP001
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: NRC Issues License to Louisiana Energy Services for Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant in
New Mexico

News Release - 2006-08 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-084     June 23, 2006   

  
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a license to
Louisiana Energy Services (LES) to construct and operate a gas
centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in Lea County, N.M.
 
The license is the first issued by the NRC for a full-scale
uranium enrichment plant. The proposed National Enrichment
Facility will be the first commercial use in the United States
of gas centrifuge technology for enriching uranium. The license
authorizes LES to enrich uranium up to 5 percent of the fissile
isotope uranium-235 for use in the manufacture of nuclear fuel
for commercial power plants.
 
LES, a consortium of U.S. and European energy companies, intends
to use centrifuge technology developed by Urenco and used for
more than 30 years in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and
Germany. LES plans to begin construction in August, with
operations commencing in 2008, reaching full capacity in 2013.
 
LES submitted its application Dec. 15, 2003. The staff completed
extensive and thorough environmental and safety reviews of the
proposed facility according to a schedule established by the
Commission in January 2004.
 
In the environmental impact statement, published in June 2005,
the staff determined that there would be no significant
environmental impacts that would preclude licensing of the
facility. In the safety evaluation report, published in June
2005 with several supplements issued through May 2006, the staff
concluded that LES proposed facility and safeguards complied
with NRC regulations and would not pose an undue risk to the
health and safety of workers or the public.
 
A three-judge Licensing Board of the NRCs Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel conducted two sets of adjudicatory
hearings on the LES application. The Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (NIRS) and Public Citizen jointly raised
several environmental and technical contentions, focusing
scrutiny on the potential impacts of the proposed facility on
groundwater quality and local and regional water supplies, and
LES plans for disposing of depleted uranium, among other issues.
Evidentiary hearings were held on these contentions in Hobbs,
N.M., in February 2005 and at NRC headquarters in October 2005
and February 2006. Separately, the Licensing Board held hearings
in Hobbs, N.M., in March 2006 to consider whether the NRC staffs
environmental and safety reviews were adequate. The Licensing
Board issued several rulings, including a final partial decision
today that cleared the way for the staff to issue the license.
Still pending are petitions for Commission review of a May 31
Board decision.
 
I am pleased that the NRCs Licensing Board has issued a timely
decision in this adjudication, NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said.
 
Several federal agencies reviewed the LES application for
foreign ownership, control and influence concerns given the
sensitive nature of centrifuge technology. Since the flow of
technology and classified information would be into the United
States, no concerns were identified.
 
The NRC will conduct inspections during construction and
operation of the National Enrichment Facility, with inspectors
from agency headquarters in Rockville, Md., and its Region II
office in Atlanta, which has national responsibilities for fuel
cycle facilities. The agency will hold a public meeting in Lea
County in the near future to explain its oversight plans to
members of the public.
   



  


 	Last revised Monday, June 26, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 31 AU ABC: Dump the tip of nuclear iceberg - Greens
 
ABC Alice Springs | Local News | Story 

11:10 (ACDT)Monday, 26 June 2006. 08:10 (AWST)

Tip of the iceberg: The Greens say Australia is angling to take
back nuclear waste. 

Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne says the Northern
Territory's proposed nuclear waste dump is the tip of the
iceberg when it come to the Federal Government's nuclear plans. 

Senator Milne and the party's Indigenous affairs spokeswoman,
Senator Rachel Siewart, are travelling to one of the possible
locations for the waste dump at Mount Everard near Alice
Springs. 

She says the dump is being discussed in relation to waste coming
from Sydney's Lucas Heights facility. 

But Senator Milne believes the Federal Government's real agenda
is to turn Australia into a global nuclear fuel supplier, which
is also willing to take back the radioactive waste. 

"We are talking about a mega shift in gear in relation to
uranium mining and processing in Australia," she said. 

"What we're going to end up with, if the Government goes down
the enrichment line, is huge, virtually militarised waste dump
facilities in Australia." 

*****************************************************************
 32 AU ABC: Proposed nuclear dump 'too close to town'
 
ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 

07:00 (ACDT)Tuesday, 27 June 2006. 04:00 (AWST)

 Greens Senator Christine Milne says she is appalled to see the
close proximity of the a proposed nuclear waste dump site to an
Indigenous community north-west of Alice Springs. 

Senator Milne visited the Mount Everard location yesterday along
with two other Greens senators. 

She spoke with traditional owners about the dump and the
possible effects it would have on their community. 

She says the facility could be located just four kilometres from
people's homes. 

"It is appalling that the Federal Government is even proposing a
nuclear waste dump right next to where people are living," she
said. 

"On the one hand, they're talking about the importance of
maintaining Indigenous culture and at the other, they are
completely undermining that culture and the health of
communities by dumping nuclear waste dumps on them. 

"It's completely unacceptable." 

*****************************************************************
 33 RIA Novosti: Russia mulling permanent nuclear waste facilities, 
official says
 
26/ 06/ 2006                                  

ST. PETERSBURG, June 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia could develop and
implement long-term repositories for radioactive waste in the
next 10 to 15 years, an official said Monday. 

"Existing facilities can provide secure storage for up to 50 to
70 years, but then [radioactive] waste has to be reburied. There
will be no such need with the new facilities," said Sergei
Brykin, head of the Central Information and Analysis Center for
Radioactive Waste Management.

 Brykin said the new repositories would make it possible to
store radioactive waste safely for several thousand years, and
added that sites were being considered in Siberia and on the
Kola Peninsula in Russia's Far North. 

He said that, although the new storage facilities were extremely
safe, they would be subject to stringent controls. 
"'Dump-and-forget' will no longer be an operating principle," he
said. 


                © 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 34 E&ED: Appropriations: Domenici to float new Yucca Mountain waste concept - 

Mary O'Driscoll
 
E&E Daily 

 E&E Daily senior reporter 

Monday, June 26, 2006 

The Senate's top energy appropriator is expected to unveil a new
nuclear waste management plan tomorrow when his Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee takes up the $30.71
billion spending package for fiscal 2007. 

Details of the nuclear waste plan have been closely held by a
small number of lawmakers, DOE officials and a select number of
nuclear industry executives. But if Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Domenici's (R-N.M.)
recent statements are any indication, they likely will involve
measures that acknowledge and work around the increasingly
expensive delays that have bedeviled the controversial Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository near Las Vegas, Nev. The
delays have kept the nation's nuclear utilities and federal
defense-related nuclear sites from moving their spent fuel and
other high-level radioactive wastes into the repository, which
originally was to have opened in 1998 but now is not likely
until the end of the next decade. 

Domenici said last month that continued delays at Yucca Mountain
mean the program will have to be folded into the White House's
ambitious nuclear waste reprocessing and recycling program under
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

He added that spent fuel rods, many of which now reside in dry
cask storage at nuclear power plant sites around the country,
will never be shipped to Yucca Mountain, and predicted nuclear
utilities will have to continue storing the spent fuel on site
for much longer than anticipated. When asked last week to expand
on his plans and to clarify whether they involve interim storage
of wastes at an alternative site, Domenici would only say that
his proposal will involve a mixture of appropriations and
authorizations. "It will be very exciting," he told reporters. 

Domenici's statements have fueled concerns that by folding Yucca
Mountain into GNEP, the Energy Department will be able to use
the nuclear utility ratepayer-supported Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste trust fund for GNEP activities involving the treating or
packaging of spent nuclear fuel. DOE asserted it has such
authority in response to questions by Rep. John Dingell
(D-Mich.), who as ranking member of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee raised the issue after an oversight hearing
on nuclear issues earlier this spring. 

According to some nuclear industry sources, Domenici's plans are
likely to allow for a proposal for a phased approach to the
Yucca Mountain repository in which defense-related waste will be
first in line for storage at the site, even before the
commercial spent fuel that is packaged and ready to go. But to
try to quell the expected howls of protests from nuclear
utilities, Domenici's plans also are said to include a draft
bill allowing for interim storage of nuclear waste at an
alternative site until the GNEP reprocessing program is ready to
prepare the waste for burial at Yucca Mountain. 

It remains unclear how much, if any, of the White House's
proposed Yucca Mountain legislation will be included in any
appropriations or waste policy package. The legislation,
unveiled in April, was sent to Congress at least two months
later than anticipated. Because of that, it fell behind in the
flurry of election-year legislative priorities. 

In any event, sources on and off Capitol Hill say Yucca Mountain
still is the focus of the nuclear waste program. How this will
square with the ranking member of the energy appropriations
subcommittee, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is
unclear. A spokeswoman for Reid said the two lawmakers have
discussed budget issues surrounding GNEP and Yucca Mountain, but
nothing related to policy for those programs. 

And how this will fall with the hard line that House
appropriators took on DOE's nuclear-related programs also is a
question. Though the White House and Domenici want to fully fund
GNEP at $250 million -- and Domenici is determined to find even
more money for it -- the House only appropriated $120 million
out of anger at the way DOE raided other energy programs to pay
for it. 

Conversely, the House fully funded the repository program, an
option Domenici wants to avoid this year because the $544
million budget provides for DOE's defense of its license
application, which will not be filed until after 2008. 

Part of the House's anger at DOE was fueled by continued cost
overruns at the Hanford nuclear reservation, whose vitrification
program now is estimated to cost $11.55 billion. Its original
cost was $4.3 billion when DOE hired Bechtel National to build
the waste vitrification plant in 2000. 

Domenici and House Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairman Dave Hobson (R-Ohio) also are expected to
be on a collision course over the future of the mixed oxide
(MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site in
South Carolina. The House zeroed out spending for the program
and Hobson called it a "boondoggle" and said eliminating it is
necessary because Russia has signaled it will abandon its
similar program, therefore rendering the U.S. program
unnecessary. Domenici has stated his support for the MOX program
and said it must be funded. 

Schedule: The subcommittee markup of H.R. 5427 starts at 2:30
p.m. tomorrow in 138 Dirksen. 

Schedule: The full committee markup of H.R 5427 starts at 2 p.m.
Thursday in 106 Dirksen. 
*****************************************************************
 35 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dig yields ancient culinary secrets
 
Published Monday, June 26th, 2006
 
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
 
In a small natural bowl sheltered from the wind near the
Columbia River, fragile pieces of a type of mussel rarely seen
here anymore pepper the soil. 

It’s evidence of a meal enjoyed by Native Americans about 3,000
to 5,000 years ago. 

That’s about all that’s known about the archaeological site now.
Archaeologists call it a midden, a fancy word for trash dump. 

But a careful excavation completed last week of the site might
yield new information about what life was like thousands of
years ago on what’s now the Hanford nuclear reservation.
 
In more recent times, World War II and Cold War-era debris from
the nearby B Reactor was discarded in waste dumps dug into the
desert soil. As part of cleanup of the nuclear reservation,
which once made plutonium for the nation’s nuclear weapons
program, those dump sites are being dug up by contractor
Washington Closure Hanford. 

The shell midden was discovered between two of those B Reactor
burial grounds. Bits of shell started showing up in the dirt
last winter as a road was bladed between the waste sites. 

"My job while cleaning up stuff from 50 years ago is to protect
stuff from thousands of years ago whenever possible," said
archaeologist Tom Marceau, the cultural resources manager for
Washington Closure Hanford. 

Usually that means adjusting cleanup work to leave artifacts in
ancient sites untouched. 

But this time, the shell midden already had been exposed and
disturbed, leaving it open to damage from the elements or
possible looting. 

In 12 years at Hanford, it’s just the seventh archaeological
excavation he’s done and the first shell midden to be completely
excavated, Marceau said. 

"We’re trying to find out how this particular shell midden was
put together," he said. 

Because it was a waste site, Washington Closure Hanford and the
Yakama Nation cultural program, which cooperated in the dig,
were not finding what Marceau calls "curated" tools. 

Tools such as knives and projectile points took hours to make
and were not casually discarded in shell middens. 

But the site has yielded a chopping tool of fine-grade basalt. A
wedge on one side nestles comfortably into the palm and the
other side is chipped into a sharp chopping tool. It could have
been made in a few minutes, Marceau said. 

It might have been used to chop open the mussel shell or cut out
the membrane inside, he said. 

They’ve also found a round flat rock, maybe a foot in diameter.
Called an anvil stone by Marceau, it may have been used to crack
open the shells. The site also included a round rock, darkened
and cracked by the heat of a fire, although there’s no hearth
there. 

All were inches away from the pile of mussel shells, carried up
from the river by Native Americans. 

"This is where all the shell came to rest," Marceau said. "Where
they cooked it, prepared it, ate it, we don’t know." 

The entire pile could have come from a single meal. 

The pieces that remain whole are about 21D2 inches long and
would have had just small bits of meat inside. 

Marceau estimates the shells are about 3,000 to 5,000 years old
because their size is similar to those found near D Reactor and
carbon-dated, but other shell at the Hanford site has been dated
2,500 to 9,000 years old. Getting these shells carbon-dated will
take a few months. 

Native Americans are known to have lived near the Columbia River
from 11,000 years ago to as recently as 1943, when the Wanapum
band was forced to leave so the federal government could use the
area to produce plutonium during World War II. 

If Marceau’s correct in his guess that the mussels were a meal
3,000 to 5,000 years ago, they were part of a varied diet. 

Native Americans would come to the area in the fall to fish,
spend the winter to enjoy the mild weather, fish again in the
spring, then head for the cool of the mountains. 

"The guys living here were doing very well," Marceau said. "They
had a usable food supply." 

Dart points were thrown with atlatls to bring down antelope,
deer and elk. Snares and traps could have captured rabbits,
ground squirrels and birds. From the river they took salmon,
turtle and mussel shells. They also harvested root crops. 

The shells in the midden are from western pearl shell river
mussels. They can live for 100 years and grow shells four inches
long. Marceau said. These were smaller - perhaps because it was
the last of the run or maybe they were chosen for their more
tender flesh. 

The mussels have disappeared from the Columbia River near
Hanford in the last 50 to 100 years, although Chinese mussel can
be found there, Marceau said. One theory is that the cold,
fast-moving river water the pearl shell mussels thrive in was
replaced by warmer, slower water as dams were built and water
heated from cooling the reactors was released back into the
river. 

At midweek, the plan was to excavate up to about 20 square
yards. 

Marceau used a trowel to scrape away the dirt. Then, Rose George
and Dana Miller of the Yakamas shook the dirt through a wire
mesh sieve, picking through the bits of bone, shell and rock
that remained. 

"Everything you pull up, you wish it could talk," George said.
"What were they thinking? What were they doing?" 

Was the hunt bad that day or the root crop poor and the mussels
were all there was for dinner at that campsite? Or were the
mussels a tasty treat? 

This was her first archaeological dig and she had some
conflicted feelings. 

"This is where my education and culture collide," she said. 

She’s been taught not to disturb what earlier generations have
left. But she’s curious about what can be learned about the
midden and the life of her ancestors. 

Any answers the midden reveals to questions about life along the
Columbia thousands of years ago likely will come from the
carbon- dating and the work planned in the next two weeks. 

The artifacts will be taken back to the laboratory to be
measured, weighed, examined and mapped. 

"We will try to get some understanding of the features of the
midden," Marceau said.
 
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 36 DHHS: LANL employee petition 

                        FR Doc E6-10001 
[Federal Register: June 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 122)] 
[Notices] [Page 36348] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26jn06-55]                         


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 
Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, To Be 
Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives 
notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a 
petition to designate a class of employees at the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, to be included in 
the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The 
initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, 
subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as 
follows:

    Facility: Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    Location: Los Alamos, New Mexico.

    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers potentially exposed 
to radioactive lanthanum at the Technical Area 10 Bayo Canyon 
facility, TA-35 (Ten Site), or TA-1, buildings Sigma, H, and U.

    Period of Employment: September 1, 1944 through July 18, 
1963.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office 
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by 
e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. John Howard, Director, National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-10001 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING 
CODE 4163-19-P
 
*****************************************************************
 37 DHHS Oak Ridge employee petition

                        FR Doc E6-10002 

[Federal Register: June 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 122)] 
[Notices] [Page 36348] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26jn06-56]                         

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 
Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
at the S-50 Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, TN, To 
Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives 
notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a 
petition to designate a class of employees at the S-50 Oak Ridge 
Thermal Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be included in 
the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The 
initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, 
subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as 
follows:

    Facility: S-50 Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant.
    Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers.
    Period of Employment: 1944 through 1951.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office 
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by 
e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV. John Howard, Director, National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-10002 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING 
CODE 4163-19-P
 
*****************************************************************
 38 lamonitor.com: DOE plan dissolves health, safety office 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A bureaucratic shuffle in the Department of Energy has set off a
contentious debate about worker health and safety in the
sprawling government agency with a $23 billion annual budget. 
When Energy Secretary Bodman delivered an all-hands address by
video on June 15, Heidi Kelsey reported in the Los Alamos
National Laboratory Newsbulletin that he "emphasized safety,
responsibility and personal accountability," in his
closed-circuit talk from the Forrestal Building in Washington,
D.C.

"Bodman expressed concerns about an increase in the number of
accidents across the DOE complex and called for improvement in
safety oversight," she wrote. Among the department's
accomplishments noted was "balancing safety with cost
effectiveness." 

But the secretary is also reported to have said that there was a
need for change and that those changes would "focus on
establishing a safer work environment through individual
accountability, enhancing performance due to collaboration
throughout the complex and considering DOE's financial
responsibility to the American taxpayer," as Kelsey summarized a
portion of the talk.

What Bodman was talking about 

Behind the moderate language lies a far more politically charged 
debate.

"Questions raised on DOE plan to scrap safety offices," blared
the lead headline of The Energy Daily on June 21, the day the
Government Accountability Project released a month-old draft
plan from DOE on how to dissolve the current Office of
Environment, Safety and Health and eliminate the post of the
assistant secretary who runs the office. 
"We understand that this May 19 plan may have been revised, but
the extent of changes is unknown, because no version has ever
been disclosed to the public," GAP said in a press release that
also marshaled an initial barrage of opposition.

The well-developed plan that has been uncovered included a
detailed cross-walk of personnel changes and a congressional
communication strategy. The basic idea is to merge the health
and safety function of the office of Environment, Safety and
Health into the Office of Safety and Security Performance
Assurances (SSA).

The draft anticipated objections, stating, "The intent of the
merger is not to dismantle safety but to embrace the
effectiveness and efficiency of ES programs across the
complex..."

Answers were provided for questions such as, "Will ES get lost
in the security organization?"

The answer: "No, security and safety will be equal partners."

In order to emphasize that safety will be an equal partner, the
current Office of Security and Safety will "flip" the terms to
become the Office of Safety and Security, the document declares.

The critics react

Included in GAP's package were letters from former DOE ES
Assistant Secretaries, professional and labor organizations, all
urging that the reorganization be stopped.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former Secretary of Energy,
weighed in on June 20, with a joint letter co-signed by Gov.
Christine Gregoire of Washington.

"Given the absence of any external studies demonstrating that
this Office is dysfunctional or ineffective, there appears to be
no compelling reason to reduce or change its function," the
governors wrote.

Richardson and Gregoire were not alone in questioning a need to
fix something many did not see as broken.

"Unfortunately, we have seen nothing to support the idea that
this reorganization will bring about improvements in DOE safety
and health capabilities," added Jack Dobson, president of the
American Society of Safety Engineers in a letter to Bodman dated
June 8.

Dobson also objected to the potentially conflicting purposes
between ensuring the safety of DOE nuclear facilities and
ensuring the health of DOE employees.

Others, despite the answer provided in the text, pointed to the
tendency to prioritize security over safety in the nuclear and
weapons areas.

The former assistant secretaries, Paul Ziemer (1990-93), Tara
O'Toole (1993-1997) and David Michaels (1998-2002), warned "such
a move will be perceived outside the agency, by both DOE's
friends and its critics, as a move to downgrade the importance
of ES issues."

They added, "The department can ill afford to fuel such a
perception."

In a letter to Bodman on June 21, Rep. Tom Udall, D-NM, raised
some of the other details of the plan, noting that the National
Environmental Policy Act functions under the current ES office
would be placed in the Office of General Counsel.

"The plan does not even mention the former worker medical
screening programs and support for implementation of the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, two
functions of direct importance to workers in my district," he
wrote, urging that the office not be dismantled. "This plan
could also lead to delays in implementing the DOE's new worker
safety rule which was issued in February 2006."

A comprehensive set of worker safety rules that were promulgated
for the ES office after three years of effort may now be without
the institutional platform that the reforms had assumed. They
may yet be derailed.

A theme in several movements

That major changes are underway in the safety area has been
apparent in other ways as well.

Earlier this year, National Nuclear Security Administration
Administrastor Linton Brooks called for implementing a new
safety oversight model at Los Alamos in tandem with the new
private contractor.

In this model, which has been criticized by the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board and others, nuclear operations and
security oversight would continue as before, but "all other
oversight would shift to verifying whether the contractor was
operating an adequate internal oversight process."

A recent report by the Los Alamos Study Group translated the
policy change like this: "LANS will increasingly define its own
safety standards and judge its own compliance with them."

In May, Bodman distributed a memo to his senior staff setting
forth his view of the relationship between DOE and the DNFSB,
the agency established by Congress to provide independent
oversight advice and recommendations on safety issues in the
defense nuclear weapons complex.

"The responsibility of DNFSB is to provide high-quality
advice..." Bodman wrote, taking a narrow view of the function of
the safety board and one that he contrasted with "the
responsibility for the operating of the department, which
belongs to us."

He continued, "I expect managers to make sound technical
decisions, drawing on all available information, including
advice and observation from DNFSB."

In describing his sense of responsibility, out in front of the
auditors, overseers and regulators, not hiding behind them,
Bodman quoted Admiral Hyman Rickover, creator of the Naval
Reactors Program.

"Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible
when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really
responsible," Rickover wrote, a quotation that also came up
during the investigation of the Columbia space shuttle disaster.

"To make it work, you have to have some way to know when it
doesn't work," said Chris Mechels, a retired laboratory computer
scientist, who has followed the course of safety management at
the laboratory.

He said that managers inevitably have incentives to hide safety
problems and that an organization like ES is necessary to find
the hidden problems and correct them.

But, lately, he said, ES under the current administration has
been hiding what they are doing. By restricting access to the
occurrence and accident reports, for example, they are reducing
one of their own most useful functions.

Printed 6/25/06   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 39 KnoxNews: Nuke program growing
                                                                        
Government expanding high-security Oak Ridge hub for weapons 
transport 

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

June 26, 2006 

OAK RIDGE - Oak Ridge is a hub for one of the government's most 
sensitive operations - the transportation of nuclear weapons - 
and business apparently is booming. The Office of Secure 
Transportation is building a new 25,000-square-foot support 
facility here, expanding its military-type training site, and 
planning to hire dozens of additional nuclear couriers, known 
officially as federal agents. 
			 			
The OST's Eastern Command has been based in Oak Ridge
since 1976. Except for an occasional controversy - such as the
late 1990s, when operations were temporarily suspended because
of a suspected security breach - the group operates mostly
behind the scenes. 

Clearly, that's how federal officials prefer it. 

Details of most operations are classified, and almost any
information regarding the Oak Ridge activity must pass through
review before being released to a news organization. 

In response to questions about changes taking place at the Oak
Ridge facilities, Al Stotts, a federal spokesman in Albuquerque,
N.M., responded by e-mail: 

"The increasing threat of terrorism since 9/11 and the conflict
in Iraq has placed a substantially larger focus on security for
all of America, including within the National Nuclear Security
Administration's Office of Secure Transportation." 

Historically, the OST has maintained its Oak Ridge offices
inside the high-security fences of the Y-12 nuclear weapons
plant, but Stotts said that would change this fall. 

The government is building a Secure Transportation Complex on
Tennessee Highway 58 to house the administrative offices,
training rooms, information technology and other "resources" to
support the nuclear-defense missions, Stotts said. It will be
adjacent to the OST's Vehicle Maintenance Facility, where the
specially equipped tractor-trailers used to haul weapons parts
and special nuclear materials are worked on between shipments. 

Building the administration complex next to the maintenance
facility will "reduce operating costs and enhance productivity
while increasing available workspace for a growing number of
federal agents and support staff," Stotts said. 

The new complex is not far from the Department of Energy's East
Tennessee Technology Park, the former K-25 uranium-enrichment
plant. Although vehicles and agent equipment will be stored
there, Stotts said that at no time would any of the
"mission-related cargo" - such as nuclear warheads - be kept at
this location. 

The spokesman said the OST also is expanding its training
facility on Bear Creek Road, where the transportation group took
over a live-fire range in 2002. 

"Since that time, improvements have been made on a steady
basis," he said, noting that some obsolete structures were taken
down and new office and classroom facilities were added. 

Recently, DOE's Oak Ridge office approved a land-use agreement
to allow the Office of Secure Transportation to manage about 380
acres adjacent to the live-fire range, Stotts said. 

"This property will allow the addition of more training
buildings, maneuver areas, a confidence course and a running
track, but will not expand live-fire capability," he said.

"Incremental expansion is currently planned through 2012." 

The Eastern Command in Oak Ridge currently has 116 federal
agents and a 22-member administrative and support staff,
according to information provided by the National Nuclear
Security Administration. 

The agents must pass regular fitness and firearms tests, and
they are trained in terrorist tactics and other protective
measures. They are authorized under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act
to make "warrantless arrests." 

Stotts said the goal is to build the number of armed and highly
trained agents to 140 by 2008. 

"Oak Ridge gets 15 to 25 new agents a year," he said. "However,
growth has been slowed by the retirement of veteran agents." 

The job of federal agents is to accompany classified shipments
across the United States from site to site, with Y-12 in Oak
Ridge being one of the major departure points and destinations. 

According to OST's Web site, the agents operate the 18-wheel
delivery vehicles known as SGTs (Safeguards Transporters) or
escort vehicles, communications equipment and other parts of the
convoy. The SGTs have "various deterrents" to prevent
unauthorized people from removing the strategic nuclear cargos. 

"The thermal characteristics of the SGT would allow the trailer
to be totally engulfed in a fire without incurring damage to the
cargo," the Web site states. Also, the tractors have been
modified to protect the agents against attack, according to the
site. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
 					
      © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************