*****************************************************************
07/02/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.156
*****************************************************************
   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 New York Times: Iran Again Rejects Deadline on Nuclear Proposal - 
2 AU The Age: US and Iran will talk but Bush needs quick results - 
3 IRNA: Mottaki: Recognition of Iran's right is key to nuclear case -
4 IRNA: The UN's moment of truth - Kofi Annan 
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Recognition of N-right,a key element 
6 IRNA: Ivory Coast backs Iran's right to access nuclear technology -
7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, Ukraine discuss bilateral ties 
8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Annan admires IRI's nuclear approach 
9 Political Affairs Magazine: Iran: What the U.S. Isn't Telling
10 AFP: Iran to continue uranium enrichment program - Ahmadinejad -
11 AFP: Iran rejects deadline for nuclear response 
12 IRNA: Iran, Thailand study expansion of cooperation in energy sector
13 AFP: US military doubts bombing of Iran would succeed 
14 IRNA: MP: US seeking to hasten examination of Iran's nuclear issue -
15 IRNA: Djibouti backs Iran's legal stance 
16 AFP: China proposes meeting to revive six-way Korean nuclear talks -
17 Salt Lake Tribune: Ivins: Diplomatic maneuvering regarding North
18 Korea Times: Beijing Proposes Unofficial NK Talks 
19 US: Spectrum: Opposed to Divine Strake
20 HindustanTimes.com: Nuke sub for Navy goes on trial 
21 The Hindu: Sethna prefers NPT to deal 
22 The Hindu: Russia may lease nuclear submarine to India 
23 Guardian Unlimited: India Nukes Deal Expected to Pass Congress
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear cutback in energy plans
25 RIA Novosti: Nuclear energy share in electricity output to double in
26 BBC: Is nuclear necessary in a post-9/11 world?
27 BBC: Turks wary of nuclear project
28 BBC: Labour 'rules out' nuclear veto
29 The Oil Drum: Oil Shale - the Nuclear Option
30 Independent: Hain weighs in against Government's nuclear policy 
31 US: Rutland Herald: Buyout power
32 US: Cape Cod Times: Duo builds case against nuclear plant 
33 US: AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Getting Off Our Nuclear Power Fixation
34 Japan Times: Halted reactor in Shizuoka yields broken turbine blades
35 This is London: Miliband defends nuclear plant plan | 
36 AFP: Russia plans atomic energy expansion 
37 icWales: 'Nukes must earn their keep'
38 SNA: Bulgaria to Keep Nuke Closure Promise to EU
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
39 US: SF Chronicle: Stanford's 'Dr. Doom' has terrorism figured out --
40 US: Boston Globe: Radioactive parts are no longer missing - 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
41 [NYTr] Diabetes and Depleted Uranium: Another DU Coverup
42 US: San Francisco Bay View: Diabetes and depleted uranium 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
43 London Times: Nuclear profits hit record high - 
44 US: Sydney Morning Herald: 'We should not be exporting uranium becau
45 Las Vegas SUN: $494 million budgeted for Yucca
46 Independent: BNFL blocked as it tries to sell its stake in Urenco 
47 US: Spectrum: Store your own nuclear waste
48 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate cleanup funding approved
49 US: The Dispatch: Olin V.P. Fields Questions (On perchlorate)
50 Telegraph: BNFL generates £200m profit
51 Telegraph: Business profile: Sellafield man
52 US: Cañon City Daily Record: Stand Down at Cotter
53 PEACOCK REPORT (TPR): DoE Researches Multi-Ton Nuclear Waste
 
                           PEACE
 
54 This is London: Hiroshima mayor in UK weapons demo | 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
55 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL 'Real Story’ blog goes offline      
56 reviewjournal.com ATLAS PULSED POWER MACHINE: New life for test site
57 NMBW: Energy and water appropriations bills has millions for New Mex
58 KnoxNews: Driven by energy
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 New York Times: Iran Again Rejects Deadline on Nuclear Proposal - 

By NAZILA FATHI 

Published: July 2, 2006                         

TEHRAN, July 2 — Irantoday again rejected a deadline to respond
to an international proposal to end the standoff over its
nuclear program, saying it will respond in a month from now. 

"We do not consider such statements as constructive and invite
them to wait for our answer until next month," said Hamidreza
Assefi, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, the ISNA news agency
reported. 

The next month in the Iranian calendar begins July 23. Mr.
Assefi was referring to a meeting of the Group of 8's foreign
ministers in Russia on Thursday, during which they demanded that
Iran make a "clear and substantive" response to the proposal in
a week.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadhad previously said that Iran would
give its answer around Aug. 23.

"We will take into account our country's rights and interests
and will also try to alleviate the other side's concerns," Mr.
Assefi said. "But that does not mean that we will sacrifice our
own interests." 

In June, Javier Solana, the European Union'sforeign policy
chief, offered Iran a package of proposals from Germany and the
five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council:
China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States. 

Details of the package have not been made public, but diplomats
have said it includes political and economic incentives and a
promise to help develop Iran's nuclear program in return for its
suspending its nuclear enrichment program. 

Mr. Assefi said today that Iran's chief nuclear negotiator would
meet with Mr. Solana on Wednesday to discuss the package.

In a communiqué issued Thursday, foreign ministers from the
Group of 8nations — United States, Russia, France, Germany,
Italy, Canada, Britain and Japan — demanded a response from Iran
to the proposals by Wednesday. The ministers said they expected
that response to come when the Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani,
and Mr. Solana meet. That meeting is expected to take place in
Paris. 

Mr. Assefi said the offer had ambiguities that needed to be
discussed with the Europeans. He also said several committees
were studying the offer.

He also said Europe should be thankful that Iran was "examining
the proposal with such a positive attitude and precision."

In a separate news conference today, the minister of
intelligence, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, linked the arrest of
an Iranian-Canadian philosopher, Ramin Jahanbegloo, to what he
said were efforts by the United States to start a "soft
revolution" in Iran. Mr. Jahanbegloo has been jailed since late
April after he was arrested at the Tehran airport.

"The United States is pursuing efforts to start soft revolution
in Iran and in many other countries and Mr. Jahanbegloo's arrest
can be defined as part of that," ISNA quoted Mr. Mohseni-Ejei as
saying.

"Mr. Jahanbegloo had an assignment and the intelligence
apparatus became suspicious at the scale of his activities and
resources" at his disposal, he said. 

Mr. Mohseni-Ejei said a decision on Mr. Jahanbegloo's case would
be made after his interrogation was finished.

Mr. Jahanbegloo has been barred from access to a lawyer.
Independent human rights groups have said his arrest was
politically motivated. 
Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington for this
article. 

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 2 AU The Age: US and Iran will talk but Bush needs quick results - 

Opinion -
                          
www.theage.com.au

By Amin Saikal July 3, 2006

Despite the Bush Administration's offer of direct multilateral
talks and, in conjunction with its European allies, a range of
economic and security incentives, a resolution of the dispute
over Iran's nuclear program may not materialise soon. Not only
has Tehran already rejected the US precondition to stop uranium
enrichment, it can also be expected to lay down its own
conditions for the success of the talks once it formally
responds. 

Some of these conditions may prove to be extremely difficult for
Washington and its three European allies - Britain, France and
Germany - to meet. 

The Bush Administration has made its offer to the Iranian regime
under enormous pressure, largely created by its failures in
Iraq. It appears to have concluded that while its position is
vulnerable in Iraq and its standing low in the region and
beyond, it is not the time to continue with its past threat of
military action against the Iranian regime. 

It has not had much international support for sanctions against
Iran, let alone military action, which could prove to be costly
not only for Iran, but also for the US and its allies. 

Iran's threat to respond to any military action by reducing or
cutting off its oil output, attacking oil platforms in the Gulf,
blocking the Strait of Hormuz, causing more difficulties for
American forces in Iraq than they have faced so far, and
targeting wider US interests and those of its allies in the
region, seems to have been taken seriously. Meanwhile,
Washington has had to recognise that the more it has threatened
the Iranian regime, the more it has united the Iranian people. 

A favourable Iranian response to his diplomatic initiative could
help President George Bush in several ways. It can absolve him
of the charge that he did not go the extra mile to give
diplomacy a chance. 

It can also assist him to project a more benign image of his
Administration after the Iraq fiasco and the war on terror
failures, to arrest his increasing domestic unpopularity, and to
improve the chances of the Republican Party in mid-term
congressional elections. 

If it results in full rapprochement between the two sides, it
will also enable the United States to regain vital support in
securing an honourable exit from Iraq while maintaining its
geostrategic dominance in the region. 

But the Iranian response may not be without its own conditions.
While welcoming the opportunity to negotiate with the US so as
not to lose the support of such powers as Russia and China, the
Iranian regime is likely to make key demands. 

These would include that the US accord full recognition to the
Iranian regime; drop all sanctions against Iran; cease all
direct and indirect threats against it; unfreeze all Iranian
assets that Washington seized following the Iranian revolution
of 1978-79; and agree to a region-wide regime of controlling
weapons of mass destruction, to include Israel. The latter is a
de facto nuclear power, which Iran views as an aggressive
occupier and a serious security threat in the region. 

It is in relation to the last issue that the regime may also
seek to link any negotiation with the Palestinian cause, which
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has passionately supported. 

Bush may be able to accommodate Iran's first two demands, but he
will find it extremely difficult to be forthcoming on a
region-wide regime of WMD control. While there may be some
figures in his Administration who may be receptive to the idea
of pressuring Israel, they will get no wider support, especially
from the Congress. The latter will stand firmly against any
compromise that could weaken Israel's regional supremacy. 

While Washington has made the right move to offer direct
negotiations and a package of incentives, it is far from certain
that this could produce any tangible results in the short run.
The process may prove to be difficult and drawn-out. Such a
process will certainly suit Tehran. 

The question is: will Washington find it tolerable, given Bush's
need to have tangible results sooner than later? 

Amin Saikal is a professor of political science and director of
the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (the Middle East and
Central Asia) at the Australian National University. 

 Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Mottaki: Recognition of Iran's right is key to nuclear case -
     
United Nations, New York, June 30, IRNA
		 
Iran-Nuclear-Mottaki 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Thursday that
recognition of Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy and the
mechanisms for restoration of the right is one of the two key
elements necessary for comprehensive settlement of Iran's
nuclear case.

 Talking to IRNA on the sidelines of the UN Conference on Small
Arms trade, Mottaki said further strengthening of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty is another element influential in
comprehensive settlement of the issue.

 Mottaki said any understanding in that connection would relieve
concerns of one of the parties, while securing restoration of
the rights of the other party.

 He said the European package of incentives should contain
necessary elements in order to reach a full-fledged
understanding.

 He noted that there are some ambiguities in the P5+1 package,
but declined to cite them. He said Iran is morally forbidden to
mention them but will publicize them at an appropriate time.

 He went on to say that however, Iran has informed the EU
Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana of certain points and he too
admitted that the questions were important in their kind which
should be addressed in the Iran-EU talks.

 Mottaki wound up his three-day New York visit and left for
Banjul, Gambia, late Thursday to join entourage of President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is already there to attend the seventh
African Union summit (July 1-2).

*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: The UN's moment of truth - Kofi Annan 
 
, July 1, IRNA

The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan made public the
need of reforms in the UN, United Nations Information Center
said in a press release on Saturday.

 "A minor storm broke out recently when my deputy, Mark Malloch
Brown, made a speech suggesting that the United States should
engage more fully and wholeheartedly with other members of the
United Nations to bring about reform. That is absolutely right,
but he and I believe the same message needs to be heard in many
other countries besides the US," said Kofi Annan.

 The UN now faces a moment of truth. Last December, member
states adopted a budget for the current "biennium" (2006-2007),
but gave us in the Secretariat authority to spend only enough to
carry us through the first six months. The main contributors to
the budget, led by the US, insisted that this spending cap
should be lifted only when there is significant progress on UN
reform.

 "We are now perilously near the deadline, and it is far from
clear that enough reform to satisfy them has been achieved.
Neither side has found a way of engaging with the other to agree
on further reforms," he said.

 Sir Brian Urquhart, the UN's elder statesman, once said that
there is never really a financial crisis at the UN, only
political crises.

 Brian is right. The US is trying to use the power of the purse
to force through badly needed management reforms, and these
tactics have provoked a reaction among developing countries.

 Most of these are well aware of the need to reform - not least
because it is in those countries that the UN provides many vital
services - from peacekeeping and peace-building through
emergency relief to strengthening human rights, helping organize
elections, and fighting infectious disease. That means they are
the ones who have most to gain from a UN that is well-managed
and really gives value for money. Their quarrel is much less
with the detail of proposed reforms than with what they see as
the overwhelming influence of a few rich countries, in an
organization supposedly "based on the principle of the sovereign
equality of all its members".

 That was what I meant in London last January, when I referred
to the "feeling of frustration and exclusion that prompts many
states to exercise the only power they do have: the power to
block other reforms, such as better management -- since some see
even this as an attempt by the big boys to grab yet more power
for themselves".

 In the long run this means that, as Prime Minister Tony Blair
recognized in a speech in Washington two weeks ago, the whole UN
structure has to be reformed, including the Security Council.
And so even these current reforms are only a small down-payment
on what must follow. Public policy is simply getting more
global. From terrorism to poverty, drugs and crime, disease to
trade, no states can settle matters alone.

 "But even while we wait for the political vision to catch up
with the scale of today's challenges, we have vital work to do
right now - programs which have been mandated by member states
and which provide essential services to people in acute danger
or need," he said.

 "However important the debate on reform, we must not let that
work be stalled. It's in the interest of all member states to
keep the UN running , and to adapt it to the specific work that
they are asking it to do," he underlined.

 And that means that both sides in the current argument need to
turn down their rhetoric and engage with each other in serious
negotiations, to work out a sensible compromise now as a basis
for more fundamental change later.

 It is not just the composition of the Security Council that is
stuck in the mid 20th century. Both the management and the
attitudes of many governments to the Organization are caught in
the same time warp. Neither has fully adjusted to the new
reality of a UN which no longer simply holds conferences and
writes reports, but is managing complex, multi-billion dollar
operations to help keep peace and combat poverty and
humanitarian disasters. As a result, "We do not have the
institutions that we need to confront this century's global
challenges."

 "It is vital that we escape from this bind. The blueprint for
reform that I put forward last year was very clear about this.
It reminded us all that the UN is founded on three legs -
development, collective security and human rights. Each of the
three strengthens the other two, but is also dependent on them.
And like any good chair they need a fourth: major management
reform."

 The UN has to help its members advance on all three fronts at
once. That is why it needs not only a Security Council but also
an effective Human Rights Council, and why the Economic and
Social Council must be transformed into a true development
chamber that allows development and finance ministers to pursue
progress and track results in meeting the Millennium Development
Goals, the world's effort to halve extreme poverty by 2015.

 Some reforms have been achieved. Both the new Human Rights
Council and the new Peacebuilding Commission will meet for the
first time next week. All member states have accepted their
responsibility to protect people threatened by genocide and
other comparable crimes.

 "We have in place a much improved emergency relief fund, a
democracy fund, an ethics office, and a much tougher system for
protecting whistleblowers. Now we need better accountability and
oversight arrangements, a stronger procurement system, more
financial flexibility, and better rules for recruiting and
managing our staff," he said.

 "Set against the scale of the tasks we have to undertake, these
re not such ambitious demands. Surely governments can agree on
how to make these reforms happen without bringing the whole
organization to a halt. It is time for those who really care
about reform to come together and form a new coalition - one
that bridges the artificial, destructive divide between North
and South, and brings together all those who are willing to work
together because they share the vision of a UN that really
works, for the benefit of all the world's peoples," said the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.		 				 		 			
*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Recognition of N-right,a key element 

  2006/07/01   
  
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Thursday that
recognition of Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy and the
mechanisms for restoration of the right is one of the two key
elements necessary for comprehensive settlement of Iran's
nuclear case. 

Talking to IRNA on the sidelines of the UN conference on small
arms trade, Mottaki said further strengthening of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty is another element influential
incomprehensive settlement of the issue. 

Mottaki said any understanding in that connection would relieve
concerns of one of the parties, while securing restoration of
the rights of the other party. 

He said the European proposals should contain necessary elements
in order to reach a full-fledged understanding. 

He noted that there are some ambiguities in the G5+1 package,
but declined to cite them. 

He said Iran is morally forbidden to mention them but will
publicize them at an appropriate time. 

He went on to say that however, Iran has informed the EU Foreign
Policy Chief Javier Solana of certain points and he too admitted
that the questions were important in their kind which should be
addressed in the Iran-EU talks. 

Mottaki wound up his three-day New York visit and left for
Banjul, Gambia, late Thursday to join entourage of President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is already there to attend the seventh
African Union summit (July 1-2). 

SM   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir  
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: Ivory Coast backs Iran's right to access nuclear technology -
     
, July 1, IRNA
-- 
Ivory Coast's President Laurent Gbagbo here Friday said access
to peaceful nuclear energy is an inalienable and legal right of
the Iranian nation, and expressed his country's support for Iran
in the nuclear standoff.

 Gbagbo's remarks came during a meeting with his Iranian
counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who arrived in Banjul, capital
city of Gambia, Thursday night heading a high-ranking political
delegation that is attending the 7th African Union Summit slated
to begin today.

 Member states of the African Union support countries which defy
extremism by bullying powers and stand up to their legal rights,
the Ivorian president said.

 He praised Iran's support for Ivory Coast under current
difficult circumstances and stressed the significance of
bolstering bilateral economic ties with Iran.

 The Iranian president, for his part, condemned moves of certain
arrogant powers to prevent countries from exercising their
rights.

 "There are signs of bullying powers behind every cruelty and
corruption. They benefit from situations of tension and
conflict, but there are also several signs which indicate that
the bullying era is coming to an end," Ahmadinejad said.

 Pointing to Iran's stance on the nuclear dispute, he said the
"Iranian government and nation have made their decision and
undoubtedly will pass this period with success," adding that the
progress and success achieved by the Iranian nation are for all
mankind.

 "The Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys the cooperation,
convergence and spiritual and practical support of independent
states," the president added.

 Highlighting the importance of boosting bilateral cooperation
with Ivory Coast in all fields, he invited Gbagbo to pay a visit
to Tehran.

 Speaking before Ivory Coast's national television, the Iranian
president praised his "friendly and brotherly" meeting with
Gbagbo.

 He said the two countries have similarity of stances on several
regional and international issues.

 Vice-President for Executive Affairs Ali Saeedlou,
Vice-President and head of the Cultural Heritage and Tourism
Organization Esfandyar Rahim-Moshayee, Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki and Ministers of Energy and Cooperatives
Parviz Fattah and Mohammad Nazemi Ardekani, respectively are in
the Iranian delegation accompanying the president.

 Ahmadinejad, during his three-day stay in Gambia, will attend
the 7th summit of the African Union and meet with leaders of
 participating states.

 The Islamic Republic of Iran has observer status in the summit.

 The summit aims to promote peace, security, stability,
democratic principles, human rights and popular representation
as well as prepare the ground for a greater African role in the
global economy.

 It also aims to promote sustainable development in the
economic, political, social and cultural fields, reinforce
political, economic and social convergence and forge a stronger
unity among African states.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran, Ukraine discuss bilateral ties 

  2006/07/02   
  
Iran and Ukraine Sunday discussed the latest developments in
Tehran-Kiev bilateral relations. 

Outgoing Ukrainian Ambassador to Tehran Vladimir Ivanovich
Butyaga in a meeting with Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi
Mostafavi Bade farewell to him at the end of his mission in
Tehran. 

Highlighting the significance of further bolstering Tehran-Kiev
ties, Mostafavi said, "Tehran sees no obstacle in its way to
expand ties with Kiev." 

Butyaga, for his part, pointed to the existing ground for
expansion of political, economic and cultural cooperation
between the two countries and said presence of Iranian
university students in Ukraine and increase in volume of
bilateral trade in 2005, were indications to the two sides
determination to boost ties. 

Iran-Ukraine bilateral trade exchanges stood at some dlrs 600
million in 2005. 

SM   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Annan admires IRI's nuclear approach 

2006/07/02   
  
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in a meeting with
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called Iran's policy
towards EU's proposals constructive.'
 
In the meeting, on the sidelines of the 7th African Union Summit
in Banjul, capital of Gambia, Annan expressed hope that the
consideration of the EU proposal package by Iran's working
committees could be done carefully and the appropriate response
would be ready at proper time.
 
Discussing regional and international issues, President
Ahmadinejad asked Kofi Annan to use his outmost power and
authority to stop the Zionist regime crimes in occupied
territories.
 
President Ahmadinejad at the head of a high ranking delegation
arrived here Thursday evening to attend the 7th African Union
Summit.
 
He has met with a number of heads of states during his stay in
Banjul.   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir

*****************************************************************
 9 Political Affairs Magazine: Iran: What the U.S. Isn't Telling
 
By: Matthew M. Allen 	   	   	

Published: 07/01/2006 09:37        

Iran, or what used to be known as Persia in the days of
antiquity, has been steadily traveling a modernization path of
its own for quite sometime. However, its legacy of political and
economic imperialism imposed on it by the U.S. should never be
forgotten. Throughout the 21st century, U.S. concerns about Iran
have been primarily centered on its ambitions of becoming a
nuclear power and its alleged sponsorship of terrorism. George
W. Bush has indiscriminately included Iran in the ‘Axis of Evil’
and sees it as a threat towards Middle East stability. 

Iran’s attention toward nuclear energy is anything but new. Its
relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
goes back at least 20 years. The agency however, only began
investigating Iran’s nuclear ambitions in 2003. Iran’s agenda to
produce plutonium and enriched uranium has been aided by Russian
and centrifuge technology with most of the dependency being on
the latter. Iran’s nuclear R (research and development) of
centrifuges is expected to increase later this year as it plans
to install 3000 centrifuges at the current facility site located
at Natanz.1

 At another facility site, Isfahan, 85 tons of uranium
hexaflouride has already been produced and is capable of
manufacturing 10 nuclear weapons if it is enriched into weapons
grade material. 

So when can it be expected for Iran to develop its nuclear bomb,
if that is the intention? Time frames are rather sketchy
considering several factors. Because nuclear development for
energy purposes and weaponry are similar during the early
stages, it can be difficult to make a distinction for any
nations’ intentions for the technology. Since Iran has managed
to keep some of its facilities under the radar, it will be hard
for the IAEA to gather exact intelligence all of the time.
Another key factor is Iran’s access and proficient application
of technology. For instance, Iran has to be accurate and timely
at completing uranium enriched centrifuges and other technical
processes. Predictions range from six months to 10 years.
Scholars from the ISIS (Institute for Science and International
Security) and the IISS (International Institute for Strategic
Studies) are speculating it will be between three to five
years.2 Because Iran has enough oil and natural gas to sustain
itself for generations, Washington and the IAEA contend that
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are based on weapons development and
not energy production. Whatever the case, nuclear
experimentation for any nation defines its technologic
advancement -- be it for civilian and/or military purposes.
Aside from these factors there is a much more sobering reason
why Iran has become a pebble in America’s shoe.
 
What else is on the radar?
 
Iran is the second largest exporter of petroleum among the OPEC
(Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) member states.
Since 2005, Iran has been constructing an economic policy to
create its own oil "bourse" or exchange. Iran would execute this
by conducting petroleum transactions with euros instead of
dollars.3 Why?
 
In value the euro (the consolidated currency of the European
Union) is higher than the dollar. In "dollar" terms, the dollar
only equals to about 83 cents of the euro compared to the "euro"
value to the dollar being about $1.20. In economic terms and
basic common sense- the euro has a higher value. If we turn the
clock back to the year 2000, it will show us that Saddam Hussein
began to sell oil to his contractors in euros. Many believe that
this is the real reason why the U.S invaded Iraq 3 years later.
Iraq, another OPEC member, had to be diverted from selling oil
in euros as an effort to prevent the "domino theory" among other
OPEC members. The invasion of Iraq was designed to undermine its
position in OPEC and to revert back to the dollar for petroleum
transactions.4
 
It is essential to understand the conjecture behind the war in
Iraq in order to comprehend the implications behind Iran. Iran
has been enforcing the euro exchange policy towards its European
and ACU customers since 2003.5 According to Mostakhdemin
Hosseini, head of the Iranian Stock Exchange, Tehran gave its
approval to the new "bourse" that was expected to begin in late
March of 2006. March has now past and the euro petroleum
exchange has not officially opened. If Iran’s oil bourse comes
to fruition, it would be widely accepted by several members of
the international community. Particularly Russia, China, and
India – as the former two already have euros in their central
banks. 

In 2004, Iran secured a 25-year deal to supply India with LNG
(liquefied natural gas) and in 2005, a 30-year deal to supply
China with natural gas.6 China’s colossal appetite for oil and
its continuous steps toward super power status will greatly
increase if it can thrive in a euro-based petroleum exchange
simply because it would weaken and perhaps topple the U.S.’s
dollar-based petroleum exchanges vis-à-vis the NYSE (New York
Stock Exchange) and the London-based IPE (International
Petroleum Exchange).7 Military might has enabled the U.S. to
spread its economic hegemony throughout the world including
designating its "dollar" as the supreme equalizer. This means
that the dollar’s forced acceptance has made it the global
reserve currency. The dollar can be used to buy or sell anything
around the world. And oil, the world’s most lucrative resource,
has for a very long time been traded in dollars- or
"petro-dollars". It is the petro-dollar that has afforded
America its wealth, which the petro-euro could likely terminate
that in the long term. America is already at an $8 trillion
deficit which means it can’t afford an increased devaluation of
the dollar (which has lost close to a third of its value against
the euro since 2000)8. The Federal Reserve fully understands the
danger that the dollar could be facing from a petro-euro
economy- especially with the enormous U.S. deficit. The Fed
could face catastrophic consequences if the euro became the
global reserve currency due to Iran and other OPEC member’s
convergence to a petro-euro system. 

According to Javad Yarjani, a top OPEC official, a complete
petro-euro market is contingent on Norway and Britain adopting
the euro, and its stability against the dollar.9 Subsequently,
with a deteriorating dollar, the Fed’s decision on November 10,
2005 to discontinue publishing the money supply for public
record as of March 23, 2005 (just around the time the Iranian
oil exchange was expected to begin) should not be thought of as
coincidental.10 . Participating members of the EU (European
Union) import more oil from OPEC states than the U.S. and would
probably be assuaging for them to convert petroleum revenues to
euros. 

Understanding the dollar, euro, and oil entanglement
 
In 1945, the inception of two U.S. dominated International
Financial Institutions- The World Bank and IMF (International
Monetary Fund) launched the U.S. dollar as the global reserve
currency. In doing so the United States has sets up trade
agreements with foreign countries with the condition that these
countries can only buy and sell goods to the U.S. in dollars
only. This is how the dollar established its global supremacy. 

In contrast the United States doesn’t accept foreign currencies
as payment for its goods, and therefore, it exports less than
what it imports. Because of this trade imbalance the United
States accumulates debt.11 In other words, for every gallon the
U.S. buys or borrows, it can only sell or give back a quart.
Foreign banks must keep stockpiles of dollars in reserve
primarily for oil purchases. This is how the United States has
been able to monopolize the oil economy despite the fact that it
only accounts for three percent of world production. When gold
ceased to back the dollar in 1971, petroleum dependent countries
had to purchase oil with non-secured U.S. dollars. This policy
positioned the U.S. to control the oil, and subsequently, the
global economy simply because regardless of U.S. debt to foreign
countries, these countries needed oil that could only be
purchase with U.S. currency.12 

OPEC’s uniformity of "petro for dollars" was broken under Saddam
Hussein in 2000 during the UN’s "Oil for Food" program. Saddam
cut oil deals in euros to international buyers until the March
2003 invasion of Iraq. The foremost explanation for the invasion
was that Saddam had WMD- a contention that has been widely
discredited. The Persian Gulf accounts for 60 percent of crude
oil reserves- from that Iraq have 11.5 percent and Iran 13
percent. Shortly after the invasion, July 2003, The United
Nations passes Resolution 1483. This is an excerpt of the
document:
 
The establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq to be held by 
the Central Bank of Iraq and To be audited by independent public 
accountants approved by the International Advisory and Monitoring 
Board of the Development fund for Iraq and looks forward to the 
early meeting of That International Advisory and Monitoring 
Board, whose members shall include duly qualified Representatives 
of the Secretary-General, of the Arab Fund for Social and 
Economic Development, and of the President of the World Bank;13
 

In other words, under U.S. and World Bank mandates, Iraq’s oil
sales were re-converted to dollars. If Iran decides to install
its oil exchange it will create serious consequences for the
U.S. dollar and thus, the U.S. economy. With Russia and China
already entertaining the possibility of purchasing oil with
euros, an official transition will drastically depreciate the
greenback because there would be more euros in global
circulation than dollars. Oil purchasing countries will then
purchase more euros to secure their sales on the Iranian
exchange, therefore, avoiding the NYMEX and IPE. The surplus of
non-preferable dollars results in massive inflation for
Americans.14 Countries that continue to buy oil from the U.S.
will also feel the impact of dollar depreciation. 

As for Iran and other OPEC members, a euro based oil exchange is
favorable because the EU states account for 45 percent of Middle
East petroleum sales. Because of that, Middle East – EU trade
will significantly rise followed by growing EU interest to
invest in the Middle East.15 The Middle East holds a relatively
small share of European assets whereas it holds $700 billion
worth of U.S. assets- an amount that will inflate if Middle East
investors convert their asset value to euros. 

How sharp are the curves?
 
For all that is optimum about Iran’s possible oil exchange,
pessimism hasn’t forgotten to cast its shadow. Iran’s quest to
abate America’s economic hegemony has been labeled everything
from "rhetorical" to "pipe dream." It is said that traders on
the NYMEX and IPE, where most traders exchange, are not willing
to relocate to Kish Island- where the Iranian exchange would be
located- to trade oil. Lack of a candid, supervisory bank and
inefficient technology also contribute to trader’s reluctance to
participate.16 American traders are not likely to assimilate to
Muslim culture, particularly, "Sharia" or Islamic law. 

Iran’s non-membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO) will
disable the country’s ability to secure trading contracts in
addition to having no jurisdiction over where its oil finally
gets traded. If it ends up in the hands of countries that
continue to reserve dollars for oil purchases, then of course,
the dollar will maintain some type of leverage. Iran’s major
export is its petroleum and any shortcoming of a new exchange
can strongly endanger an economy that some already believe to be
fragile. Possibly more sobering is Iran’s daily production/sale
quotas as conditions for OPEC membership. On the selling side of
the business- all sales include interest. Under Islamic law,
interest or ‘usury’ is prohibited. If Iranian oilmen are
obedient to Sharia, then how, or will they circumvent this
obstacle? No matter what the pro-con scenario of an Iranian oil
exchange may be, one thing is for certain. Iran understands that
its actions can be very pivotal to America’s domination of the
oil economy and the global economy in general. The power brokers
in Tehran are possibly ascending to a unique economic challenge
to the U.S. economy.
 
Washington’s concerns and implications
 
The U.S. has reserved several options of countering the launch
and success of an Iranian Oil Exchange- options that range from
implanting computer viruses to military intervention. If the
Bush Administration resorts to military action against Tehran,
it can now be confirmed that the reasons have more to do with
than just Iran’s violation of nuclear non-proliferation
policies. Washington knows that Iran has alliances with China,
Russia, and India- 3 major and nuclear powers of Asia. So if the
U.S. were to launch war, it is extremely unlikely that the big
three Asian powers will sit back and do nothing. With US
military forces already spread thin as it occupies Iraq, a
campaign next door in Iran will not be a wise thing to do. 

To start, Iran has a population triple that of Iraq, a
geographic mass that is quadruple, and a terrain that is very
difficult to navigate.17 The Iranian military doesn’t measure to
America’s, but, it is neither static nor feeble. A U.S.-led
military attack on Iran is not a question of "if", but, "when"? 

The UN Security Council will not have an easy or perhaps a
successful attempt at imposing economic sanctions against Iran
because Russia and China will use their veto power to block it.
Because of this a military attack will be self-legitimizing for
the U.S. Israel will join and possibly initiate a strike against
Iran.18 

Conclusion
 
The pretext for war with Iran will solely be based on its plans
to build a nuclear bomb and its sponsorship of terrorism. An
attack against Iran because of its nuclear program is illegal
according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Furthermore, Iran has no legal bind to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. As for Iran’s charges of supporting terrorism, well,
consider this; terrorism is not a person, regime, or state- it
is however, a tactic, a method, and strategy. And as long as
U.S. foreign policy is seen by others around the world as
oppressive and imperialistic, then such "terrorist" acts will
persist. Iran will not have a nuclear bomb by next week, next
month, or even next year. But what Iran may be able to execute
in that sort of time frame is a threat to America’s economic
imperialism. 

Footnotes:
 
1 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Policy Toward Iran. Statement
of Robert Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and
International Security to the House Committee of International
Relations. March 8, 2006.
 
2 Omestad, Thomas, "How Close is Iran to the Bomb?" U.S. News
&World Report, Vol. 140 Issue 3, p28-29, 23 January 2006 

3 Clark, William, " The Real Reason Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-dominated International Oil Marker", Global
Research 27 ( October 2004 ) energybulletin.net , 1 

4 Ibid. , 2
 
5 Ibid.
 
6 LaFranchi, Howard, "Iran’s oil gambit- and potential affront
to the US", The Christian Science Monitor
www.csmonitor.com/2005/08/30
 
7 "Iran takes on US but at what cost?", The Middle East, Issue
365, p.20, March 2006
 
8 Ibid. , 22
 
9 "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill"
Speech by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market
Analysis Dept., during Spain’s Presidency of the European Union
in Oviedo, Spain. 14 April 2002.
 
10 Document: Federal Reserve Statistical Release; Discontinuance
of M3, 23 March 2006, p.1
 
11 Nunan, Collin, "Petrodollar or Petroeuro: A new source of
global conflict", Feasta Review, no.2 (2004) 125-129.
 
12 de Ruijter, Rudo, "How can the Dollar Collapse in Iran?"
Portland Independent Media Center, portlandimc.com , 28
(February 2006).
 
13 Document: United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1483
(2003), UN Security Council 4761st meeting, 22 May 2003. p. 4
 
14 Petrov, Krassimir, Ph.D., "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse",
15 January 2006. www.gold-eagle.com
 
15 Islam, Faisal, "When will we buy oil in euros"? The Observer
(Guardian Unlimited) 2 February 2003
 
16 Ezrati, Milton, "Iran’s plan to weaken the dollar will fail",
The Christian Science Monitor, 29 March 2006.
 
17 Pollack, Kenneth. "Securing the Gulf", Foreign Affairs
Jul/Aug 2003 Vol. 82 Issue 4, p2, 

18 Joseph Cirincione: An interview with Joseph Cirincione by The
Council on Foreign Relations, April 4, 2006.
 
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Iran to continue uranium enrichment program - Ahmadinejad -

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
said Tehran will continue its uranium enrichment program despite
international calls to halt the sensitive project, state
television reported.

"The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without
any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase,"
Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying from Gambia after explaining
Iran's fuel cycle program, which has enriching uranium as its
focus, to Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo.

Ahmadinejad is in Gambia to address the African Union summit.

Tehran is under mounting pressure from the West to respond next
week to an international offer that would defuse the nuclear
standoff.

World powers gave Iran one more week Thursday to provide a
"clear and substantive response" to an international proposal on
suspending uranium enrichment, but Tehran immediately rejected
the deadline.

Foreign ministers of the G8 group of leading nations said
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's
head nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani will meet Wednesday to
discuss the plan.

"We expect to hear a clear and substantive Iranian response to
these proposals at the planned meeting," the ministers said in a
statement from Moscow, where they were preparing a July 15-17
summit in Saint Petersburg.

But speaking at the United Nations in New York, Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran would not respond before
late August.

Solana on June 6 handed Iran the proposal from the five
permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.

It promises incentives and multilateral talks if Iran agrees to
temporarily halt uranium enrichment, something Tehran has so far
refused to do.

Diplomats say Iran was asked to reply by June 29, but
Ahmadinejad said last week Tehran would take until August 22 to
answer.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is to generate electricity
and that uranium enrichment is needed to provide the fuel. The
EU and the US suspect Iran of concealing a military weapons
project. 

AFP 

*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Iran rejects deadline for nuclear response 

 by Hiedeh Farmani Sun Jul 2, 12:01 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas again rejected a deadline to 
respond to an international offer aimed at resolving a nuclear 
standoff after world powers said they expected a "clear and 
substantive response" by mid-July. 

 "A deadline is not an issue. We think such statements are not
constructive and they will not help in resolving the problem. We
will respond next month (according to the Iranian calendar),"
foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. 

He said several committees were studying the offer and that Iran
would deliver its response "sometime" after July 23. 

World powers on Thursday gave Iran one more week to provide a
"clear and substantive response" to an international proposal
over the long-running crisis over Iran's nuclear programme. 

The five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain,
China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany have
offered Iran a package of incentives that includes multilateral
talks if it agrees to temporarily halt uranium enrichment. 

That work is at the centre of fears the hardline regime could
acquire nuclear weapons, although oil-rich Tehran insists the
project aims only to provide fuel for nuclear energy. 

Rejecting allegations that Iran was seeking to buy time, Asefi
said: "It is not a question of tactics and wasting time. It is a
multi-dimensional package and takes time to examine". 

"There are ambiguities (in the package) which need to be
discussed with the Europeans," Asefi added. 

"We will submit a logical response considering our country's
rights and interests," he said, referring to the demands for a
freeze in enrichment, a process which provides fuel for nuclear
plants but can also form the core of an atomic bomb. 

"Alleviating the West's concerns should not be interpreted as
sacrificing our interests," Asefi added. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana are to meet in Brussels on Wednesday on the
international package. 

"The two sides will talk about their views on removing
ambiguities and reaching a result," Asefi said. 

The United States said Friday it expected Iran to respond at the
meeting between Larijani and Solana, who submitted the proposed
packed to Tehran on June 6. 

"We've seen lots of political statements from lots of political
figures. We are waiting for the authoritative channel which is
the Larijani channel to Solana," US Under Secretary for
Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said in Brussels. 

He added that the international community was "unified" around
the offer to Tehran. "We all believe that negotiations make
sense and that Iran should accept the offer," he said. 

"It's now up to Iran to decide. It's high time frankly that we
had a response from the Iranian government." 

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had set August 22
as the date for Tehran's response. 

Hitting out at world "bullies", Ahmadinejad said Saturday that
Tehran would continue uranium enrichment and accused world
powers of seeking to prevent technological advancement in
developing countries. 

"The Iranian government and the people have decided, and without
any doubt with dignity and glory we will pass this phase,"
Ahmadinejad said at an African Union summit in Gambia. 

The world powers will meet on July 12 to assess the Iranian
response and decide whether it is enough to allow a resumption
of negotiations -- or warrants bringing the issue back to the UN
Security Council for possible punitive measures. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: Iran, Thailand study expansion of cooperation in energy sector -
                              
, July 1, IRNA

The third meeting of Iran-Thailand Joint Economic Commission
kicked off here Saturday.

 The meeting was co-chaired by Iran's Minister of Oil Kazem
Vaziri Hamaneh and his Thai counterpart Wiset Chuphiban.

 According to the Public Relations Department of Oil Ministry,
at the meeting, both sides are expected to discuss annual export
of three million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Thailand
and sign an agreement to this effect.

 Given growing trend of economic cooperation in energy sector
between the two countries, the Iranian oil minister said during
the previous meetings, the two sides discussed transfer of
technological know-how for equipping vehicles with condensed
natural gas (CNG) system which was approved in today's session,
Hamaneh said.

 Iran is to explore grounds for increasing investment in Thai
petrochemical industries, he said and expressed the hope that
Iran would play a very active role in Thailand's petrochemical
industry.

 Export of crude oil and cooperation in overhauling Thai oil
refineries are among other topics on the agenda which if
 approved would help promote mutual cooperation in energy
sector, he said.

 The Thai investors have voiced readiness to invest in South
Pars gas field of Iran, he pointed out.

 At present, PTTEP company of Thailand is conducting exploratory
operations in Iranian gas fields, he pointed out.

 The Thai energy minister, for his part, voiced satisfaction
with the expansion of cooperation in energy sector between the
two countries and expressed willingness to broaden mutual
cooperation in various energy-related fields.

 He extended an invitation to his Iranian counterpart to pay an
official visit to Thailand and expressed the hope that both
sides would hold talks on expansion of mutual cooperation as
well as investment of Thai companies in South Pars gas field.

*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: US military doubts bombing of Iran would succeed 

 Sunday July 2, 09:31 PM 

  [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]   

NEW YORK (AFP) - Senior military officers have warned the US
administration that bombing raids against Iran would likely fail
to destroy the country's nuclear program due to a lack of
reliable intelligence, a US magazine magazine reported.

Pentagon officers "have told the administration that the bombing
campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear
program," Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote
in the New Yorker magazine's latest edition.

The military officers are concerned about contingency plans to 
launch air strikes against Iran because of the absence of 
actionable intelligence or concrete evidence of bomb making, the 
magazine said, citing unnamed active duty and retired officers 
and officials.

The article also alleges that the White House had advocated the
possible use of a nuclear device to attack Iran's uranium
enrichment plant in Natanz but that the military leadership
ultimately succeeded in having the option dropped in late April.

The military's experience in Iraq, in which US intelligence on
weapons of mass destruction proved "deeply flawed," has made
senior officers wary in the case of a possible air campaign
against Iran, the New Yorker said.

"The target array in Iran is huge, but it's amorphous.... We
built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there.
This is son of Iraq," one high-ranking general told the magazine.

A former senior intelligence official is quoted as saying that
Pentagon officers are asking: "What's the evidence? We've got a
million tentacles out there, overt and covert, and these guys
(the Iranians) have been working on this for eighteen years, and
we have nothing?"

Entitled "Last Stand: The military's problem with the
President's Iran policy", the article written by journalist
Seymour Hersh portrays military officers as anxious about
history's judgement and increasingly willing to air their
objections to policies set out by Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld.

"The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they
don't want to be condemned by history," a retired four-star
general told the magazine.

"They want to be able to say, We stood up.'"

The Bush administration has refused to rule out possible
military action if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to
halt sensitive uranium enrichment work.

The US and other world powers on Thursday gave Tehran one more
week to provide a "clear and substantive response" to an
international proposal designed to defuse the long-running
crisis over Iran's nuclear programme. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: MP: US seeking to hasten examination of Iran's nuclear issue -
                              
, July 2, IRNA
-- 

Rapporteur of Majlis' National Security and Foreign Policy
Commission Kazem Jalali said here Sunday that the US is trying
to hasten the process of examining Iran's nuclear issue.

 He told IRNA that the process of hastening the issue is
improper and cannot guarantee the interests of those involved.

 "As Europe has repeatedly called for more time for submitting
their proposals and responding to our views, so it is now quite
natural for Iran to require more time to examine the package of
proposals and arrive at a decision.

 "The Europeans should not call for expediting the assessment
process and expect a hasty response. Of course, Iran has already
specified the time its response is expected to be announced," he
added.

 In response to the question about the objective of rushing Iran
to respond to Europe's proposal, he said that in fact, Western
states do not seek to solve Iran's nuclear issue and that they
have shown no goodwill in this respect.

 Replying to another question about Iran's stance on the issue,
Jalali said, "Iran's view in this respect can be divided in two
parts.

 One relates to the part of the issue considered to be positive
and a step forward.

 "The other is about the part of issue on which Iran has a point
of view. This requires to be discussed to reach a common
position." 2326/2322/1412


*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Djibouti backs Iran's legal stance 

, July 2, IRNA

-- 

Djiboutian President Ismail Omar Guelleh here Saturday evening
supported Iran's defense of its rights and insistence on its
legitimate right to access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

 Guelleh made the remark during a meeting with the Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the 7th Summit
of the African Union (AU) before Ahmadinejad wrapped up his
three-day visit to this Gambian capital city.

 Ahmadinejad said Iran and Djibouti share identical views
regarding several regional and international issues, adding,
"Solidarity among African states will lead to their strength and
economic growth.

 "Based on this logic, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to
expand its cooperation with Djibouti in all fields."
 He said Africa enjoys rich resources and great potentials which
can be used to achieve long-term objectives.

 Briefing his counterpart on Iran's legitimate stance on its
nuclear case, Ahmadinejad said, certain western governments
adopted a political attitude regarding Iran's nuclear case.

 While they make use of their own atomic bombs against innocent
people, they oppose Iran's peaceful use of nuclear energy, he
added.

 He stressed Iran's policy is based on holding constructive
talks on nuclear issue without any preconditions.

 The Djiboutian president, for his part, said Iran enjoys high
position in the world, thanks to efforts, determination and
self-confidence of its nation.

 He further praised dignity and rich culture as factors for
resistance and preservation of scientific and cultural
independence of the Iranian nation.

*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: China proposes meeting to revive six-way Korean nuclear talks -
    
Saturday July 1, 06:16 AM 

  [Chief US negotiator for North Korean nuclear talks, 
Christopher Hill (L) with Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Wu 
Dawei] Click to enlarge photo  

TOKYO (AFP) - China has proposed an unofficial meeting in July
to help revive stalled six-nation talks aimed at dismantling
North Korea's nuclear arms programme.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, who presides over the
talks, made the proposal in Beijing on Wednesday to diplomats
from the participating countries, the Kyodo news agency said,
quoting negotiation sources.

In particular, Wu conveyed the proposal to North Korea's
ambassador to China Choi Jin Su, the report said.

Wu proposed "chief delegates" of all six nations attend the
unofficial meeting in the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang,
amid suspicions North Korea is preparing to test-fire a
ballistic missile, Kyodo said.

The six-nation talks have involved North and South Korea, China,
Japan, Russia and the United States since August 2003.

They were suspended last November when Washington rejected
Pyongyang's demand for the removal of US sanctions imposed on a
Macao-based bank for allegedly distributing counterfeit US
dollars and laundering money for the Stalinist state.

The proposal followed a meeting in Beijing last Tuesday between
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and his South Korean
counterpart Ban Ki Moon.

They agreed to make diplomatic efforts to bring North Korea back
to the six-party talks.

The chief negotiators from the six nations gathered in Tokyo
last April on the sidelines of a private security conference to
explore the possibility of resuming the Beijing talks.

But they went home empty-handed after US envoy Christopher Hill
refused to hold a direct dialogue with his North Korean
counterpart Kim Kye-Gwan on Pyongyang's demand for the removal
of the financial sanctions. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 17 Salt Lake Tribune: Ivins: Diplomatic maneuvering regarding North
Korea is a hoot 

Article Last Updated: 06/30/2006 08:15:49 PM MDT 

Molly Ivins 

AUSTIN - Y'all, this isn't gonna work. 

North Korea is threatening to launch a long-range missile 
against us, and we're threatening to reply with an anti-missile 
missile. 

Sorry to remind you, but our ''missile defense system'' does 
not work. Good old Star Wars flopped again when tested in 2004 - 
in fact, it failed to launch. Since then, several tests have 
been delayed or canceled due to technical problems. Just because 
we spend $130 billion on a bad idea doesn't mean we can ever get 
it to work. The latest Bush budget has $10.7 billion for Star 
Wars, almost twice as much as Homeland Security is spending on 
customs and border patrol. 

The good news is that the North Korean rocket doesn't work, 
either. The last time they fired a long-range missile, it went 
1,300 kilometers (807 miles) and could not put a payload into 
orbit. 

The Korean missile was supposedly tanked up and ready to go 
more than a week ago, but, oops, experts now say if that were 
true it would have been fired by now, since the fuel is highly 
unstable. 

If you think the ''military standoff'' with North Korea 
sounds silly, wait'll you hear about the diplomatic maneuvering. 
As you may recall, the United States refused to have bilateral 
talks with North Korea on the grounds that A) Kim Jong-Il is a 
nutcase, and B) we were already committed to multilateral talks, 
including South Korea and China. 

This kerfuffle went on for quite some time, but so did the 
six-party talks. Last year, the North Koreans agreed to abandon 
their nuclear program in return for a security guarantee and 
economic aid - but in the meantime it has come to doubt U.S. 
sincerity on these pledges. Hard to see how that could happen 
with such delicate diplomatic players as Dick Cheney and John 
Bolton at work. 

Whenever I need a good laugh, I just think of Bolton's 
current title: ''Ambassador John Bolton'' - ha, ha, ha. Even 
better, ''Ambassador to the United Nations.'' While there, he has
been making Dale Carnegie proud (''How to Win Friends and 
Influence People''). Bolton's latest U.N. trick was to pitch a 
wall-eyed fit over some mild (and justified) criticism by a Brit.
Good thing the Brits are our closest allies, at least for now. 

I don't mind leaving our relations with the Brits to 
''Ambassador John Bolton,'' but do we think it's a good idea to 
have him in charge of our relations with the nutcase who has a 
missile with unstable fuel? Then again, we might as well leave 
it to Bolton, since William Perry, former secretary of defense, 
a Democrat, thinks we should pre-emptively strike their nuke 
while it's on the launch pad. Better than trying to hit it in 
midair, of course. 

Republican Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, has called for direct talks with the North 
Koreans on the issue, which sounds a lot saner. 

As the American Progress Action Fund points out, the real 
problem is that the Bush administration has no policy on North 
Korea. ''For five years, the Bush administration has been 
paralyzed over North Korea. Hardliners such as Vice President 
Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and U.N. Ambassador Bolton 
have rejected serious engagement in favor of a confrontational 
approach that has backfired. Over time, North Korea has 
withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reprocessed 
fissionable material, increased its nuclear arsenal and is now 
on the verge of starting missile testing.'' 

Boy, that policy worked out well. 

--- 

Creators Syndicate 

For more commentary, see http://www.sltrib.com/opinion 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 18 Korea Times: Beijing Proposes Unofficial NK Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

Beijing Proposes Unofficial 6-Way Talks
   
By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

 China has proposed unofficial six-party talks on North Korea's
nuclear weapons program be held in Shenyang, northern China,
this month, wire news services reported on Saturday. 

Beijing's new initiative came as the denuclearization talks have
been at a stalemate since November and regional security has
been threatened by Pyongyang's apparent readiness to launch a
long-range ballistic missile. 

China's efforts are apparently focused on persuading North Korea
to come back to the negotiating table with a promise that
Beijing would arrange for Pyongyang to have a one-on-one meeting
with Washington. 

Since November, Pyongyang has persistently tried to hold direct
talks with Washington, aiming to find a political solution to
the United States' financial restrictions on a bank in Macau
that was blacklisted by Washington in September for its
suspicious financial services for Pyongyang. 

But the United States has always said it can have bilateral
talks with Pyongyang only within the context of the six-party
talks. 

To reach a compromise between what Pyongyang and Washington
want, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon met with
ranking Chinese officials, including his Chinese counterpart Li
Zhaoxing and State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan, in Beijing on
Tuesday. 

On the following day, Wu Dawei, China's chief negotiator to the
talks, invited ambassadors from five other states participating
in the multilateral dialogue to the Foreign Ministry in Beijing
and delivered the proposal for an unofficial six-way meeting at
Shenyang, Japan's Kyodo News Agency reported. 

Shenyang is home to a North Korean consulate general, making it
possible for North Korean diplomats to communicate with its
capital should the unofficial talks be held there. 

South Korea's Cheju Island was proposed by Seoul as a venue for
such an unofficial gathering in November, but the idea was
rejected by the North, allegedly due to the fact that North
Korean officials have no safe facilities to communicate with the
Pyongyang government in the South Korean territory. 

A North Korean airliner shuttles between Pyongyang and Shenyang
on Wednesdays and Saturdays. A train service is also available.
The Beijing-Pyongyang line has a stop at Shenyang four times a
week. 

im@koreatimes.co.kr 07-02-2006 18:43         
  
*****************************************************************
 19 Spectrum: Opposed to Divine Strake

St. George UT- www.thespectrum.com - 

On many of my visits to Southern Utah, I am stopped by citizens
who tell me about hardships they have faced because of exposure
to nuclear testing during the Cold War. I always feel deep
compassion for these individuals and empathize with their
frustrations and sorrow - and I'll do everything I can to make
sure no one else has to suffer like this again.

The government admitted it had made a mistake with nuclear
testing that affected residents of Southern Utah, and through
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which I
sponsored, families have been compensated for some of their
suffering. I had hoped the federal government had learned its
lesson.

But we Utahns have learned to be careful when the government
starts testing weapons in our backyard, and we've been given a
new cause for concern: Divine Strake. Divine Strake is the code
name for a 700-ton explosive test to study the effects of
shockwaves on buried structures. Though the explosive is
conventional, the test is predicted to produce a mushroom cloud
and could potentially release contaminated particles from
previous nuclear tests into the atmosphere.

As has been widely reported, the federal government's Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) had originally planned the
explosive detonation to take place on June 2, but thanks to
concerns that many of us have raised, that test was postponed.
Helping in this effort were members of the Western Shoshone
tribe and Downwinders, in both Nevada and Utah, who filed a
lawsuit in April to halt the test.

There is a need for the United States to research the means to
neutralize hardened underground facilities and bunkers where
strategic assets, such as terrorist leaders and weapons of mass
destruction, can hide. However, I do not and will not support
this kind of a test if it will harm human life.

As the government began preparing for this test, I insisted that
certain safety questions on this test be answered. I have not
been satisfied with what I've heard.

Earlier this year, I contacted the DTRA regarding my concerns
about Divine Strake, based on inconsistencies I discovered in
the pre-approval draft of the Environmental Assessment. I found
conflicting information regarding how far the detonation site
would be located from previous nuclear testing sites in Nevada.
The report put the location at both 1.5 miles and 2.5 miles
away. After pointing out this inconsistency to DTRA, I was told
that it was actually only 1.1 miles.

I directed my staff members on nuclear and defense policy to
visit the Nevada Test Site in April, where they were informed
that there was no possibility of radioactive particles being
ejected into the atmosphere. Accordingly, I insisted on
obtaining, but have not yet received, the detailed scientific
documentation that DTRA used to reach their conclusion.

My voice was one of many expressing concerns about potential
radioactive fallout, and the government heard us. Late last May,
the National Nuclear Security Administration withdrew its
earlier finding that the test would have no significant impact.
For the first time, the federal government admitted it needed
time to answer legal and scientific questions about whether it
would kick up radioactive fallout left from previous nuclear
tests.

The test has been indefinitely postponed. But should DTRA decide
it wants to go forward, it has agreed to conduct two town hall
meetings - one in Southern Utah and one along the Wasatch Front.
I want a full, informed public discussion to make sure all the
concerns have been addressed.

The bottom line is this - I oppose any kind of testing anywhere
that will have a detrimental effect on human life. We still have
no assurance that Divine Strake can be conducted safely. I am
working closely with the federal government to ensure that
Utahns never again have to face horrific consequences from
nuclear testing.

Originally published July 2, 2006

 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 20 HindustanTimes.com: Nuke sub for Navy goes on trial 

  Nuke sub for Indian Navy goes on trial in Russian seas

Press Trust of India

Moscow, July 1, 2006
   
A Nerpa nuclear-powered submarine to be leased to the Indian
Navy has begun sea trials.

The submarine, which went on sea trials on June 24, would be
leased to the Indian Navy after its formal induction into the
Russian Pacific Fleet next year, Vedomosti daily reported on
Saturday.

The Amursky Shipyard based in Komsomolsk-on-Amur just across the
Chinese border launched the construction of Nerpa nuclear-power
submarine (project 971, type Shchuka-B) in 1991.

"The contract concluded with India (around 2004) on completing
the construction and leasing of this submarine along with
another submarine of the same type also constructed by the
Amursky Shipyard to the Indian Navy led to renewal of the
construction," the daily writes noting the secret character of
the deal.

"Many times Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov has avoided answering
the question whether such contract has been concluded with India.

"In India the programme is coded as 'the perspective warship,'
its financial implications are also not revealed. According to
an official of one of the defence enterprises, India will spend
not less than $400 million on completion of the construction of
submarines," the daily said.

Indian diplomatic sources were reluctant to comment on the news
report.

However, speaking on the condition of anonymity, they pointed
that lease of nuclear submarine was part of the Gorshkov
package, which included lease of TU-24 (Nato codename Backfire)
strategic bombers.

During recent Russia visit the Defence Secretary Shekhar Dutt
and Naval Chief, Admiral Arun Prakash are understood to have
reviewed the n-sub deal.

The Naval Chief had visited the Russian Pacific Fleet
Headquarter at Vladivostok, which would be the title-holder of
the nuke submarine to be leased to the Indian Navy for 10 years.
  
*****************************************************************
 21 The Hindu: Sethna prefers NPT to deal 

India's National Newspaper

 Monday, Jul 03, 2006     

  Says the non-proliferation treaty permits the exit of any 
signatory nation   

MUMBAI: India will be better off signing the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which permits the exit of any
signatory nation, rather than the nuclear deal with the United
States that will bind the country for "perpetuity," nuclear
scientist Homi Sethna has said. 

"NPT may be discriminatory, but we will still be allowed to exit
whereas in the current Indo-U.S. deal which is under
negotiation, India will remain bound in perpetuity," Mr. Sethna
said in his keynote address at the Forum of Integrated National
Security here on Saturday. 

"Therefore, I prefer NPT ... to signing the current deal [with
the U.S.]," Mr. Sethna, former chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission, said. "India is supposed to get only uranium for its
nuclear programme to expand. Simply for this, so much
compromising ... is uncalled for." 

The scientist, credited with playing a key role in the 1974
nuclear blast that saw India's emergence as a nuclear weapons
power, said: "The Americans are out of the nuclear power reactor
building business for the last 25 years. So where is the
question of [getting] technology from them? Therefore, [in order
to end the current global sanctions on the nuclear programme] we
rather sign the NPT and it will give an escape route from going
through all this trauma of separation and getting a special
status agreement with IAEA [under the additional protocol]. I do
not know how we have been tied down to this situation." 

Mr. Sethna said: "The Indian Government should now seriously
think about it [signing the NPT]. Instead of being looked down
upon as a non-signatory all the time, go ahead and sign and
break it immediately, may be within three hours." — PTI 


Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 22 The Hindu: Russia may lease nuclear submarine to India 

 Saturday, Jul 01, 2006     

Vladimir Radyuhin 

  The Nerpa nuclear submarine was launched at the Amur shipyard 

MOSCOW: A nuclear-powered submarine that will reportedly be
leased to India was launched at a shipyard in the Russian Far
East, a news agency report said. 

The Nerpa nuclear submarine was launched at the Amur shipyard
and will join Russia's Pacific Fleet in 2007 after undergoing
sea trials, the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Vice-Admiral
Anatoly Shlemov on Friday. 

However, earlier reports said the Nerpa submarine was to be
leased for 10 years to India under a 2004 secret deal. Indian
and Russian officials have denied the reports. 

Nerpa is the Project 971 third-generation submarine (NATO code
name Akula-II), the most advanced Russian nuclear attack
submarine. The Russian Navy's Akula-II submarines are equipped
with 28 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a striking range of
3,000 km. The Indian version is expected to be armed with the
300-km Club nuclear-capable missiles. 

Russia test-fired a ballistic missile Friday. The RSM-54 missile
(Skiff SSN-23 in NATO codification), launched from the Tula
nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea, hit a target on the Kura
test range some 3,000 miles away, in the Kamchatka peninsula in
Russia's far east, defence officials said.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. 

*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: India Nukes Deal Expected to Pass Congress
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday June 30, 2006 9:31 PM

AP Photo BOG101 

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's nuclear accord with
India seems on track to easy passage in Congress, as the White
House also proceeds with plans to equip Pakistan with F-16
fighter jets. 

Nevertheless, the State Department on Friday noted that the
India legislation still must be approved by the Senate and House
after being passed by key committees. And spokesman Adam Ereli
said ``We will continue to work with Congress ... to address
remaining issues in the legislation.'' 

He declined to identify them, b Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, two days after the House International Relations
Committee gave its assent to a similar measure. 

The House and Senate still have to act on the unprecedented
accord with India, which provides for delivery of U.S. nuclear
technology and fuel for projects that New Delhi designates as
civilian. 

While India would permit international inspection and safeguards
at 14 nuclear reactors, its eight military facilities would
remain off-limits to inspectors. 

Critics say India, already nuclear-armed, would be able to boost
its arsenal. Supporters say India is a trusted ally and handles
its nuclear technology in a responsible way. 

Pakistan, meanwhile, would be permitted to purchase 18 new jet
fighters, order up to an additional 18 of the planes, and get 26
used jets in its arsenal refurbished. 

In Pakistan, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said
approval of the jet sale was long expected. 

``We wanted to buy a higher number of F-16 aircraft, but we
reduced the number following the last year's (Oct. 8)
earthquake,'' Aslam told The Associated Press. 

Congress was notified officially, but quietly, of the aircraft
deal on Wednesday. Within 30 days Congress can try to stop it,
but the odds are long against blocking the sale. 

Stopping it would require passage of a resolution in both the
House and Senate. Even that could be vetoed by President Bush
and the sale cleared unless at least two-thirds of the members
of both chambers vote to override the veto. 

The House International Relations Committee scheduled a hearing
July 13 and invited Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to
testify. 

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and have fought
three wars over the future of the Kashmir territory. Decades of
rivalry between them have tested several U.S. administrations. 

As India and Pakistan competed for U.S. favor, they sometimes
found administrations tipping in one direction or the other. 

Pakistan has strained for years to purchase new U.S. F-16 jets.
Its support for the United States in countering terrorism
apparently bolstered its case. 

``The sale is part of an effort to broaden our strategic
partnership with Pakistan and advance our national security and
foreign policy interests in South Asia,'' Reside said.
``Pakistan is a long-term partner and major non-NATO ally.'' 

Reside said a dialogue between the two countries had helped
reduce tensions and provided greater stability in the area. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear cutback in energy plans
 
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor

Sunday July 2, 2006 The Observer             

Britain could be spared a mass building programme of nuclear 
power stations under plans to force power companies to reduce 
energy use and help the public cut their fuel bills.

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said tackling 
the 'waste' of power would ease pressure on resources and, while 
that would not be enough to avoid the need for nuclear power 
altogether, it would mean fewer reactors being built over the 
next three decades.

Darling, who admitted he would be 'hard pressed to find anybody' 
who wanted a new power station near them, is said to have told 
colleagues privately that as few as two or three reactors might 
eventually be built compared with the 20 originally suggested in 
Downing Street leaks of his energy review. He told The Observer 
it was possible, although 'unlikely', that Britain would end up 
without a single new nuclear plant.

Wind farms will also get a boost in the review, published this
month, which sets out how to keep energy flowing as the current
generation of nuclear reactors reach the end of their useful
lives. Planning inquiries for all major power projects - from
nuclear to green technologies such as windfarms - will be
shortened to prevent them becoming bogged down in years of legal
battles with local residents.

The shift of emphasis in the review, which critics had feared
would represent a headlong rush for nuclear power, reflects
government fears of being 'out-greened' by David Cameron - and
Treasury resistance to plans to make reactors more economically
attractive to build. The Tories are still debating their
position, with pressure from frontbencher Alan Duncan to come
out against nuclear power, but are expected to argue in a paper
this week that the case is not yet proved either way and that
the market should decide whether new reactors are necessary.

Both they and the government will back proposals for mini
neighbourhood power stations, which would use heat generated by
creating electricity to provide hot water for nearby homes - a
more efficient use of power which Darling said could eventually
meet up to a fifth of Britain's energy needs.

'The main drivers here are to cut demand: and we have got to
exploit renewables and the greener forms of energy effectively
in a way that we have just not done,' he said.

Power companies could, in future, be given incentives to kit out
customers' homes with low-energy bulbs, loft insulation or
'smart' meters which warn customers when they are wasting power,
he said. That would reduce the amount of electricity that
householders needed.

'It's all very well to encourage individuals to change their
behaviour, but, frankly, asking 27 million householders to do
that depends on an awful lot of people, and we are all human,'
he said. 'There are six people who supply our energy, on the
other hand, and the regulatory regime encourages them to supply
as much energy as they can at the moment. What we need is to put
an obligation to supply it [efficiently]. If this works, we
might have to build fewer power stations in the next 30 years
than we would otherwise do.'

The approach will be backed by a report to be published this
week from the think-tank the Institute of Public Policy
Research, arguing that greater efficiency could cut energy use
by 30 per cent. 'We should be up in arms about energy that's
wasted,' said Simon Retallack, head of its climate change
programme.

Government insiders say that Darling has produced a 'greener'
review than expected. 'Alistair has rather cleverly changed the
emphasis, so it is not nuclear with a vengeance,' said one
Whitehall source.
 
   Useful links  

British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 25 RIA Novosti: Nuclear energy share in electricity output to double in 13 years
 
01/ 07/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, July 1 (RIA Novosti) - The share of nuclear energy in
Russia's overall electricity output will grow from the current
16% to 23-35% over the next 13 years, Russia's industry and
energy minister said Saturday.

 "We believe that with the rising overall energy consumption in
Russia, the share of nuclear energy will increase as well to
reach 23-34% against the current 16% over the next 13 years,"
Viktor Khristenko said in an interview with Russia's 24-hour
news channel Vesti.

 In early June Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency
for Nuclear Power, told a meeting at President Vladimir Putin's
country residence that two more nuclear power units would be
built from 2007 and another four or five would follow in
2009-10. Russia currently has 35 units at 10 nuclear power
plants.

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 26 BBC: Is nuclear necessary in a post-9/11 world?
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 1 July 2006
 
[Trident missile]                               

The PM has refuse to commit to a vote on replacing Trident                                                             

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, does Britain still need a 
nuclear deterrent? 

That is the question posed by the House of Commons defence 
committee which is calling for a public debate on the future of 
Trident. 

It also concluded that in our post-9/11 world, nuclear weapons 
are useless in the fight against terrorism. 

So why do politicians, including Chancellor Gordon Brown, want to 
keep them? 

The committee's conclusion was welcomed by the Campaign for 
Nuclear Disarmament. 

But defence experts suggest any future threat could be of a far 
more complex nature than that from the Soviet Union which gave 
rise to the deployment of the Trident system. 

Most politicians a decision-makers would probably find not having 
the nuclear option to be an unacceptable risk Dr Paul Cornish, 
Chatham House Full nuclear debate needed

Dr Paul Cornish, head of the international security programme at 
international analysts Chatham House, does not believe nuclear 
weapons could justifiably be used against a terrorist group. 

However, he still thinks holding on to them would still have a 
deterrent value. 

"It would seem to be part of a terrorist operational plan to 
expect to be harried and attacked by conventional forces using 
conventional weapons. 

"If it is made clear that there is and could be no form of attack 
beyond the conventional then what's to stop a terrorist 'going 
nuclear' if they can expect just more of the same treatment?" 

'Entirely unpredictable' 

The MoD is yet to offer a formal response to the defence 
committee. 

MPs said if its officials believed the value of the nuclear 
deterrent was as an insurance policy, rather than in response to 
any specific threat, they should justify such an opinion. 

The insurance policy argument is a view subscribed to by Lee 
Willett, of military think-tank, the Royal United Services 
Institute, who gave evidence to the committee. 

"Our future remains entirely unpredictable and it is impossible 
to predict what threats to the UK may emerge in the next 50 
years," he said. 

"A nuclear deterrent is an insurance policy and, while a direct 
nuclear threat to the UK may seem incredible today, what would be 
the costs to the UK of thinking it no longer needs a deterrent 
only to be proved wrong?" 

'Worst message' 

Opponents have argued that it is hard to see the UK ever using a 
nuclear weapon independent from the US. 

If we embark on replacement, are effectively starting a new 
nuclear arms race Kate Hudson, CND        

And the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is among those to 
contend that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Britain 
should not replace Trident but move towards total nuclear 
disarmament. 

"If we embark on replacement, we are effectively starting a new 
nuclear arms race that will send the worst possible message to 
other countries in the world, some who do not yet have capacity," 
said Kate Hudson, CND's chairwoman. 

Ms Hudson remains worried about the possible timetable for any 
public debate given that that the prime minister has already told 
MPs a decision on replacing Trident would be taken later this 
year. 

Downing Street has promised a parliamentary White Paper on 
whether to replace Trident but has refused to commit to a vote in 
the Commons. 

Meanwhile, Dr Cornish from Chatham House said he does not believe 
there will be "real" debate on Trident replacement "if by 'real' 
we mean a fully-informed, genuine choice between having a nuclear 
deterrent and not having one". 

"The world is becoming less, not more safe as far as nuclear 
weapon proliferation is concerned," he added. 

"This lends weight to the 'insurance policy' idea. 

"And given the stakes involved, most politicians and 
decision-makers would probably find not having the nuclear option 
to be an unacceptable risk."                                                      



*****************************************************************
 27 BBC: Turks wary of nuclear project
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 1 July 2006
 
By Sarah Rainsford BBC News, Sinop, Turkey   

[Coast at Sinop]                                

Local activists want to protect Sinop's unspoilt coast                                                          

Besides one of the busiest streets in Sinop a group of 
middle-aged ladies appeal for signatures. 

They call themselves Mothers Against Nuclear Power. The women
have been campaigning for several weeks now, ever since the
Turkish government announced that Sinop had been approved as a
possible site for the country's first ever nuclear power plant. 

"I'm no expert, but I'm sure we can produce healthy energy here
using the wind and the sun," Gulizar Kavak says, as locals queue
up to add their names to a petition against the proposal. It is
already more than 25,000 signatures long. 

The government plans three nuclear plants in total, to come 
online by 2012. It argues they will help reduce Turkey's heavy 
dependence on expensive energy imports. 

But here in Sinop, opposition to the proposal is fierce. The site 
the government has chosen is on the northernmost tip of Turkey, 
on cliffs where today cows graze lazily beside a lighthouse. 

Fishermen alarmed 

Local fishermen say the Black Sea below is one of the richest 
fishing grounds around. What they catch here is sent all over 
Turkey. Many of the boats in the nearby harbour now carry 
anti-nuclear posters or stickers. 

"The plant's cooling system will increase the temperature of the 
sea so the fish will change their routes," Sertas Suner 
complains, as he untangles his nets after a morning at sea. 

"The construction means our fishing area will be restricted 
anyway. And just think about it psychologically: who wants to eat 
fish caught next to a nuclear plant? It's going to finish this 
city." 

But there is another reason fuelling widespread opposition to 
atomic energy in Sinop. 

Chernobyl impact 

Right along Turkey's Black Sea coast people believe they were 
directly affected by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl two 
decades ago. 

"I have been working as a doctor here for 13 years and the 
frequency of cancer cases I deal with has clearly increased, 
especially among children," explains Doctor Cem Sahan, head of 
the local Chamber of Doctors. 

[Sinop harbour]                                 
Sinop thrives on fishing - but the future is uncertain                                                                 

Recent research by doctors in Hopa in the eastern Black Sea 
region revealed that 48% of deaths in the town are 
cancer-related. 

Dr Sahan believes a survey in Sinop would show a similar picture. 
Like many he blames the radioactive clouds that drifted to Turkey 
from Ukraine 20 years ago. 

Turkey's Atomic Energy Research Institute released its own report 
last month which does acknowledge that Turkey suffered 
radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. But it records no measurable 
health risk in the Black Sea region or beyond. 

Clearing weeds from the grave of a cousin in the tranquil city 
cemetery, Hale Oguz is convinced the institute is wrong. She has 
lost five members of her family to cancer and is now a passionate 
activist against plans to bring nuclear power to Sinop. 

"The Atomic Energy Institute and the ministry did their best to 
hide the truth about Chernobyl in Turkey," Hale says. 

[Anti-nuclear campaigners]                              

Anti-nuclear campaigners are haunted by Chernobyl                                                            

"They pressured anyone who revealed information, and they went on 
TV and said there was no danger. 

"We learned two things on 26 April 1986. One: the risk from 
nuclear plants is very high. Two: the then Turkish government 
lied to us." 

The Atomic Energy Institute declined to comment on those claims, 
or talk about Turkey's plans for nuclear power. 

As well as offering Turkey greater energy independence and 
helping meet rising demand, Ankara argues that a nuclear plant 
would help regenerate a struggling area. 

But it is the emotional rather than economic arguments that 
dominate the debate here in Sinop. 

Mounting opposition 

Even the town's acting mayor from Turkey's governing AK party 
expresses serious doubts about the proposal. 

"The power plant is the government's initiative. We don't know 
why they want it here - maybe the climate is suitable?" Talat Bas 
suggests, sounding distinctly unsure. He too refers to Chernobyl, 
claiming that cancer rates have increased "drastically" in recent 
years. 

"We respect the decision of the government, but personally I am 
opposed to the plant. We want our town developed for tourism and 
culture instead." 

The Turkish government is currently seeking partners to help 
finance, build and manage its nuclear project - which was first 
mooted more than a decade ago, but then abandoned amid public 
protests and a lack of funding. 

Those environmental protests are now gathering force again. But 
here in the Black Sea region the government faces a long legacy 
of distrust of nuclear power in addition, that it has done little 
so far to counter. 

"We are still losing children today because of Chernobyl," 
anti-nuclear activist Gulizar Kavak claims, between calls to 
passers-by to join the protest. "I am collecting signatures 
because I believe nuclear power is dangerous. I want my children 
to live in a healthy environment. But I am sure our campaign will 
succeed - Sinop is ours!" 
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC: Labour 'rules out' nuclear veto
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 2 July 2006
 
By Peter MacRae Producer of The Investigation

[Chapelcross towers]                            

Campaigners want to see a new plant at Chapelcross                                                                

Labour will promise not to block new nuclear power stations when 
it fights the Scottish election next May, one of the party's MSPs 
has said. 

Dr Elaine Murray is campaigning for a new plant to be built on 
the site of the old one at Chapelcross, near Annan. 

Scottish Labour has not formally said whether it will campaign 
for or against nuclear power in Scotland. 

But Dr Murray told BBC Radio Scotland programme The Investigation 
that the party had no objection in principle. 

The Dumfries MSP made the promise in the latest edition of the 
series, which is broadcast on Monday. 

It asks the question: "Would you vote for nuclear power?" 

[Elaine Murray]                                                        

Despite t resolution which was passed at conference, there are 
people within the Labour Party who are not particularly 
comfortable with that position Dr Elaine Murray Dumfries MSP    

Dr Murray said: "The position of the Labour Party going into the 
Scottish Parliament elections will be that we would not, on 
principle, block an application for a new nuclear power station 
in Scotland. 

"We would consider any planning application on its merits." 

Last week First Minister Jack McConnell, Scottish Labour's 
leader, supported the development of a huge increase in renewable 
energy generation. 

It is believed that he is trying to avoid his party making a 
decision on supporting new nuclear power stations before the 
Scottish elections in case it is a vote loser. 

In public, Mr McConnell will only reiterate the policy of the 
Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, saying: "We will not support 
further development of nuclear power stations while waste 
management issues remain unresolved." 

Party policy 

However, the Scottish Labour spring conference in February agreed 
that "plans must be started to replace or renew our existing... 
nuclear generating stations where required". 

Dr Murray said the first minister must ultimately endorse party 
policy. 

"I don't know Jack McConnell's personal view on nuclear power," 
she said. 

"Despite the resolution which was passed at conference, there are 
people within the Labour Party who are not particularly 
comfortable with that position. 

"Jack McConnell may be one of them, or may not be one of them. 
When the election comes he will speak as the leader of the Labour 
Party in Scotland, in which case he has to defend Labour Party 
policy." 

We know historically peop would support a new build here 
Councillor Ronnie Ogilvie       

Dr Murray's comments will add to pressure on Mr McConnell to say 
clearly whether Scottish Labour is for or against new nuclear 
power stations. 

While energy policy is reserved to Westminster, Scottish 
Executive ministers could use planning powers to block new power 
stations. 

There would be potential for constitutional conflict if a 
majority of anti-nuclear parties controlled the Scottish 
Parliament after the May election. 

If Westminster approved a new nuclear plant in a part of Scotland 
where local people welcomed the development, there would be 
considerable anger if Scottish ministers refused planning 
permission. 

Dumfries and Galloway Councillor Ronnie Ogilvie is part of the 
campaign for a new reactor to be built on the site of the old 
Chapelcross nuclear power station. 

He warned: "I would relish the fight. I'd like to see them come 
down here and justify it, because we'd have the backing of 
Westminster. 

"We know historically people would support a new build here." 

You can hear The Investigation on BBC Radio Scotland from 0850 
BST on Monday, with Gary Robertson and Simon Willis.                                                     



*****************************************************************
 29 The Oil Drum: Oil Shale - the Nuclear Option

| Discussions about Energy and Our Future
 
Posted by Heading Outon Friday June 30, 2006 at 12:26 AM EST 

Topic: Supply/Production 

Tags: oil shale, nuclear explosives, in-situ retorting, rock
fracture, unconventional oil(all tags)

Well, as Gazprom consolidates its grip on Russian gasit could be 
that we may need access to all that oil locked up in the oil 
shale somewhat sooner than the four years that Shell have saidit 
needs before it can even decide if their process is viable (and 
I'll cover that in a later post). Now before I get into the piece 
that follows I should explain that I don't hold any particular 
animus towards the states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming or Idaho and 
so when I start talking about disposing of nuclear weapons in 
those states by making use of them it should be taken as merely a 
technical discussion (grin).

 The need for a relatively rapidly available resource to allow
us to continue being able to supply the worlds needs for oil,
even as it increases into the future, will require some fairly
rapid and agile production of resources, and as I noted in the
first post of this series, with some 2 trillion extractable
barrels of oil locked up in the oil shales of the above four
states, there lies a potential answer to the problem. But
conventional means for extraction, particularly the levels of
capital required, and other issues that I will discuss later,
make it unlikely that these normal means will produce any
significant impact on the gap in economic supply that will
develop in the near future. The use of nuclear explosives has
the potential to solve that problem. And to explain, rather
simply how this might be done (as with the other techie talks),
I will explain how, conceptually, this might be achieved.
 
<b>There's more...</b> (1334 words)| Comments (82)| PermalinkThe
papers that I am going to take the concepts from were given at
the second and third oil shale symposia and are listed at the
end of the post. They describe the application of results from
over 150 underground nuclear detonations which were carried out
as the United States sought to find peaceful uses for nuclear
explosives as part of the Plowshare Program. I will also be
using 1960's costs since these were used in the papers.

 To set the stage, as I have described earlier, the Western oil
shales occur in rock with almost no permeability, and the
kerogen that is in the rock will, under normal conditions stay
there, rather than flowing even when it has the chance. So if
the oil (kerogen) is to be recovered two things will be needed.
The first is a way of massively fracturing the rock, and the
second is the maintenance of some level of heating to liquefy
the oil, and then to keep it flowing. Large scale fracture of
the rock will, in turn, require the application of massive
levels of energy, and here nuclear explosives are in a class of
their own. Explosive yields are usually given in kilotons, where
a kiloton has the effective energy in a thousand tons of TNT. (A
ton of TNT has an energy content of 4,184 Megajoules). At the
same time the devices themselves are relatively small. A 250 KT
device would be around 20 inches in diameter and about two to
four times that long. The cost to place it, and the device
itself, was estimated to be around $500,000 in 1965. 

The oil shale layers are about 2,000 ft thick, and under an
additional cover of 1,000 ft of overlying rock (overburden to
mining engineers). If a 250 KT device was placed at the bottom
of the shale layer, therefore, and detonated, it could be
expected to create a cavity that would be around 400 ft in
diameter. Much of the radioactive material generated
(anticipated to be tritium) would be fused into the wall of the
cavity, or caught in the gas that could be drawn off and
collected through the boreholes subsequently used to take
advantage of the blast. 

The shockwave from the event is anticipated to create damaging
surface motion to a distance of 2 miles or so, and be
substantially disturbing to 6 miles, however, for our purpose,
in the immediate vicinity of the blast it will induce
significant fractures in the surrounding, and overlying rock.
This will cause the rock immediately over the blasted cavity to
collapse, and to fall in until a chimney of broken rock has been
formed. This chimney will grow upwards until the bulking of the
rock as it breaks (that gain of 60% I mentioned last post) fills
the space available. For the 250 KT shot this chimney is
estimated to be around 1,000 ft high. Experience suggests that
the blocks will break into pieces up to 3-ft in size, though the
collapse and internal fracturing may increase their ignition
potential. The rock surrounding the cavity will, for a distance
of around 3-cavity diameters be fractured with a permeability of
up to 1 darcy. (The Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia has an average
permeability of 617 millidarcies). Beyond that range, and out to
about 6 to 8 radii the rock will continue to be fractured, but
with fractures more widely spaced and less useful. 

Thus, if the entire area is to be treated, then shots would need
to be fired around 3 - 4 cavity radii apart in order to maximize
the break-up of the rock. (Say for our hypothetical model this
would be around 750 ft). By drilling sets of 5 shot holes to
create individual retorts, and grouping these in sets of four,
to create a "plant," we could create a production operation for
the recovery of the oil. Depending on whether the intent is to
optimize the fragmentation of the rock, or the fracturing of the
surrounding rock with the patterns, some 240,000,000 to
1,000,000,000 cubic feet of rock will be broken per shot, at a
cost of $0.015 to $0.05 per ton. 

Which brings up the second advantage of nuclear explosives.
About 2.5 months after the shot the temperature at the wall of
the cavity will still be around 1,000 degrees F, and some 11
months after the shot it will be around 180 degrees. Since the
only place for this heat to go is into the surrounding rock, it
will cook the kerogen in the vicinity into oil, with, at the
sustaining temperature, a low enough viscosity that it will flow
into any adjacent collection point.

 And it is here that the advances of the past 40-years come into
play, since oil drilling is now capable of drilling a "bottle
brush" collection pattern under the cavity in order to access
and collect the oil (and some water) as it drains down through
the fractures. However drilling will also be required to feed
air into the chimney and to turn it into a large-scale retort to
complete the transition of the kerogen in the vicinity to oil,
and to mobilize it. Based on USBM experiments, some 75-90% of
the oil in the shale can be recovered from such an in-situ
retort. Where necessary some of the gas produced may also be
used, in the later stages of the upward progression of the fire
front, to enhance the strength of the fire front and to ensure
that it continues to move up through the shale, not only in the
chimney, but then also into the overlying and surrounding rock.
(The fire can be controlled to either burn up or down what now
becomes an extremely large retort).

 Using this technique and applying it to each of the plants,
that I have just described, it is anticipated that each plant,
which would cover an area about a mile in diameter, would
produce some 450 million barrels of oil over twelve years, at a
production rate per day of 100,000 barrels, assuming a 75%
recovery of the oil over the 2,000 ft interval. It is
anticipated that with a feed of around 3,000 cfm/ton of air at
50 psi, that the flame front could progress at a speed of
between 1 and 2 ft per day. In 1965 dollars, it was anticipated
that the operation could make a profit if the oil were then sold
to a refinery at a cost of $1.50 a barrel. Oil recovery would,
however, be controlled by the quantity of oil in each "retort"
layer, and, by the nature of the operation, all the oil would be
anticipated to be recovered but at the rate controlled by the
layers as they produced. However the process is considered
economic for oil shale at grades above 15 gallons/ton with
thicknesses of greater than 400 ft.

 So just think, when we talk about "the nuclear option" in
future, we may have an entirely different concept in mind
(/grin).

 (Note that, for consistency I changed some of the numbers to
reflect use in the 2,000 ft shale column, rather than the 1,000
ft used in some of the example calculations in the papers). 

Reference papers for this post are:
 M.A. Lekas and H.C. Carpenter "Fracturing Oil Shale with
Nuclear Explosives for In-Situ Retorting", 2nd Symposium on Oil
Shale, CSM, 1965.
 H.F. Coffer and E.R. Spiess "Commercial Applications of Nuclear
Explosives, the Answer to Oil Shale?", 3rd Symposium on Oil
Shale, CSM, 1966.
 M.E. Lekas "Economics of Producing Shale Oil, the Nuclear
In-Situ Retorting Method," 
3rd Symposium on Oil Shale, CSM, 1966.

 Previous posts in this short series on Oil shale dealt with 

Where it is
Mining oil shale
82 commentson Oil Shale - the Nuclear Option

  theoildrum.com   

*****************************************************************
 30 Independent: Hain weighs in against Government's nuclear policy 

By Thair Shaikh 

Published: 01 July 2006 

A senior cabinet minister last night attacked government
proposals to commission a new generation of nuclear power
stations, arguing against their potential financial and
environmental costs. 

Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, gave his backing to
renewable energy sources and warned that the public would not
accept a "gung-ho" approach to nuclear power.
 
His aired his views just a few days after Tony Blair once again
backed nuclear power, warning that without a homegrown nuclear
industry, Britain could become dependent on foreign gas and oil
within 20 years.
 
"The case for nuclear has still to be proven and we'll see what
the energy review produces," said Mr Hain in an interview BBC2's
Newsnight. "I am very clear that the lights have to be kept on,
in 10, 15, 20 years time when this problem of supply really
seriously hits us ... and if nuclear is the only way to fill it,
well I'll reluctantly have to accept that.
 
"But if we get to that point without a massive ramping up of
renewable energy then I don't think the public will support it,"
he said.
 
Mr Hain said there had been a "massive subsidy" of £70bn worth
of liabilities from the old nuclear power programme. "We can
never go down that road again because otherwise that would crowd
out renewable energy. So if there has to be a new nuclear power
station... it might be that is up to private developers. "
 
His sentiments are in stark contrast to those of the Prime
Minister, who said this week: "The danger is you end up not only
being dependent on imports, but on imports whose price you can't
gauge.
 
"To take out of that nuclear power ... is a very, very big step
for us to take and I would need a lot of convincing that
renewables are going to fill the gap." 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 31 Rutland Herald: Buyout power

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
 July 02, 2006

It took a little over two months for Green Mountain Power and
Gaz Metro of Quebec to agree on a deal for the Canadian gas
distribution company to buy the Vermont utility.

Negotiations moved swiftly because both parties were quick to
see its advantages. It will be up to the Vermont Public Service
Board to determine if the advantages also flow to ratepayers.

Executives from Green Mountain Power say that changes in the
electrical market in the last several years had put them in an
extremely vulnerable position. The company's credit rating is
unfavorable, yet in recent years contracts for the purchase of
electricity have given increasing importance to a company's
credit standing.

Vermont's utilities will have to negotiate major new contracts
in the next decade to replace or continue power from the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant and from Hydro-Quebec. Doing so with
a poor credit rating would prove difficult.

In addition, the relatively small size of Green Mountain Power
makes it subject to volatile ups and downs in the stock market,
depressing the company's stock price below where its earnings
would suggest it ought to be.

Gaz Metro is a $2 billion company that already owns a Vermont
subsidiary, Vermont Gas Systems, which distributes natural gas
in northwestern Vermont. GMP is a $130 million company. If it
were incorporated into Gaz Metro, its executives believe it
would benefit from the larger company's advantageous credit
rating in securing contracts for future power.

For Gaz Metro, the purchase of GMP offers an entry into the
electric utility business. Because it has no other electric
utility operations, GMP's employees would stay on to operate the
Vermont company.

These conditions suggest that other Vermont utilities could face
similar buyout offers. The credit rating of Central Vermont
Public Service is even worse than that of GMP. CVPS has
requested a rate increase that would improve its financial
standing with the hope of improving its credit rating. But Wall
Street views Vermont's regulatory atmosphere as difficult, and
CVPS could well face problems in securing the contracts required
to provide power to its ratepayers.

Vermont has 21 separate utilities, including many small
municipal utilities and co-ops. GMP's executives see room for
greater efficiencies if some of those utilities were eventually
consolidated. The acquisition of GMP by Gaz Metro would begin
that process.

The volatility of the energy markets following deregulation of
much of the U.S. power business has put a premium on a company's
credit rating, which has put GMP and CVPS at a disadvantage.
Deregulation has also opened up opportunities for Canadian
utilities with money to invest. That's why Canadian energy
companies have shown increasing interest, not just in GMP, but
in Vermont's hydroelectric facilities.

GMP executives also see that in today's volatile energy markets
it might make sense for the company to invest in a new
generation facility in Vermont, such as a natural gas-fired
plant in Franklin County. Most of the growth in power usage is
occurring in northwestern Vermont. Vermont Gas Systems, also
owned by Gaz Metro, could supply the fuel. And at the least, the
possibility of providing more of its own power is an option that
would strengthen the utility's hand in negotiations for power
from Hydro-Quebec or other sources.

"The world has changed," said Chris Dutton, president of GMP,
last week. It is a world in which utilities must operate with
great flexibility to acquire power, and being absorbed into Gaz
Metro would help GMP do that, he said.

It is beyond the power of Vermont regulators to change the
course of the deregulation that has changed the world outside of
Vermont. But the PSB must make sure that the state's utilities,
whoever owns their stock, respond to the changing world in a way
that serves the interests of Vermonters.
   
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 32 Cape Cod Times: Duo builds case against nuclear plant 

(July 2, 2006)

 By KEVIN DENNEHY STAFF WRITER

DUXBURY - Mary Lampert sat on her sun porch on a recent afternoon 
and contemplated the forces working against her.

As she prepares to challenge the relicensing of the Pilgrim 
Nuclear Power Station, there's the obvious challenge of mastering 
not just the law but nuclear physics.

Pilgrim Watch attorney Molly Bartlett, left, and Pilgrim Watch
director Mary Lampert began preparing their case against the
relicensing of the plant in September. 
(Staff photo by Gabrielle Plucknette) 

Then there's the team of high-priced lawyers she'll have to face
from nuclear industry giant Entergy - as well as staff from the
federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 Add in locating technical experts across the country who might
be willing to testify, putting them up in nearby hotels, beating
the 60-day deadline to prepare a case, responding to the NRC. ...

 ''This,'' Lampert says, sipping on iced tea, ''has been our
life since September.''

 Across the porch is Molly Bartlett, the environmental attorney
and Duxbury mother who is helping to prepare the relicensing
challenge pro bono.

 ''I made the mistake of telling her I was a lawyer,'' Bartlett
says.

 For sure, the pair's bid to intervene on the extension of the
Pilgrim license faces odds. Only once has the NRC even allowed a
legal hearing on a license renewal.

 But they've gotten something of a boost in recent weeks.

 This spring, Attorney General Tom Reilly also requested a legal
hearing, providing what Lampert sees as an ally and potential
partner in research and future appeals.

 Then, on June 2, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
California concluded the NRC must consider the consequences of a
terrorist attack before permitting a new waste storage facility
near San Luis Obispo.

 Reilly's staff was watching that decision, too.

 ''Part of our concern focuses on the potential for intentional
acts that would cause a spent fuel fire,'' said Matt Brock, an
assistant attorney general in the environmental protection
division of Reilly's office.

 ''The 9th Circuit decision found that those kinds of risks are
reasonably foreseeable and should be planned for.''

 Lampert agrees.

 ''It is going to be hard for the board to say we can't discuss
these things here,'' she said of proceedings to be held this
week in Plymouth to determine whether a legal hearing on
Pilgrim's relicensing will be held.

An NRC spokesman said this week the agency is considering an
appeal of the California decision.

 Despite Reilly's involvement and the California decision,
Lampert knows she and Bartlett are playing the role of David in
a battle with Goliath. Some friends have called her crazy.

 ''All you can do is just try to stay in the game,'' she says.
''And just hope that you wake up a few NRC staff people, and
maybe they'll change policy a year or two later.''

 Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. 

(Published: July 2, 2006)           

Copyright © 2006 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 33 AlterNet: EnviroHealth: Getting Off Our Nuclear Power Fixation

By J.A. Savage, Posted July 1, 2006.  
 	
The vice president would have you believe nuclear power is
clean and safe. Here's everything you need to know about just
how unclean and dangerous it really is. 			   	   	Tools
 
My favorite internet date site posits a question: "What is the
best/worst lie you've told?" 

  + "I've never seen that man before in my life." 
  + "I've had a vasectomy." 
  + "I know what I'm doing." 
  + "I'm not married." 
  + "Nuclear power is clean and safe."

I made that last one up. But if the power industry and the
federal government had their profiles up on that website, that
would be their answer.

Despite Vice President Dick Cheney's contention that nuclear
power is "carbon-free," nukes contribute to the greenhouse
effect. The government is betting billions of dollars of our
money, and could simply give it away to developers to build new
nuclear plants. And, our country's aging nuke fleet is getting
plastic surgery while its innards decay and get ever closer to
fatal accidents.

Let's start with the greenhouse lie. Instead of coal or natural
gas, nukes run on uranium. Like coal, uranium has to be mined.
It also has to be converted, enriched and transported. Add that
up and you get more greenhouse gas emissions than a natural
gas-fired power plant, according to one of the few studies done
on the complicated issue by the scientists at the German
Oko-Institut. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry would have you
believe that solar and wind power create more greenhouse gases
than nuclear.

Not only does nuclear power contribute to the greenhouse effect,
and so, indirectly affecting the planet's health and your
well-being, it very well could affect your health and the
planet's health directly -- by killing everything in sight in an
accident.

This is how nuclear energy works on a basic physics level. When
atom of a special type of element, uranium 235, is bombarded by
neutrons, the uranium releases more neutrons that split more
uranium atoms in a chain reaction. This is fission. Nuclear
power plants use the heat given off from that process to boil
water. The steam from that water turns the same basic turbines
that you find in other power plants fueled by natural gas or
coal to make the heat. It's a huge, scary engineering problem
just meant to boil water. As antinuclear guru Amory Lovins
quipped, it's like using a chainsaw to cut butter.

The difference is the radioactivity is contained -- at least we
hope it remains contained -- within the reactor where the
fission is constantly exploding at a molecular level. If that
radioactivity escapes the reactor (that happens on occasion) or
is released through contaminated water spills (that happens with
great regularity), then it's a health and safety problem.

The thing about deadly radioactivity is that you can't see it
coming. You can't smell it. You can't feel it until it's too
late.

On a basic physiology level, when radioactivity is absorbed by a
body, it wreaks havoc on DNA molecules. Studies show ingested
and inhaled uranium emissions may affect babies in the womb and
increase risk of cancers such as leukemia. It may damage
chromosomes. In high concentrations, it kills immediately.

That's not a problem, according to the government, because no
matter how complicated it gets to boil water to make
electricity, there won't be any accidents. The chief federal
nuclear regulator, Nils Diaz, chair of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said in April that the agency is "ensuring safety in
the civilian uses of nuclear materials."

The government/industry's plan is to contain all that nasty,
deadly fission by building a huge box around it. The boxes, the
reactor vessels, are made of thick carbon steel, lined with
stainless steel. "That oughta keep 'er," some engineer figured.
After decades of operation, though, it doesn't. The lesson
happened in 2002 when the Davis-Besse nuclear plant's reactor
head was found to have been worn away -- from a two-feet-thick
exterior to a 3/8-inch layer of stainless steel. Even that last
bit had bubbled outwards from the pressure of keeping
radioactive action on the inside. The plant, near Toledo, Ohio,
had a hole in its reactor head wide enough and deep enough to
put a fist into, according to former Nuclear Regulatory
Commission member Victor Gilinsky. Corrosion on that part
reduced the head by 70 pounds of steel. Workers found the
problem inadvertantly, leaving the reactor perilously close to
unleashing a jet of radioactive steam from the pressurized
vessel.

Then there's the continuing safety and health risks of old nukes
-- the kind, like Nine Mile Point in New York, or Hatch, in
Georgia, that might be in your own backyard. You don't hear much
about them, but on any given day there are two or three "" at
reactors across the country serious enough to report to the
government, and often serious enough to cause the reactor to
shut down.

Like humans, the older the plants get, the more things go wrong.
A steam generator replacement, like grandma's hip replacement,
only buys so much time. The reactor's steel, like human bones,
gets more brittle with age. For a price, plant owners can give
their nuclear facilities the equivalent of bone replacements,
organ transplants, face lifts and tummy tucks, but what they
will still have in the end is an old nuclear plant.

In engineering parlance, this is called the "bathtub" curve.
When new nuclear plants start out expensively fussy, their kinks
aren't worked out and they are prone to accidents. As they
mature, they tend to run with fewer problems. In middle age,
they are at the bottom of the bathtub, running relatively
inexpensively along with little input other than maintenance and
fuel. When they age, though, they begin to climb the curve of
the bathtub -- with risks and costs increasing.

When the industry and regulators refer to their safety records
for the last 25 years, they are pointing to the low water line
at the bottom of the bathtub.

We can only hope the industry is correct when it claims that it
can keep these aging plants from accidents that cause
radioactive release. And yet, as they approach the end of their
original 40-year licensed lives, nuclear power plant owners
across the nation have applied for 20-year license extensions.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved 42 extensions --
nearly half the nation's nuclear power plants.

There's health problems. There's safety problems. Then, there's
money.

Even though relatively warm, fuzzy and uncomplicated renewable
energy developers are pounding at the government's door, the
feds are so set on building new nuclear reactors that they're
simply giving away money to the industry.

Lawmakers who crafted the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct) are on
a mission to get new nukes built. They've devised a plan so the
financial risk -- and perhaps the entire cost -- of new nuclear
plants may be completely borne by taxpayers.

The incredible deal under EPAct the nuclear industry got for new
nukes includes giving the Department of Energy broad authority
to underwrite loans to build nuclear plants with no limit on the
number of projects or total principal that could be guaranteed,
according to a Congressional Budget Office. It also allows the
government to take over a loan and make payments on behalf of
borrowers prior to a default. "Such payments could result in DOE
effectively providing a direct loan with as much as a 100
percent subsidy rate -- essentially a grant -- that could be
used by the borrower to pay off its debts," according to the
budget office. DOE's money is, however, our money.

These days, most of us have a personal choice in our economic
behavior. We can spend a few more cents on recycled toilet paper
or organic food, knowing that, in the long run, we are doing
something to help prolong our environment.

When it comes to energy, few of us have any personal choice
unless we can afford to install solar power for our homes and
businesses. None of us can sort out which electrons come from
nuclear power when we plug our computers or toaster. If we want
to get rid of this dangerous technology; if we don't want to be
responsible for more deaths, not to mention the danger to life
and habitat in the event of an accident; if we don't want to
bankrupt our own pockets as well as our state's funds by
pursuing the massive expense of continuing nuclear power, then
we have to influence policymakers.

Getting rid of nuclear power cannot be accomplished on a
personal, everyday consumption level. Yet on a personal level,
we can make it clear to politicians that this is an issue that
can't be ignored. Nuclear waste remains lethal for about a
quarter of a million years. It is not going to go away for a
very, very long time. It could bankrupt us all. Policymakers
must prevent license extensions on a legal level. States must
fight to regain their rights over environmental and economic
decisions when it comes to nuclear power.

It won't be easy, but hell, it's worth your DNA, your safety,
your life. 

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.         --> 
*****************************************************************
 34 Japan Times: Halted reactor in Shizuoka yields broken turbine blades
 
Saturday, July 1, 2006

 Halted reactor in Shizuoka yields broken turbine blades 
Fifty turbine blades have been found cracked or broken in a
Chubu Electric Power Co. nuclear reactor in Shizuoka Prefecture,
the Nagoya-based company said Friday. 

The damaged blades were found in two of three low-pressure
turbines of the No. 5 reactor at the Hamaoka nuclear plant in
Omaezaki after an automatic shutdown of the 1,380-megawatt
boiling water reactor on June 15 following excessive vibration
in the turbines. 

Of 139 blades in the first turbine, excluding those that came
off, 28 were partially broken and 18 were cracked, the utility
said. 

Four blades installed in the second turbine were also found
damaged, it said. 

Company officials investigating the shutdown said the number of
blades that have broken or cracked is expected to increase as
the probe is continuing. 

A public relations officer at Hitachi Ltd., which manufactured
the turbines, said the company believes the cracks resulted from
a design problem. 

The turbine in question was developed for an improved version of
a boiling water reactor. It features a larger wing to propel a
generator. 

Hitachi has set up an in-house investigative team, the officer
said, adding it is likely to take a long time for the team to
come up with a conclusion on the cause. 

A Chubu Electric official meanwhile said the utility will try to
determine the cause of the cracks as soon as possible, adding it
will do its utmost to ensure stable power supply. 

The Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency of the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry plans to order Hokuriku Electric
Power Co. to shut down and inspect the turbine blades in a
reactor of the same type at its Shika nuclear plant in Ishikawa
Prefecture. 

The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 35 This is London: Miliband defends nuclear plant plan | 

2 July 2006 

Ruling out building a new generation of nuclear power stations in 
Britain would be "irresponsible", Environment Secretary David 
Miliband has said.

The controversial move is expected to be recommended by the 
Government's energy review which is due to be published later 
this month.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would take "a lot of 
convincing" that there was an alternative but cabinet colleague 
Peter Hain has expressed serious doubts.

Mr Miliband said: "As the Environment Secretary, and as this 
overwhelming global issue of climate change is caused by carbon 
dioxide emissions, it would be simply irresponsible to rule out 
one source of energy that is zero carbon emitting.

"What we must do is look at the genuine cost issues, the genuine 
issues about nuclear waste. We've got to look at those issues 
very seriously.

"There is no single solution to this; we are going to have to 
look at all the tools that are at our disposal.".

However, he said it was also vital to boost renewable energy use 
and energy efficiency.

"But given our over-riding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, 
we can't simply rule out the nuclear energy option because it is 
very low carbon emitting.

"The important thing I would say to people is that we have 
nuclear generation at the moment - about 20% of our electricity 
comes from nuclear sources."

Mr Hain warned last week against a "gung ho" approach to new 
nuclear, saying he believed the case for it was "still to be 
proven.
 
  &copy;2006 Associated New Media| Terms | Privacy policy   
*****************************************************************
 36 AFP: Russia plans atomic energy expansion 

 Sat Jul 1, 7:05 AM ET 		 	 

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia is planning to expand the share of atomic 
energy in its total energy consumption from the current 16 
percent to up to 24 percent in the coming decade, Minister for 
Energy and Industry Viktor Khristenko has revealed. 

 "In the next 13 years within the overall growth of energy
consumption in Russia the share of atomic energy will increase
from today's level of 16 percent to reach almost 23 or 24
percent," Khristenko said in a transcript of a television
interview released Saturday by the state-run RIA-Novosti news
agency. 

Russia will start building new atomic energy reactors next year,
with the reactors due to begin operating in 2011 or 2012,
Khristenko said, without stating the overall number of reactors
to be built. 

The head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko,
said in an interview published Saturday that the top priority
was to replace a reactor at the Leningrad power station in
northwest Russia. 

Second in line was construction of a new reactor at the
Volgodonskoi power station in southern Russia, followed by
construction of a new reactor at the Kalininskoi power station
in the western province of Tver, Kiriyenko told the Rossiyskaya
Gazeta newspaper. 

Russia is keen to expand its nuclear industry at home and abroad
and has made bringing energy to developing countries a theme of
its chairmanship of the G8 (Group of Eight) nations. 

Moscow is building Iran" /> Iran's first nuclear power station
at Bushehr, in the southwest of the country, amid international
criticism of Iran's nuclear programme. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 37 icWales: 'Nukes must earn their keep'
         
Jul 2 2006
  
Wales on Sunday    

PETER Hain has broken rank with the Cabinet to express doubts
about building new nuclear power stations. 

Tony Blair is thought to favour nuclear after he said the issue
was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". 

Mr Hain said if there had to be nuclear power it must work
without huge public subsidy, which should be spent on renewable
energy instead. 

The Welsh Secretary's remarks will be seen as an attempt to
curry favour with the Labour left - angered by Mr Blair's
apparent enthusiasm for nuclear power. 

They also are thought likely to trigger speculation about his
ambitions to be Labour's next deputy leader. 

Mr Hain said: "If there has to be nuclear to keep the lights on,
if there has to be, and this is a question the energy review
will decide, it can only stand on its own two feet, it can't
have any special support or any special privileges or subsidies."

Mr Hain went on to warn there was "too much nimbyism" about
renewable energy adding that he was an enthusiast for wind
power. 

"Not on every Welsh mountaintop, of course not, not off every
beach in Wales or Northern Ireland of course not. But there's a
massive inbuilt prejudice against anything in your own back
yard," he said.   	
      	
icWalesTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc.
*****************************************************************
 38 SNA: Bulgaria to Keep Nuke Closure Promise to EU
     
www.novinite.com</b>
Sofia News Agency Sofia Morning News

On EU Doorstep: 1 July 2006, Saturday.

Bulgaria intends to keep all its promises to the EU in regards
to the country only Nuclear Power Plant in Kozloduy, Foreign
Minister Ivaylo Kalfin said Saturday.
 
Kalfin vowed to have Units 3&4 shut down by the end of 2006 at a
work meeting with Bulgarian diplomats, international
organization heads and envoys.
 
Bulgaria's goal is to become a member of the European Union on
January 1, 2007, Kalfin underlined at the meeting, which takes
place for the first time. 

The FM said that the country will send all the papers regarding
the pending EC monitoring report on the country's readiness to
join the Union. The following six months are crucial for
Bulgaria, because the country has to finish its preparations for
entering the union, and the 25 state members have to make a
decision, Kalfin stated.
 
Finland took on the EU presidency on Saturday, and it will hold
it until the end of the year.

novinite.com    Forum   Google          Tourism         Business 

 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
*****************************************************************
 39 SF Chronicle: Stanford's 'Dr. Doom' has terrorism figured out -- on paper
 
Sunday, July 2, 2006

  [Opinion]   
  
It's been said that World War I was the chemists' war and World
War II the physicists' war, but that World War III is destined
to be the mathematicians' war. 

With the gravest threat to U.S. security now posed by rogue
terrorists who simultaneously hold a grudge and have access to
weapons of mass destruction, some of this country's prime human
calculators are on the case. 

Combatting terrorism not with mortars and missiles but with
mathematical models, they intend to prove this theorem: There
literally is safety in numbers. 

In their vanguard is an amiable Stanford University professor
who, by devoting himself to the application of math principles
to doomsday scenarios, is beginning to acquire the nickname "Dr.
Doom." The attacks of Sept. 11 inspired mathematician Lawrence
Wein to channel his expertise into some of the most compelling
questions of our time. 

He has ciphered the risks of our "woefully inadequate"
inspection of container ships, assessed the effectiveness of
border-control fingerprint checks to spot terrorists, and
performed what may well be the first math analyses of
hypothetical botulism, anthrax and smallpox contaminations. 

Recall the agitation last year over warnings that the nation's
milk supply was vulnerable, based on the calculation that one
terrorist with a few grams of botulinum could contaminate a
tanker and potentially poison 100,000 gallons of milk? That's
just one of many tidings of comfort and joy brought to you by
Wein. 

Another such upper is that just about 6 percent of containers
shipped into U.S. ports will be categorized as suspicious and
subjected to tests for a nuclear device, based on a system that
relies largely on reporting by the shipper. The rest, Wein
noted, "just waltz right into the country without an inspector
laying an eye on them." 

At Stanford's Graduate School of Business, he teaches a core
course in operations, and he says the parallels are strikingly
similar: Just as McDonald's needs a well-designed distribution
system to get its hamburgers out quickly, so the government
needs a well-designed distribution system to get vaccines and
antibiotics to citizens who might sicken or die from a bioterror
attack. In math lingo, some of these computations rest on
"queueing theory" -- the notion that a lot of needy people must
line up behind a limited number of distributors. 

And what do we do after crunching millions of numbers to arrive
at specific prescriptions? Wein has taken on the role of
necessary nag to a torpid federal bureaucracy and recalcitrant
industries. 

In fact, the feds scrambled to try to suppress publication of
his damning milk study as a threat to national security -- an
argument the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences rejected before publishing the work. 

These days, Wein regularly testifies at congressional hearings,
addresses scientific forums and pens op-ed pieces in national
newspapers about precisely what the government should be doing
-- and where it is falling short. 

"I believe my work demonstrates that numbers really matter, and
we need to pay attention to what they tell us," said Wein, a
critic of the federal government's homeland security failures in
key areas, particularly at the ports. "I really don't bring my
own personal political views into this -- I would be just as
critical of the federal bureaucracy if a Democrat were in the
White House. 

"Bureaucracy just isn't designed to respond nimbly." 

On the other hand, politicians are eager to do something,
anything, that might thwart a terror attack or save lives. But
in an information vacuum, that makes them easy prey for
entrepreneurs hawking all kinds of safety gadgets. 

So, much of Wein's math analysis goes beyond documenting threats
to assess the most effective, cost-efficient remedies. 

Take the milk scare, for example. Wein urged the government to
mandate that milk tanks and trucks be locked, that two people be
present when it is transferred along each part of the supply
chain, and that milk truck drivers use a 15 minute test to
detect any toxins. The estimated cost of all this: 2 cents per
gallon. 

Some other experts disputed Wein's assumptions, and dairy
industry groups insisted they already had taken extra steps such
as raising pasteurization temperatures to secure the milk
supply. They dismissed the scenarios Wein described as "highly
unlikely or impossible." 

To avoid being victimized by a radioactive device aboard a
tanker -- otherwise known as a "poor man's missile" -- he and
colleague Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations
advocate using techniques such as gamma-ray imaging to screen
100 percent of containers. They calculate the cost at $7 per
container. 

Some of Wein's calculations have translated into real reform. 

In 2004, he presented to the White House his findings that the
system of collecting only two fingerprints from incoming foreign
visitors ran a high risk of missing terrorists because so many
prints turned out to be of poor quality. His solution was
simple: Take prints from all 10 digits. The government adopted
it. 

His 2003 research into the most effective response to an anthrax
attack prompted pilot programs that are now testing his finding
that the best way to widely distribute antibiotics would be by
mail carriers, who already go door to door. 

Albert Einstein once observed: "As far as the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." 

And sure enough, one of the impediments to fighting terrorists
with mathematics is the paucity of hard data. 

An anthrax scenario illustrates the point. Estimates of
fatalities per kilogram of poisonous agent released vary from a
low of zero to a high of 660,000. That's because of variables:
the dose required to cause infection, the percentage of people
who survive infection, the degree of aerosol dispersion, the
density of the population, the environmental stability of the
agent and the effectiveness of a public health system response. 

As Wein acknowledges, "It's not like we can do massive clinical
trials on this." 

The trail of what-ifs is so convoluted that in 2002 the National
Academy of Sciences cited "an irreducible uncertainly of several
orders of magnitude in the number of people who will be infected
in an open-air release." 

This makes some experts suspicious of anybody's calculations,
even from a researcher with a pedigree like Wein's. 

"With so much uncertainly surrounding the outcome of a
bioweapons attack, it does not make sense to plan extensive
biodefense programs when more-certain public threats,
particularly those involving nuclear weapons, require
attention," argued Allison Macfarlane, research associate in the
Science, Technology and Global Security Working Group at MIT. 

But Wein is undeterred, and is busy on new assessments. Yet he
insists his work has not impaired his ability to sleep soundly. 

"People really are much more likely to suffer from cancer than a
terrorist attack, but that doesn't merit the same attention," he
said. "We should do what makes sense to protect ourselves from
both." 

E-mail Vicki Haddock at . 				
Page E - 1 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 

*****************************************************************
 40 Boston Globe: Radioactive parts are no longer missing - 

July 2, 2006 

The radioactive parts reported missing at Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station in May have been found.

The nine pen-sized radioactive neutron detectors that could not
be located during a routine cleanup of the plant's spent fuel
pool were, in fact, sent to a low-level radioactive waste
facility years ago, the plant reported to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission late last month. The inventory list was never updated
to reflect that the detectors were removed from the reactor.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission was reviewing how
the ``record-keeping breakdown" occurred, and would later decide
whether to take enforcement action or administer penalties.

The neutron detectors contained trace amounts of uranium-235,
and were never thought to be a public safety threat.

At nuclear power plants across the country, similar inventory
mistakes have resulted in lost radioactive material, and in
fines for the plants.

``Record keeping has made some quantum improvements since the
early days of the nuclear industry," Sheehan said. ``We asked
all plants to go back and look at their records" after some of
the initial mistakes emerged.

CAROLYN Y. JOHNSON [ /] © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper
Company. More: 

*****************************************************************
 41 [NYTr] Diabetes and Depleted Uranium: Another DU Coverup
 
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 15:19:11 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Address: 127.127.127.127
X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Don Stacey

[Once again I ask, Are our leaders insane? How can they continually Nuke our
troops as well as innocent civilians in Iraq? Now the health disaster such
insanity has created is coming closer to all of us! -Don Stacey]

San Francisco Bay View - Jun 29, 2006
http://www.sfbayview.com/062806/dd062806.shtml

Diabetes and Depleted Uranium:

Italian Embassy Refuses Visa

by Bob Nichols

(San Francisco Bay View) June 29, 2006 - "You are not being truthful about
the purpose of your visit to Italy. What is your interest in Diabetes and
Depleted Uranium?" the Italian Consul in Bombay demanded to know.

"I am just traveling to Italy to meet with Leuren Moret," the famous Indian
doctor answered.

Leuren Moret recounted the episode in an interview June 29th, 2006. She said
"The doctor had never mentioned either diabetes or depleted uranium."

The Italian government official was grilling one of the leading doctors in
India. This "interview" at the Italian Embassy took place June 27, 2006 in
Bombay, India. The doctor had traveled to Italy several times before and did
not expect such outrageous treatment. The Consul Denied the doctor
permission to travel to Italy to meet with Leuren Moret.

The doctor had said nothing about Diabetes and nothing about Depleted
Uranium. The Embassy official had just let the cat out of the bag and
confirmed the link between the global epidemic of diabetes and the use of
Depleted Uranium by the US/UK Expeditionary Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and
the former Yugoslavia.

The official could only have known about the Diabetes link to Depleted
Uranium from the American State Department and the source of it all: the
Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, "managed" for 61 years by the
University of California. The University of California Nuclear Weapons Labs
are the core of the nuclear weapons program in the US, the only remaining
Super Power.

The clumsy intervention by a Super Power in the travel plans of a private
individual to confer with a scientific colleague about global public health
concerns highlights the explosive significance that the US attaches to
uncontrolled information about the global epidemic of diabetes.

On May 29th Moret charged the University of California, the Los Alamos and
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Labs with engineering the largest global increase
of diabetes in history and trying to cover it up.

Fine uranium dust, vaporized into a poison radioactive gas by exploding
uranium bombs, missiles and bullets hitches a ride on dry desert winds to
circle the globe in days.

Dr Chris Busby, a leading British radiation expert, got data from a nuclear
weapons air monitoring facility at Aldemaston, England which identified
depleted uranium in the British atmosphere only nine days after the Shock
and Awe carpet bombing of Baghdad started in March of 2003.

[Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner. He is a correspondent for
the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various
on line publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of
nuclear war in Central Asia. Nichols is a former employee of the McAlester
Army Ammunition Plant.]
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 42 San Francisco Bay View: Diabetes and depleted uranium 

National Black Newspaper of the Year
 
6/28/06 

Italian embassy refuses visa 

by Bob Nichols 

  Tanks destroyed by depleted uranium munitions litter Iraq, but 
these children are not warned that by playing in the ruins they 
are exposing themselves to diseases that may plague them all 
their lives and deform their future children. Photo: Dahr Jamail, 
www.dahrjamailiraq.com   

June 29, 2006 - "You are not being truthful about the purpose of
your visit to Italy. What is your interest in diabetes and
depleted uranium?" the Italian consul in Bombay demanded to
know. 

"I am just traveling to Italy to meet with Leuren Moret," the
famous Indian doctor answered. 

Leuren Moret recounted the episode in an interview June 29,
2006. She said, "The doctor had never mentioned either diabetes
or depleted uranium." 

The Italian government official was grilling one of the leading
doctors in India. This "interview" at the Italian embassy took
place June 27, 2006, in Bombay, India. The doctor had traveled
to Italy several times before and did not expect such outrageous
treatment. The consul denied the doctor permission to travel to
Italy to meet with Moret. 

The doctor had said nothing about diabetes and nothing about
depleted uranium. The embassy official had just let the cat out
of the bag and confirmed the link between the global epidemic of
diabetes and the use of depleted uranium by the U.S.-U.K.
expeditionary forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former
Yugoslavia. 

The official could only have known about the diabetes link to
depleted uranium from the U.S. State Department and the source
of it all: the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, "managed"
for 61 years by the University of California. The University of
California nuclear weapons labs are the core of the nuclear
weapons program in the U.S., the only remaining superpower. 

The clumsy intervention by a superpower in the travel plans of a
private individual to confer with a scientific colleague about
global public health concerns highlights the explosive
significance that the U.S. attaches to uncontrolled information
about the global epidemic of diabetes. 

On May 29, Moret charged the University of California and the
Los Alamos and Livermore Nuclear Weapons Labs with engineering
the largest global increase of diabetes in history and trying to
cover it up. 

Fine uranium dust, vaporized into a poison radioactive gas by
exploding uranium bombs, missiles and bullets, hitches a ride on
dry desert winds to circle the globe in days. 

Dr. Chris Busby, a leading British radiation expert, got data
from a nuclear weapons air monitoring facility at Aldemaston,
England, which identified depleted uranium in the British
atmosphere only nine days after the "shock and awe" carpet
bombing of Baghdad, started in March of 2003. 

Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award winner. He is a
correspondent for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a
frequent contributor to various online publications. Nichols is
completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear war in Central
Asia. He is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant. Nichols can be reached by email, and readers are
encouraged to write to him at DUweapons@gmail.com.       

sfbayview.com

San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street 
San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 
671-0316 Email: editor@sfbayview.com

*****************************************************************
 43 London Times: Nuclear profits hit record high - 

Sunday Times - Times Online

July 02, 2006                        

Tracey Boles

THE government’s nuclear-services business, BNFL, will report 
record profits of £208m tomorrow, boosting its nuclear clean-up 
arm, British Nuclear Group (BNG), as it heads towards a £500m 
sale. 

All four divisions of BNFL are expected to report a rise in 
operating profits, with BNG posting earnings of about £72m in its 
first year as a stand-alone business unit. 

The upturn in BNFL’s fortunes, a 23% increase on the year before, 
will be attributed to chief executive Mike Parker, who has 
brought down costs and streamlined operations at BNFL’s 
headquarters. 

Group turnover will be nearly £3.5 billion. 

Earlier this year the government announced it would be putting 
BNG up for sale. Companies that have signalled an early interest 
in buying the nuclear-clean-up arm include US firms Fluor, 
Bechtel and the Washington Group. 

The sale process will pick up pace in around a month when the
tender goes out. 

It is understood British firms Serco and Amec may consider a bid
for part of BNG. 

BNG, set to reveal tomorrow that it has hit all its customer
targets, is a contender for nuclearwaste contracts worth a total
of £70 billion as Britain dismantles its nuclear facilities. The
US firms believe they have a better chance of winning the
contracts if they buy BNG, triggering a fierce round of lobbying
in the British government. 

BNFL’s other divisions include Westinghouse, the nuclear-reactor
maker whose sale to Japanese firm Toshiba will be finalised
later this year, and Nexia, the nuclear-research and consultancy
firm. 

It also owns a third of Urenco, which enriches uranium for use
in atomic-power stations. Urenco, which may be sold or floated
by the government, is expected to report profits of £71m, up
from £57m last year. Dutch and German organisations own the rest
of the enrichment firm. 

BNFL’s balance sheet will be improved by the removal of the
government’s multi-billion- pound nuclear liabilities, which
have been transferred to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA). 

The NDA is also responsible for awarding Britain’s clean-up
contracts. It will be looking for firms that can help bring down
the estimated £70 billion bill.   	 		

							   	 	
Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. 
*****************************************************************
 44 Sydney Morning Herald: 'We should not be exporting uranium because you are exporting cancer' - 

www.smh.com.au

July 2, 2006
 
Not recognised among Australia's 100 most influential people, 
anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott still stands tall on 
the world stage, Erin O'Dwyer writes. 'We've gone backwards 
decades under Bush and Howard'          

LIKE all our best intellectuals, Helen Caldicott is better known 
in the United States than at home. 

In 1982, she silenced a crowd of 1 million people who gathered in 
New York's Central Park to hear her speak on nuclear disarmament. 

But in 1998, when she addressed 1000 people in Engadine 
protesting against Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor, Caldicott was 
shouted down by hecklers. 

It was a similar story last week when The Bulletin magazine 
listed 100 of the most influential Australians. Cookery writer 
Margaret Fulton and pop star Kylie Minogue made the cut. Helen 
Caldicott, the world's leading anti-nuclear voice, did not. 

Yet she has been named as one of the 100 most influential women
of the 20th century by the Smithsonian Institution, and she was
nominated in 1985 for the Nobel peace prize. 

Perhaps it's tall poppy syndrome. Perhaps it is sexism. Or
perhaps Caldicott is unsung here simply because we have stopped
listening to her message. 

"In the '70s and '80s, Australia was very anti-nuclear," she
says. "And I used to be very well listened to in Australia in
the '70s and '80s. But we've gone backwards decades under the
Bush Administration and under the Howard administration and it's
been quite devastating." 

This month Caldicott publishes her sixth book - Nuclear Power Is
Not The Answer To Global Warming Or Anything Else (Melbourne
University Press). It comes as the nuclear energy debate heats
up amid increased awareness that Australia has about 40 per cent
of the world's recoverable uranium resources. 

Caldicott hopes the book will penetrate the political untruth
that nuclear energy is a safe, green alternative. 

"[People] think that it is the answer to global warming," she
says, "but in truth it adds to global warming. It does not fix
it." 

Caldicott's message has always been simple. Nuclear energy
leaves a toxic legacy to future generations because it produces
not only global warming gases but also massive amounts of toxic
carcinogenic radioactive waste. It is also far more expensive
than other forms of electricity generation and can trigger
proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

Even worse, radioactive elements in nuclear-powered countries
are already leaking - into the ground, into rivers and oceans,
and into the food chain. Already 40 per cent of Europe's
landmass is radioactive after Chernobyl, and increasingly so are
its food supplies. Alarmingly that includes human breast milk. 

Caldicott warns that as more people are exposed, cancers such as
leukemia will become more common. So will genetic diseases such
as cystic fibrosis. "We should not be exporting uranium because
by exporting uranium, you are exporting cancer," she says. 

A pediatrician who specialised in cystic fibrosis, Caldicott
first grabbed headlines protesting against French nuclear
testing in the 1970s. She used her profile to mobilise trade
unions and elicited an ACTU resolution to ban uranium mining. 

After migrating to the US in the late '70s with her then husband
Bill Caldicott, she became a faculty member of the Harvard
Medical School. There she mobilised doctors and established
Physicians for Social Responsibility with 23,000 influential
members. It became one of the US's most powerful anti-nuclear
lobby groups and won the Nobel peace prize in 1985. 

Caldicott had resigned from the leadership group amid political
power play and did not attend the ceremony. Yet she refused to
let that devastating experience stop her. She went on to teach
at leading universities and was honoured with countless awards
and honorary degrees. 

Three years ago, she established the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute in Washington, known for its high-powered scientific
symposiums. She has just been named as the inaugural winner of
the Australian Peace Prize. 

The journey hasn't always been easy. On the eve of her 50th
birthday, Caldicott's marriage ended. All her anti-nuclear work
was "ashes in my mouth". 

She includes the break-up when asked about her personal
milestones. She also includes the births of her six
grandchildren. This is because, as a pediatrician, Caldicott's
motivation has always been her children, her children's children
and children everywhere. "It's one of the reasons I do the work
I do," she says. "I practise global preventative medicine." 

This year Caldicott will turn 68. She is slowing down, spending
less time on the world stage and more time with family at her
Central Coast hideaway. But she refuses to go quietly, and has
mastered the art of working smarter not harder. 

Now, instead of rallying unionists and doctors, she maintains a
contact book of the world's top opinion leaders and journalists.
Three times during our interview she quotes Thomas Jefferson
about a functioning democracy requiring an informed citizenry. 

"In the old days it was grass roots and this time it's tree
tops," she says. "I'm getting older and it's more efficient to
educate the media because through them you get to millions of
people." 

Caldicott's motivation might always have been her family, but
these days she is careful to spend more time with them. 

The best example is the night Madonna called to chat about the
medical dangers of nuclear power. 

Caldicott was preparing a lamb roast for her family and said:
"Madonna, I can't take your call right now. I'll have to talk to
you later." 

"My family has never forgiven me," she says with a laugh. 

"But my children were resentful that I wasn't around much and I
do think about that. I wish I had been. 

"On the other hand, I was wanting to make sure that they had a
future. Nothing you do comes without consequences." 

See http://www.nuclearpolicy.organd
http://www.helencaldicott.com. Source: The Sun-Herald 

2006-07-02

'We should not be exporting uranium because you are exporting
cancer'Erin O'DwyerNot recognised among Australia's 100 most
influential people, anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott
still stands tall on the world stage, Erin O'Dwyer writes.
'We've gone backwards decades under Bush and Howard'National 

 Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. <img
*****************************************************************
 45 Las Vegas SUN: $494 million budgeted for Yucca

Today: July 02, 2006 at 7:41:12 PDT 

By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun

If ever there was any doubt of how Reid felt about the future of
Yucca Mountain, it was cleared up outside a Senate
Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week as the panel was
approving $494 million for the beleaguered national nuclear
repository project in fiscal 2007. 

When asked by reporters how the funding, slightly less than last
year's allocation, would impact work on the site 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, the senator paused, collected his
thoughts, and then offered his assessment. 

"I'm trying to find out a way to say how I feel about this. So I
guess I'll just make it short and to the point. Anything we
spend out there is a huge waste of money. Yucca Mountain's not
going to happen. Everybody recognizes that, except a few people
who have these lobbying jobs here in Washington. Yucca
Mountain's all over with; so whatever we spend on it is a total
waste." 

The newest opening date for the repository, announced by a
fellow senator last week, is 2018 - 20 years behind schedule.
Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 46 Independent: BNFL blocked as it tries to sell its stake in Urenco 
Row brewing with Germans and Dutch over British sale of £2bn
stake in uranium company 

By Tim Webb 

Published: 02 July 2006 

Plans by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to sell its £2bn stake in
one of the largest uranium enrichment companies in the world are
being blocked by its German and Dutch partners. 

The state-owned company can sell its 33 per cent stake in Urenco
only with the unanimous agreement of all three shareholders. It
is understood that Urenco's German and Dutch shareholders, who
are interested in buying the BNFL stake, will not allow BNFL to
offload it for its market value.
 
In response, BNFL has instructed lawyers to examine the details
of the Almelo Treaty, which the Dutch, German and British
governments signed in 1970, when Urenco was founded, to protect
the nuclear enrichment technology the company would develop.
BNFL, under chief executive Mike Parker, wants to find a
loophole to allow it to sell its stake to another company for a
market price without compromising the treaty.
 
Another option BNFL is exploring is that of floating its stake
on the stock market, with the Government retaining a special
golden share to maintain some control over future ownership.
This move could fall foul of the European Commission, although
there is a precedent for it. The Government was able to retain a
modified special share in the nuclear generator British Energy.
 
The other two-thirds of Urenco are owned by UCN, a Dutch
government-owned company, and the German energy companies RWE
and E.ON. The Dutch and German governments do not want the
company to be floated, or BNFL's stake sold to a third party.
They are concerned that national security could be compromised
by a new shareholder or a float.
 
When the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alistair Darling, was
asked whether he objected to the privatisation of Urenco, he
said: "I don't have a philosophic problem with the private
sector being involved any more than the private sector is
already involved in most of the supply of energy in this
country. What matters is that it is sufficiently regulated and
has sufficient safeguards."
 
In this year's Budget, Gordon Brown signalled his desire to sell
off most of the remaining state-owned companies. This includes
BNFL's stake in Urenco.
 
Uranium prices have soared in the past five years from $7 a
pound in 2001 to $45, boosting Urenco's value. The company,
which has a 20 per cent share of the global uranium enrichment
market, made profits of 166m (£115m) after tax last year, up a
third on the previous year.
 
A spokeswoman for the Buckinghamshire-based Urenco would not
comment on the details of the negotiations between BNFL and
other shareholders. "The decision on the future shareholding of
the company has to be a decision by all of the board, not BNFL
on its own. Shareholders of any company will always look to the
best option for the company," he said. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 47 Spectrum: Store your own nuclear waste

 St. George UT- www.thespectrum.com - 

You generate it, you dispose of it. That's how nuclear waste
should be dealt with instead of the more than 40,000 metric tons
of highly radioactive waste generated by 103 commercial nuclear
plants that are being stored in pools and dry storage at reactor
sites in 35 states.

With several nuclear power plants in the United States
approaching the end of their operational time periods allowed in
their licenses, a solution to storage and disposal of the low-
and high-level radioactive waste and thousands of tons of used
reactor fuel is paramount. Especially, since most of it is
earmarked for Yucca Mountain (located north of the Nevada Test
Site,) an underground repository which is not licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission or even expected to be ready for
use before 2018.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has proposed a temporary answer by
sponsoring a $30.7 million spending bill that says the
government would store civilian nuclear waste for up to 25 years
at federal sites across the country. How about in New Mexico?
Especially since the NRC approved a license for a European
consortium's proposal to build a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment
facility in Eunice, a town in southeastern New Mexico. The New
Mexico plant will be producing nuclear power. Naturally, it will
also be yielding waste. It should be kept there as well.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said an agreement between New
Mexico and Louisiana Energy Services - a subsidiary of Urenco, a
consortium of joint European corporation and government
ownership - will address the health, safety and environmental
issues of the enrichment facility, which is expected to run into
the hundreds of millions of dollars to handle the waste disposal
alone.

That contract better include how and where the waste is going to
be disposed of because the so-called "renaissance" for nuclear
power, Domenici labeled it, is not going to elicit the same
surge in enthusiasm about his interim storage idea he has on the
table for the central government repository in Utah's
neighboring state of Nevada, the Goshutes Reservation in
Tooele's Skull Valley, and other U.S. sites.

Domenici and his congressional colleagues cannot continually
leave the nuclear waste issue on the back burner as it currently
sits, and has done for decades. If nuclear power is integral to
dealing with the growing demand for energy, then a more straight
forward plan for satisfactory waste disposal should be as
essential.

Otherwise, the NRC licensing of a new plant is not only
irresponsible, it takes for granted that states like Utah and
Nevada are going to welcome the hazardous, nuclear waste of New
Mexico with open arms. That's just not going to happen.

Originally published July 2, 2006 

 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 48 San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate cleanup funding approved

In Brief 7-01-2006

Staff Reports  
  
  SB COUNTY 

 The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved $1 million to
help perchlorate cleanup efforts in San Bernardino County. 

The funding is part of the 2007 Interior Department
appropriations bill that must be approved by the full Senate and
reconciled with similar legislation in the House of
Representatives. It must then by signed into law by President
Bush.

 The money would be used to treat perchlorate-contaminated wells
in Rialto, Colton and Fontana, federal officials said.

 "We must take steps to protect our communities from perchlorate
contamination, so they can have access to water that is safe and
clean," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a statement.

 Perchlorate, which provides the oxygen for solid rockets, road
flares and fireworks, has contaminated dozens of water wells in
San Bernardino County.

 Perchlorate can inhibit thyroid function if ingested, and harm
the development of fetuses and children.

Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 49 The Dispatch: Olin V.P. Fields Questions (On perchlorate)

  Sunday, July 02, 2006   

The Editor 


 Friday, June 30, 2006

By Tony Burchyns

San Martin - Olin Corporation Vice President Curt Richards made
a rare visit to Thursday's Perchlorate Community Advisory Group
meeting, fielding questions from a crowd of more than 70 local
residents on the termination of the road flare manufacturer's
supply of free bottled water to some 600 households.

"There's no one in this room whose drinking water is above six
(parts per billion perchlorate)," Richards said to the largely
skeptical gathering. 

A number of residents at the meeting raised concerns over the
possibility of clerical errors being made by MACTEC, the
engineering firm hired by Olin Corp. to examine the extent of
perchlorate contamination in South County's groundwater stemming
from the operation of a now defunct road flare plant in Morgan
Hill.

MACTEC was charged with gathering data from more than 800 wells
affected by the 9.5-mile plume of perchlorate-tainted
groundwater stretching southeast through San Martin toward
Gilroy.

In a deal between Olin Corp. and state water officials, the
company agreed to supply bottled water to residents whose wells
tested over 6 parts per billion (ppb) for perchlorate until four
quarterly tests showed levels had dropped.

Gilroy resident Elaine Jelsema, who lives on Malo Court, claimed
those tests had not been administered properly on the well she
shares with four other households. 

She brought to the meeting four letters from MACTEC indicating
that tests had been performed on her well during a 23-week
period between August 2005 and January 2006, rather than on a
quarterly basis. Those tests indicated a slight rise in
perchlorate readings from 3.5 ppb to 4.1 ppb.

"This all needs to be looked into," Jelsema said afterward. "But
they're only giving us one week's notice that our bottled water
is being canceled."

Others at the meeting shared similar concerns, suggesting that
the test results on their wells had not been mailed out in an
orderly fashion.

Richards, who works in Tennessee, defended himself by saying
"one of the issues Olin has is the massive amounts of data" that
must be processed in its mitigation of the South County water
hazard.

"We are checking our database," he ensured the crowd. "We want
to make sure that no one falls through the cracks. But there is
possibility for some errors."

That "possibility" didn't sit well with one irate resident, who
accused Richards of hiding behind "a gold wall" of money, doing
the least possible to mitigate the local environmental hazard.

Richards said "safe" levels of perchlorate in drinking water
have never been pinned down definitively. Recent national
studies, he said, suggest 24 ppb is acceptable. Until the 1990s,
he later claimed, 400 ppb was an accepted national standard. But
as a measure of good faith, Richards insisted, Olin decided to
stick to California's suggested health standard of 6 ppb.

Olin Corp. has spent more than $20 million in its investigation
of the plume of perchlorate discovered in 2003 in the South
County water table. More that $2 million has been spent on a
program for free bottle water that is now being largely
discontinued.

Andria Ventura, an environmental organizer with statewide
non-profit Clean Water Action, said she thinks Olin Corp. has
the resources to be doing more. She suggested to Richards the
company include the dates and results of tests on wells in
letters to residents whose bottled water is being canceled.

"That way people can feel comfortable with how the decision was
made," she said.

Richards said he would take that into consideration.

Sylvia Hamilton, chairwoman of the Perchlorate Community
Advisory Group, a committee of water experts, real estate
agents, farmers and residents that hosted Thursday's meeting,
asked the crowd to fill out comment cards specifying their well
numbers and any concerns they had. 

"We'll begin addressing those tonight," she announced.

Other talking points at the meeting included a MACTEC report
released in March stating that the level of harmful perchlorate
Olin unleashed on the South County water table is dissipating.

MACTEC representative Mike Taraszki said pumping "imported"
water into groundwater supply has helped.

*****************************************************************
 50 Telegraph: BNFL generates £200m profit
 
Monday 3 July 2006 

[telegraph.co.uk]       

By Sylvia Pfeifer and Martin Baker (Filed: 02/07/2006)
   
British Nuclear Fuels, which runs the Sellafield site, will
tomorrow announce that it has returned to the black after
racking up a loss of £144m last year. 

The company, which is part-way through a restructuring that will
-transfer all its historic liabilities to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA), is expected to announce pre-tax
profits of around £200m. 

Westinghouse, the US-based subsidiary that develops nuclear
reactor tech-nology and which was sold to Japan's Toshiba
earlier this year, and Urenco, the uranium-enrichment business
that could be listed on the stock market, are expected to have
made substantial contributions towards the improved performance.

British Nuclear Group, whose sale is being handled by NM
Rothschild, is believed to have contributed about £75m towards
the figures. 

The strong performance could be marred by the fall-out from a
leak at Sellafield, which may result in court cases and fines
running to "low tens of millions" of pounds, according to
industry analysts. 

The strong profits from BNG are expected to boost its eventual
price tag. Rothschild is expected to finalise the disposal next
year. Among the potential bidders are several American groups,
including Bechtel, Fluor and the Washington Group, although some
UK-based support services companies may also join bidding
consortia. 

In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph this
weekend, CEO Mike Parker said: "We're going to show some results
that are very good, ahead of plan, and we'll all feel very good
about them." 

" Amec, the support services group which is considering
splitting itself in two has hired headhunters Russell -Reynolds
Associates to find a successor to Sir Peter Mason, the chief
executive, who is due to retire later this year.   


 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 51 Telegraph: Business profile: Sellafield man

  [telegraph.co.uk]

(Filed: 02/07/2006)

The Scouser at the helm of British Nuclear Fuels, Mike Parker,
is working himself out of a job as he sells off the company's
assets one by one, racking up the profit in the process. But
Martin Baker finds Sellafield remains a thorn in his side
And for his next trick, Mike Parker will disappear. A very
impressive feat it is too - all done with smoke, but not
mirrors. Parker, as the chief executive of British Nuclear
Fuels, uses nuclear reactors instead. 

Tomorrow, Parker will present BNFL's results to one of the most 
beady-eyed audiences in world industry. Having racked up a loss 
of £144m last year, BNFL is expected to announce a substantial 
profit. "We're going to show some results that are very good, 
ahead of plan, and we'll all feel very good about them," says 
Parker, a Scouser whose 34 years in the United States with 
chemicals giant Dow have merely produced a light gentrification 
of his accent. 
  
[Mike Parker] 
  
 Mike Parker felt that the nuclear industry would be a big issue 
again and would have to be seriously considered
  
You have to take the expected "profits" with a pinch of salt,
or, this being the nuclear industry, Technetium 99. The
Government is the sole shareholder of BNFL, so the figures are
produced with smoke and calculators. The announcement is all
part of the process that sees BNFL (which runs Sellafield,
described by critics as the "nuclear dustbin" of Europe) selling
off its prime assets. In February, Parker signed a $5.4bn (£3bn)
sales agreement for Westinghouse, a US-based division selling
fuel and reactor services and developing nuclear reactor
technology to commercial concerns around the world. 

"We saw this as a terrific opportunity to realise value for the
taxpayer and to find an owner that would want to grow it. It's
an excellent fuel and reactor services business," he says. "But
the real opportunity going forward that's just started to happen
very visibly in the last 18 months is the tide for nuclear
around the world, pro-commercial nuclear power. First in China
and to some extent in India, now -heavily in North America.

There's a lot of opportunity out there. With opportunity goes
risk, and that risk needs to be managed. 

"Ultimately, I want to do everything professionally, and then
switch out the lights at BNFL," he adds. Aided by the
Government's pet investment bank, NM Rothschild, Parker's hand
will be guided towards the switch with the sale of the biggest
remaining part of BNFL's business, British Nuclear Group, next
year. The sale process is expected to begin in April and be
finished by the end of 2007. The BNG price tag will be in part a
function of the contribution it makes to BNFL's expected
profits, with some estimates suggesting that a figure of £75m
will be recorded. Possible bidders for the specialist nuclear
clean-up business, when Roths-child puts BNG under the hammer,
are said to include Fluor, Bechtel, and Areva, the French
company: though some speculate that UK services specialists such
as Serco might also be interested. 

The one black spot in the figures is expected to be the fallout
from a leak at Sellafield, which may result in court cases and
fines running to "low tens of millions" of pounds, according to
industry observers. 

When you reflect on Parker's job, it is more than a little
unusual - a form of extreme chambermaiding in the commercial
world. This fellow and his company do not just exist to tidy
things up; they exist to tidy everything, including themselves,
into oblivion. 

There is a minor exception to this. Nexia, BNFL's nuclear
research and development arm, will continue to exist as a
repository of know-how after BNFL and Parker have disappeared,
provided that the Government accepts Parker's recommendations. 
The recommendations are the key to what drives Parker forward at
BNFL. Although it is easy enough to portray him as some sort of
industrial lemming, cheerfully hurling himself and his
colleagues at BNFL off the professional cliff tops, Parker is a
forward-thinking chap with some forthright views on energy
policy. 

"Energy is so important and it influences the policy of
governments," he says at our appointment in Rolls-Royce's
Buckingham Gate offices (a choice of venue to delight conspiracy
theorists). "I'd formed the view that the US and the UK were
very important countries that for a variety of reasons didn't
have fully defined energy policies. 

"I felt that nuclear was a very difficult subject, especially in
the US and UK, because the origins of the industry there were
weaponry. Eventually, both embraced commercial nuclear power. I
felt it would be a big issue again, something that would have to
be -seriously considered." 

There is a sense of renewal about Parker. He has come back to
the UK after a marathon stint in the US, where he made it to the
top of Dow, which he joined in 1968 when his fellow students at
the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
were busy protesting about anything and anyone that did not have
long hair. After three-and-a-bit decades, Parker ran a company
with 42,000 employees in 175 countries and a -market
capitalisation of some $46bn. 

So policy and public-sector process present a new challenge for
an experienced private--sector operator who turns 60 today. "Dow
was a very big private global enterprise, very successful, very
powerful. I'd never dealt with government. I thought that would
be interesting." 

And, in fairness, he had a bit of time on his hands. Parker was
voted in to the top job at Dow in February 2000. He had the task
of overseeing the $3.9bn acquisition of Union Carbide, a job
that saw him having to deal with people protesting about the
aftermath of the Bhopal disaster holding a candlelit vigil
outside his Michigan family home. 

He managed that challenge by going out and talking to them. But
there were other forces that were more difficult to resist: "The
chemicals industry went into the worst trough it has been in 30
years. The results became -difficult and, basically, I got shot
at the end of 2002, and my predecessor [the chairman and former
chief executive] came back." Parker is still plainly shocked and
angered by it: "It was a crossroads. It was a big surprise. It
was a big surprise in the industry& I made it very clear to them
they were going to fire me. I wasn't resigning. The industry
press were also shocked as to what had occurred." 

But the headhunters beat a path to his door round about the time
when it seemed that the war in Iraq was going to be easily won
(the beginning of the markets' "Baghdad bounce" in early 2003).
However, Parker was still feeling pretty raw and took some
persuading. "There were some feelings that was it really even a
good idea to work again, given what had happened. I decided I
would be open to working again. I was a capable person, but not
looking. I was still adjusting to what had happened." 

Former colleagues reckon Parker is made of pretty durable
material: "It's not just -getting to the top at a big American
corporate Dow, which is an achievement he shares with very few
Brits - Alex Trotman at Ford, and Tony O'Reilly at Heinz, if you
count the dual nationality, are two of a very small handful,"
says one. "He's a natural competitor, and he can't sit still for
long." 

Parker, an outstanding sportsman who captained Merseyside
Grammar Schools at cricket and British Universities at tennis,
also had a Liverpudlian upbringing to teach him what resolve in
the face of hardship and conflict really was all about. He is
old enough to remember the bad old days of sectarianism in the
Liverpool of his childhood. Parker's mother ("a lioness with her
children - she gave us confidence, no matter how difficult the
circumstances we faced") was one of 13 children, and was
excluded from the Catholic Church for marrying a Protestant and
not bringing the children up as Catholics. And Parker's father,
an artillery captain under Montgomery in the Second World War
desert campaign, came back from the war badly shell-shocked: "He
would sleepwalk, counting corpses for years," recalls Parker. 
Although he is working himself out of a job, Parker will take on
others. He has just accepted a non-executive directorship at
Invensys, and a "serial" non-executive role may be his in the
future. "I have a lot of experience and energy to offer," he
says, no pun intended. 


 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 52 Cañon City Daily Record: Stand Down at Cotter
 
  Publish Date: 7/1/2006 			 

Two monitoring wells sit in a clearing southeast of the Cotter
Corp. uranium milling facility located south of Cañon City. The
wells recently were installed by Cotter with the recommendations
of the state to determine if the impoundment ponds are leaking.
 Tamara McCumber/ Daily Record
   
Blakely Thomas-Aguilar The Daily Record                                                                               

Cotter Corp. finalized its annual report Friday as mill manager 
John Hamrick coordinates efforts on the site to prepare for a 
stand down operation. 

The officials at the uranium milling site located just south of
Cañon City hit the deadline on the nose Friday as they sent bulk
copies of their annual report to the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, as well as their own and outside
agencies like the Royal Gorge Museum and History Center. 

The annual report, which summarizes all incidents and activities
at the site over the past year, comes at a time where the
controversial radioactive yellow cake-producing site is
battening down the hatches for an unknown period of time. 

“The goal is to get the facilities into low hazardous status for
an undefined period of time,” mill manager John Hamrick said
Friday during a tour of the facilities. 

Currently, Hamrick said there are three full-time employees
preparing a formal hazard analysis. The items listed from
facilities all over the approximately 600-acre site include
small hazards like protruding pipes to the larger scale hazards
of radioactive liquids. 

The hazard analysis is due July 31 and will be followed by a
mitigation and reduction phase. The efforts are both part of the
stand down phase and CDPHE’s desire to plan for future
decommissioning of the site. 

“Our goal is to be able to work like this that allows the
regulators trust that we’re trying to protect ourselves, the
regulators and the community,” Hamrick said. 

While there is a immense pile of nearly 15,000 tons of low-grade
radioactive ore sitting on the site that mill superintendent
Philip Krauth said could yield 75,000 pounds of yellowcake, the
bottom line is coming into play for Cotter as it tries to
evaluate the financial cost of updating its technologically
outdated equipment. 

The same is potentially true for the vanadium side of the
process, which is no longer running after Cotter relinquished
its license following a CDPHE Air Quality Notice of Violation
for violating opacity limits in its emissions stacks. Hamrick
said Cotter officials are evaluating the financial feasibility
of updating this process, as well. 

As for the continued pressure from local citizen activist groups
regarding the workings at the mill, Hamrick said it is important
they realize the goal for everyone is the well-being of the
community. 

New monitor wells have been installed throughout the facility in
cooperation with CDPHE recommendations to test the concern that
the liners from the tailings, or waste, impoundments are
leaking. Krauth said early data reported completely normal
chemical results in the groundwater tested at 10 new wells
across the property. 

Hamrick and Krauth agreed Friday that the community’s interest
is one of the utmost priorities for the mill, despite the
financial and material constraints that have resulted in a large
reduction in its workforce. 

As he drove through the facility, past the many new metal posts
marking the new wells Friday, Hamrick remembered a citizen who
in a January meeting compared Cotter to an addict performing
their own drug test to please the government. 

“Cotter doing its own environmental program is like pumping your
own gas. If you cheat, it’s pretty obvious to everyone what’s
going on,” Hamrick said. “And that is definitely not what we’re
doing here.” 				   

News and Information from Cañon City and the Greater Royal Gorge
Region
   
  
All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 PEACOCK REPORT (TPR): DoE Researches Multi-Ton Nuclear Waste
Transfer Systems for Yucca Mountain Project

DIG. DISCOVER. DISCLOSE. Investigative reporting and occasional
satire by writer Steve Peacock 
	 			 				 					 						 							 
June 30, 2006
 			
[Portal_of_yucca_mountain]  The Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste
repository project yesterday continued its brief spurt in
contracting activity, as the Dept. of Energy (DoE) and its
project prime-contractor, Bechtel SAIC Co., alerted industry to
their anticipated need for a massive waste-transfer system. DoE
and Bechtel SAIC issued a request for information (RFI) via the
federal government's main contracting database, where it spelled
out their preliminary plans for nuclear cannister-grappling
equipment capable of lifting multi-ton storage units and
containment lids. A more detailed RFI that the company issued
separately specifies that the equipment must be capable of
moving cylindrical steel cannisters ranging in weight from
two-and-a-half tons to 54 tons. 

The release of the RFI and the federal "presolicitation notice,"
dated June 29, comes one day after soliciting industry
assistance in gaining formal approval to build the Yucca
Mountain Depository -- paving the way to potentially open the
site to interstate shipments of nuclear waste. DoE and Bechtel
SAIC cannot move forward with the Bush Administration's plans to
construct and operate the facility, which at the earliest -- if
at all -- would begin 2010.
                
June 30, 2006         
*****************************************************************
 54 This is London: Hiroshima mayor in UK weapons demo | 

2 July 2006 

The mayor of Hiroshima is to join a protest at a UK weapons 
establishment to back a campaign calling for the abolition of 
nuclear weapons.

Tadatoshi Akiba will be leading an international delegation of 
Mayors for Peace as they visit the UK outside the Aldermaston 
site in Berkshire.
 
Dr Akiba will demand urgent steps to abolish nuclear weapons in
Britain and across the world.
 

The international group will be joined by other peace activists
at the rally.
 

CND said that as the mayor of the first city to ever suffer an
atomic bomb attack, Dr Akiba provided a perspective on nuclear
weapons not often heard in the West.
 

The group said the campaign had taken on added urgency because
of Chancellor Gordon Brown's recent backing for the replacement
of Britain's Trident submarine.
 

CND pointed out that each of Britain's existing Trident-armed
submarines had up to 48 nuclear warheads, each of which had
eight times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
 

In a recent report, MPs on the Commons defence committee said
Britain could consider scaling back its strategic nuclear
deterrent in the light of the reduced threat of a nuclear
attack.
 

The MPs called for a "genuine and meaningful" public debate,
saying the Ministry of Defence needs to spell out the rationale
for retaining a nuclear deterrent in the current strategic
environment.
 

Downing Street has promised a White Paper on the issue but
refused to commit to holding a Commons vote.
 
*****************************************************************
 55 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL 'Real Story’ blog goes offline      

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican             

July 1, 2006                                            

Lab workers no longer able to blow off steam on Web 

He struck fear in the hearts of public-relations officials from
Washington to Los Alamos. 

Doug Roberts started a Web log Dec. 28, 2004, and gave the Los
Alamos National Laboratory community a place to blow off steam. 

There was a lot of it. 

I think for a long time, the bulk of the scientists who worked
up there were satisfied with their job, Roberts said Friday. It
was only in recent years when significant problems began to
develop. 

Roberts, a retired scientist, shut down new postings to LANL 
The Real Story on Friday. 

For about 18 months, lab workers, critics and boosters had
shared information and argued about it. Much of the discussion
focused on the labs management, or a perceived lack of it. 

Roberts said he started the blog in a moment of blind fury when
he and other lab scientists discovered their letters critical of
lab management were not published in the internal newsletter.
There was this regime of silence and cover-up going on at the
lab, he said. 

Former Director Pete Nanos, who enforced strict safety and 
security rules, was at the center of the storm. His decision to 
shut down the lab over safety and security issues for roughly six 
months from July 2004 to January 2005 proved unpopular with many 
employees. Many blog discussions focused on whether the shutdown 
was warranted. 

Then the government put the labs management contract up for bid,
causing months of speculation, debate and news leaks. A new
private company took over management of the lab June 1. 

People could send anonymous postings to the blog that told of
safety accidents that werent immediately reported by the lab to
the press or public. 

The discussion occurred in a unique environment. 

Many scientists who worked there clearly enjoyed a vigorous
debate via Roberts blog. 

But much of the work at Los Alamos, which helps certify the
countrys nuclear-weapons stockpile without nuclear testing, is
classified for nationalsecurity reasons. 

The definition of what is classified is very clear, Roberts
said. And that is distinguished from management ineffectiveness
and discussion of management ineffectiveness that needs to occur
openly. 

Roberts said he never expected the reaction his blog got. 

A total of 869,000 unique visitors have gone to the Web site
since he began it; they have looked at 3.3 million pages of
material. 

As I indicated, it was pretty much a personal safety valve,
giving me a way to vent, Roberts said. I was surprised the hit
rate took right off. 
Roberts lives in Nambé but grew up in Los Alamos. His father
went to work there in 1949. Then Roberts worked there as a
student in 1970 and full time starting in 1984. 

He stepped into a consulting job, working on high-performance
computing, when he retired last year. But since then, the
company he worked for  located in North Carolina  has decided to
hire him full time. Simulations of how an avian-flu pandemic
might spread across the country is one area hes working on. 

Roberts put out a call for others to take over the blog but
didnt get any serious offers. 

The director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Jay Coghlan, said the
blog will be sorely missed. Its definitely offered very valuable
insights into the laboratory, he said. 

Visitors will still be able to access archives at
www.lanl-thereal-story.blogspot.com. 

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican. 
com.		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 56 reviewjournal.com ATLAS PULSED POWER MACHINE: New life for test site?
 
  Jul. 01, 2006

High-energy generator restart in $30 billion spending bill       

By STEVE TETREAULT and KEITH ROGERS <br/>REVIEW-JOURNAL
	
The Atlas pulsed power machine, 80 feet in diameter, was 
relocated to the Nevada Test Site in 2004 from New Mexico for $20 
million. Photo by Gary Thompson.

WASHINGTON -- A 650-ton high-energy generator used in weapons 
research at the Nevada Test Site has been shut down but would 
begin humming again under a bill approved by a Senate panel this 
week. 

The 80-foot-diameter Atlas pulsed power machine was allocated 
$14.5 million to operate in a 2007 Energy Department spending 
bill. 

It is one of the most advanced machines of its type in the world
and cost the government more than $20 million to relocate to the
test site from the Los Alamos, N.M., national laboratory. 

When officials held a ribbon cutting for Atlas two years ago at
the test site, it was touted as an important physics tool that
would help weapons scientists understand how plutonium and other
components of nuclear bombs fare as they age in the stockpile. 

The experiments that were conducted used non-nuclear materials
such as aluminum to simulate what happens to bomb materials when
they are crushed by a powerful magnetic field. 

The machine also has applications for research by university
scientists into fusion, the process of using magnetic fields to
confine the energy released from the joining or fusing of atoms. 

The funding would reverse a DOE shutdown if Congress finalizes
the amount later this year, said a spokeswoman for Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev. 

Reid does not believe it makes sense to spend $20 million to
move the Atlas machinery to Nevada and then shut it down,
spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. 

"Senator Reid thinks it is a very valuable program," Stein said.
"A lot of scientists for UNLV and UNR are pleased with it." 

The Energy Department recently put the facility in "warm
standby," keeping it maintained in operating condition but not
available for use, said Kevin Rohrer, a test site spokesman. 

The less than two dozen technicians, diagnostics personnel,
support personnel and program managers associated with the Atlas
program were reassigned at the test site, Rohrer said. 

The Atlas machine works as a giant power amplifier, creating
huge currents that produce intense magnetic fields. 

Experiments conducted with the generator yield data that help
measure the performance of nuclear weapons in the U.S.
stockpile. 

The government in 1992 stopped testing the weapons through
underground explosions and has since relied on a science-based
stewardship program to check the safety and reliability of the
stockpile. 

The Atlas machine was relocated to Nevada from the Los Alamos
lab over two years, with the move completed in 2004 at a cost of
more than $20 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks
explained why his agency decided to mothball Atlas when he
visited the NNSA's Nevada Site Office on March 21. 

"That's a decision that we made because we believe that it is
more important to fund other activities that gain us data,"
Brooks said, referring to JASPER and another experiment facility
targeted for assembly at the test site, 65 miles northwest of
Las Vegas. 

The JASPER is a two-stage gas gun that hurls high-velocity
projectiles at metal targets containing radioactive materials.
The collision creates conditions that simulate a nuclear
detonation. 

Rohrer said the ability of JASPER (Joint Actinide Shock Physics
Experimental Research) to utilize nuclear materials in its
experiments makes it popular. 

He said JASPER has been involved in more than 50 projects over
two years, while Atlas has been used for only 10 experiments
since it was relocated to Nevada. 

In the Atlas machine's debut at the test site in July 2005,
scientists said they generated a current roughly equal to four
times all the electrical power on earth. The pulse that lasted a
few millionths of a second crushed a cylinder the size of a tuna
can. 

During his March visit to Nevada, Brooks said he felt "sorry"
that Atlas was relocated. 

"I wish I was smart enough to know this was coming before we
spent the time and energy to move it," he said. "But we made
that decision five years ago." 

Brooks acknowledged that the National Nuclear Security
Administration, a semiautonomous agency in the Energy
Department, spent "an awful lot of money" on the move. 

"We don't spend infinite money, and we have an obligation to
stay within some reasonable planning basis. ... We just
concluded that the data from Atlas, it's not that it's not
useful, but that it wasn't as important as the data we'd get
from other sources." 

Brooks defended the agency's decision, saying it was a matter of
making choices in the process of running a big government
program. 

"There are a very large number of things that you could do ...
and you don't have enough money to do all those things, so you
have to decide which have the most benefit for the country,"
Brooks said. 

The 2007 Atlas funding was part of a $30 billion spending bill
for the Energy Department and a handful of smaller agencies that
was passed Thursday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Final action on the bill is expected later this year. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 57 NMBW: Energy and water appropriations bills has millions for New Mexico - 

New Mexico Business Weekly: 

A Senate subcommittee has approved a $30.7 billion appropriations 
bill for the U.S. Department of Energy that includes funding for 
and a number of federal water management projects in Albuquerque. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY2007 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Bill that funds the 
Department of Energy, , Bureau of Reclamation and independent 
agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to 
a release from U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. As chairman of the 
Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, he helped 
craft this funding bill. 

The bill provides $20 million for the operation of the , a joint
Sandia and facility at . 

It also provides $10 million in DOE nonproliferation funding for
research and development at Sandia and LANL, $14 million for the
MPONDs cargo container scanning project and $5 million for
security research and development at Sandia. Another $3.5
million is included to support high-tech spin-offs from the labs
through the in Albuquerque. 

There is another $18 million in DOE energy and conservation
funding to support a solar hydrogen demonstration pilot plant at
Sandia. And there is $232.27 million for the DOE's Carlsbad area
office and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

© 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 58 KnoxNews: Driven by energy

Lab's scientists, execs give plenty of thought to their vehicles' 
fuel efficiency

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 
                                
July 2, 2006                                                            

OAK RIDGE - A few years ago, while in New Jersey visiting her 
parents, Marilyn Brown drove to a local dealership to get a 
first-hand look at the Toyota Prius - the first mass-produced 
hybrid vehicle and an icon of energy efficiency in the 21st 
century. 

She was frustrated that she couldn't find one in Tennessee. 

Brown liked the hybrid, powered by a combination of electric 
motors and an internal combustion engine, and she purchased one 
via the Internet, waiting patiently for nearly six months for it 
to arrive. She now owns the next generation of Prius, a 2006 
model that's ultra-low on emissions and high on miles per gallon 
(55). She also has another hybrid vehicle, a 2007 Ford Escape 
SUV, that gets 36 mpg. 

Energy conservation is a big deal to Brown. It's also her job.
She works at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the U.S.
Department of Energy's largest research labs. Hundreds of
millions of dollars are spent here annually to help solve the
nation's and the world's energy problems. 

For five years, Brown was director of the energy efficiency
research program. She's now interim director of the Engineering
Science and Technology Division. 

"I try to live my life always conscious of the energy
implications," she said. 

Not everyone at the Oak Ridge lab is so dedicated. 

Frank Akers, a highly decorated Army general who served the
nation from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf and now heads ORNL's
national security directorate, drives what amounts to a domestic
tank. 

His 2005 Yukon XLT is one of the bigger sport utility vehicles
on the market and gets 14 miles per gallon - a low mark on any
scale of fuel efficiency. 

Indeed, many of the same big trucks, SUVs and overgrown sedans
that cram the roads in East Tennessee can be found on a tour of
the lab's parking lots. But they are clearly in the minority at
ORNL, where you're more likely to find a hybrid than a Hummer or
some of the other fuel hogs. 

Practice what you preach Most lab researchers and administrators
interviewed are sensitive to the image they project, even if
they're not a shining example of energy savings and
environmental protection. 

Perhaps embarrassed by his Yukon's energy profile, Akers noted
that he was buying his son a hybrid vehicle as a graduation
present. 

Michelle Buchanan, the associate lab director for physical
sciences, also drives a sport utility vehicle - a BMW X5 that
gets 23 mpg. After moving to a hilltop home in Solway a few
years back, a switch in vehicles became necessary, she said. "In
the wintertime, you've got to have a four-wheeler." 

Buchanan added, "When I first came to the lab in the late '70s,
early '80s, everybody had little-bitty cars. I had a tiny Honda
back then." 

Times have changed and so have the cars, but Tom Boden said,
"You have to practice what you preach." 

Boden is director of ORNL's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis
Center, which maintains the world's leading database on carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases associated with climate
change. 

He uses mass transit instead of renting a car when he travels to
places like Washington, D.C., but he feels guilty that he
doesn't carpool to work at ORNL. 

Boden drives a 1989 Toyota Camry with a fading paint job and
more than 218,000 miles on the odometer. "I still get 30 miles
to the gallon, believe it or not," he said. 

One of his strongest memories from graduate school is a lesson
he learned outside the classroom. 

"This ecologist who was teaching conservation - and advocating
simple things like turn off the light when you leave the room
and turn the thermostat down - was driving a gas-guzzling
Porsche," Boden said. "I didn't find that out until later, but
it just struck me wrong." 

Luxury can be a lure, especially at a lab where good salaries
make high-end vehicles an option. 

Alex Fischer, technology transfer chief in Oak Ridge, rides to
work in a 2006 Infiniti M35, which by his estimate gets 20 miles
to the gallon. Fischer said he sometimes drives a 2006 Toyota
Highlander, a hybrid SUV that gets 38 miles to the gallon. But
he admitted that the Highlander belongs to his wife, "the
environmentalist" in the family. 

ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth drives a BMW 740 IL or "the big,
long one," as he described it. The car's gas mileage, he said,
is somewhere in the mid-20s. 

"At some level, I think people are becoming more aware of the
fact that large SUVs and big cars consume more gas than smaller
ones," he said. 

Wadsworth said he didn't worry about what the 4,000 or so
employees at ORNL drive to work, calling that a "small piece" of
the energy equation. Even with his own car, Wadsworth admitted
spending more time fretting about the CD player, which somehow
malfunctioned because of the navigational system, than his fuel
mileage. 

"I think the price at the pump is an interesting metric," he
said. "The last energy secretary said the department got more
calls on the price of gas than anything else. What worries me is
if gasoline dips, goes down, are people less concerned about
overall energy policy?" 

Kelly Beierschmitt rides his Harley-Davidson motorcycle to work,
and he gets the feel of the road as well as 52 miles to the
gallon of gasoline. 

"I live very close to the lab. It's about 15 minutes. It's just
perfect," he said. 

Beierschmitt, who once managed the assembly of nuclear warheads
at Pantex Plant in Texas, was part of the UT-Battelle contractor
team that took over operation of ORNL in April 2000. He
initially was in charge of environment, safety and health, and
directs the lab's nuclear operations. 

When rain or cold make his Harley-Davidson 1200 Sportster
Roadster an unattractive option, Beierschmitt falls back on "Old
Red" - a 1992 half-ton Chevy pickup truck - that gets about 18
miles per gallon. 

Ray Brittain, an engineer who works on nuclear nonproliferation
projects, also drives a truck, a 1998 Ford F150 that gets about
16 mpg, but he's among about 20 or more lab employees who
sometimes ride their bicycles to work - the ultimate
energy-saver. 

Brittain said he probably rides his bike 30 days a year, and
he's trying to build that number. It's about a 15-mile ride from
his home in East Oak Ridge, which takes about an hour. He
sometimes rides from Jefferson Middle School after dropping off
his kids in the morning. 

A "cycling advisory group" was started about a year ago at ORNL
to provide support for those who ride to work or bring their
bikes and ride them during lunch. 

Stan Milora aims to be king of the road. The lab's fusion energy
director drives a Honda S2000 roadster, a two-seater with 240
horses that, according to Milora, goes from 0 to 60 in 5.2
seconds with an "advertised" top speed of 147 mph. 

But Milora insists his high-performance car is fuel efficient,
getting 30 miles to the gallon (premium). He also boasts that it
would kick the behind of colleague Lee Riedinger's Saab 93
convertible on speed and fuel mileage. Both of their cars, by
the way, are red. 

Doing homework Scientists are an innovative lot by nature, and
that shows up in their vehicles. 

Mark Downing, who does research on alternative fuel sources and
related technologies, converted his personal vehicle to
biodiesel. 

His "ancient" Volvo station wagon, a 1984 original stock with
230,000 miles on it, became the experiment. "About three years
ago, I put some biodiesel (fuel) in it and decided I had
absolutely nothing to lose. It was a junkyard car," he said. 

Conventional wisdom was that small amounts of biodiesel fuel,
maybe 5 percent, wouldn't be a problem for cars with diesel
engines. But Downing soon exceeded that, went up to 20 percent
and eventually all the way to 100 percent biodiesel -
manufactured from soy oil and other non-petroleum products. 

"Everybody thinks you've got to have a conversion kit. You
don't. The hardest thing was to open up the gas cap and pour it
in," he said. 

Downing reportedly has the longest-running biodiesel vehicle in
the state. 

The fuel filter clogs occasionally because biodiesel acts as a
solvent and uncakes all sorts of residue, but otherwise the
results are all positive, he reports. 

Emissions are way down, the trail of black smoke disappeared,
and his fuel mileage is up - from about 21 to 30 mpg - in a
vehicle that dates back to Ronald Reagan's presidency. "I'm
really pleased. I gave it a paint job a couple of weeks ago for
the heck of it," Downing said. 

T.J. Blasing, an environmental scientist who studies climate
change and other planet-threatening issues, drove a 1987 Toyota
Corolla for many years, eventually reaching 266,000 miles. He
got 34 miles to the gallon. 

Now Blasing has a 2006 model - yes, still a Corolla - that
initially got 32 mph, and that's going up with usage. He saves
additional energy by rolling up his windows with old-fashioned
cranks. 

Brown, the Prius owner, is bothered by the fact that she often
has to go outside the region to find appliances and commercial
products that support sustainable living or ask local businesses
to order them for her. She said she could find a better
selection of fuel-efficient cars on a California rental lot than
she can at local dealerships. 

"The Southeast is so far behind the rest of the nation," she
said. 

'Like everybody else' The Oak Ridge lab, however, does "walk the
talk" when it comes to investing in energy-saving technologies
for new facilities, Brown said, recounting some of the recent
awards. New buildings have, in some cases, replaced World War
II-era office structures that were ugly and inefficient,
including one dorm-like facility that had dozens of window-unit
air-conditioners dotting the walls. 

The laboratory also manages a fleet of ethanol-fuel vehicles and
had the first LED (light-emitting diode) traffic lights in the
state. 

David Greene, a leading fuel economist who applies research
results to energy and transportation policy, said higher gas
prices seem to have made a difference in U.S. consumer habits
over the past six months or so. That's reflected in the types of
vehicles being purchased and other markers, and Americans may be
reacting to a belief that elevated gas prices are here to stay,
he said. 

Greene drives a 2000 Mazda Miata, which gets 28 mpg and which he
almost always drives with the top down - even in near-freezing
weather. 

He doesn't necessarily think energy lab employees should act as
role models. 

"No more than anybody else," Greene said. "We all have decisions
to make. But I do think these kinds of problems - dealing with
oil security, dealing with global warming - these are problems
we expect the government to work on and to solve. We don't
expect in our private choices we should have to solve those
problems. I think national lab people are similar to that.
You'll find a few, like Marilyn Brown, who set an example and
buy a Prius, but I think most of us are like everybody else." 

Senior writer Frank Munger, who drives a 2000 Mazda 626 and has
no idea of his gas mileage, 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> 
    
*****************************************************************