*****************************************************************
07/06/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.159
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Negotiator: Serious About Talks
2 IRNA: Deputy FM: Nuclear energy, Iran's absolute right 
3 Guardian Unlimited: No Formal Iran-EU Talks 'Til Tuesday
4 Guardian Unlimited: Putin urges speed in Iran nuclear talks
5 IRNA: Iran's nuclear program no threat against global society -
6 BBC: World 'losing patience' with Iran
7 AFP: EU to sound out Iranian envoy on response to nuclear package -
8 AFP: Iran 'won't give response' to nuclear offer in Brussels - offic
9 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog chief warns Iran West's patience running ou
10 AFP: Iran 'serious' on ending atomic row but delays response to offe
11 AFP: US says Iran delay could lead to UN Security Council action -
12 PROVOKING NORTH KOREA: Did Bush Administration Policy on North Korea
13 IPS-English POLITICS: N. Korean Missiles May Ease Indo-US
14 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Hard to Read North Korea's Motives
15 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Talks About North Korea in Webcast
16 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pushes for Stern N. Korea Sanctions
17 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Calls World Leaders About N. Korea
18 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: U.S. Wants Diplomacy With N. Korea
19 Guardian Unlimited: China Says It Has Little Leverage on North
20 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Vows to Continue Missile Launches
21 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang faces united criticism at UN meeting 
22 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea defies critics over missiles
23 BBC: N Korea vows more missile tests
24 AFP: China to send chief nuclear negotiator to NKorea 
25 AFP: Sanctions on NKorea would stymie 6-party talks - Russian envoy
26 New York Times: Few Good Choices in North Korean Standoff - 
27 AFP: Bush backs NKorea sanctions but seeks consensus - 
28 New York Times: North Korea Vows to Continue Missile Tests - 
29 AFP: N.Korea threatens new missiles, warns of sanctions retaliation 
30 AFP: US urges action on North Korea as Security Council haggles -
31 AFP: UN weighs punitive response to North Korean missile tests -
32 AFP: US expresses concern over North Korea's weapon exports 
33 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Pyongyang's bartering chip
34 UPI: Pakistan asks for nuclear deal with U.S.
35 IRNA: India, IAEA to hold "technical talks" on Indo-US N-deal on Fri
36 New York Times: The Myth of the New India - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
37 [NYTr] Cracks found in UK nuclear stations' reactor cores
38 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear last resort, say Tories
39 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear planning powers face reform
40 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is 'last resort', says Cameron 
41 US: newsobserver.com: A more efficient energy future
42 FT.com: Debate tilts in nuclear power's favour
43 BBC NEWS: Climate change 'real and severe'
44 BBC: Climate panel: Your questions
45 BBC: Nuclear 'last resort' for Tories
46 BBC: Climate panel: The verdict
47 BBC: Nuclear planning to be speeded up
48 US: APP.COM: TOPIC OF THE DAY: Nuclear safety 
49 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
50 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Consideration of Request f
51 US: NRC: Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Elect
52 US: courant.com: Nuclear Plant's Dome Coming Down 
53 US: Boston Globe: Sides convent in Plymouth to debate who gets say i
54 US: Charleston Daily Mail: Low brow nuke promo
55 US: Permalink: Call for Congressional Oversight of the U.S. Office o
56 US: Hudson Valley News: Indian Point 3 safely shuts down   
57 Navy Times: Reactor expert warns of possible risk involving carrier
58 Whitehaven News: BNG contract
59 US: Arizona Republic: A new atomic age faces hurdles in America 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
60 US: USATODAY.com: Tax dollars to fund study on restricting public da
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
61 US: [NYTr] US Military in DU Denial
62 US: Low-level radiation & health conference in Canada
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
63 NRC: NRC to Present Results of Licensee Performance Review at AREVA 
64 US: CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Nuke transports prompt concerns
65 AFP: Australian PM rules out storing nuclear waste from overseas -
66 OCRWM: Draft Environmental Assessment: Yucca Mountain Repository    
67 Whitehaven News: N-waste storage ‘price’ warning
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
68 Knox News: State gets $13.7 million reimbursement
69 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Dismisses N. Korea's 'Wild' Threats
70 SF New Mexican: Government releases impact statement for Los Alamos 
71 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment fo
72 Knox News: Lab earns six awards for top inventions
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Negotiator: Serious About Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 10:16 PM
 	
AP Photo GVW104 
By CONSTANT BRAND Associated Press Writer 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said
Thursday his country remains serious about continuing
negotiations to defuse the international standoff over its
nuclear program, which the West fears could be used to make
weapons. 

Ali Larijani spoke at the start of an informal working dinner
with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. 

``We are serious about the continued negotiations,'' Larijani
told reporters, adding that formal talks would be held next
Tuesday. 

Solana said he was ``looking to get this process going, it is
going to be beneficial for both'' sides. 

Officials said Larijani would fly to Madrid, Spain, after the
dinner meeting and no statements would be made about the outcome
of the preliminary talks before next week's round. 

``We are going to work and not talk much,'' to you reporters,
Solana said. 

Iran has been offered a package by the five permanent U.N.
Security Council members plus Germany that includes incentives
such as nuclear expertise and reactors. It calls on Iran to
suspend uranium enrichment for the duration of any negotiations,
and sets out the priority of a long-term moratorium on such
activity until the international community is convinced that
Iran's nuclear aims are peaceful. 

Solana has been appointed the interlocutor on behalf of the EU,
Russia and the United States to handle Iranian questions on the
package. 

Western diplomats have threatened to restart efforts to punish
Iran through possible U.N. Security Council sanctions unless
Tehran stops enrichment and agrees to talks by July 12, when
foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council nations
and Germany consult in Paris. 

Tehran has asserted repeatedly that its nuclear program, which
includes uranium enrichment, is peaceful and aimed at generating
power. But the U.S., Israel and the EU fear the research program
is a cover for the development of nuclear weapons. 

Larijani was supposed to have come to Brussels Wednesday to
respond to the package submitted to Iran last month, but that
meeting was called off at the last minute and rescheduled for
Thursday. Tehran cited anger over a rally in Paris by exile
groups and the appearance of an Iranian opposition leader in the
European Parliament as the reason for the unexpected delay. 

EU spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said the two delegations will
meet again next Tuesday in Brussels to formally address the
issue. Iranian officials have said they will seek explanations
for ``ambiguities'' contained in the offer put forward by the
United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. 

In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said Iran needed to give ``a substantive response'' to a Western
overture meant to end the crisis before the Group of Eight
leaders meet later this month in St. Petersburg, Russia. 

In Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin also urged Iran
Thursday to respond swiftly to the proposal to ease concerns
over its nuclear program. But he said it was too early to
discuss imposing sanctions on Tehran, suggesting that could be
counterproductive. 

``I would not rush forward and talk about sanctions,'' Putin
said. 

Earlier this week, EU officials said they did not anticipate
Larijani would fully respond to the offer, but only seek
clarification of several points of the package - and perhaps
come up with a counterproposal. 

Work on a Security Council resolution was suspended May 3 to
allow the six powers to draw up the plan of perks if Iran agrees
to a long-term moratorium on enrichment - or punishments that
include the threat of selective U.N. sanctions if it does not. 

Possible U.N.-mandated sanctions include a visa ban on
government officials, freezing assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products. 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Deputy FM: Nuclear energy, Iran's absolute right 

Belgrade, July 6, IRNA

Dep. FM-Nuclear-Right 

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister in Europe and America Affairs
Saeid Jalili said here on Wednesday in an interview with Bosnian
reporters, "Full access to nuclear technology is Iran's absolute
right, since we are merely after taking peaceful advantage of
it."

 Jalili who is currently in Bosnia added, "Tehran-Sarajevo
relations are historic and have taken shape based on brotherly
feelings, since our two nations have lots in common."

 He added, "Iran is an important and influential country in the
region and at the international scene and has a good peaceful
record, including good cultural, and economic relations with
Europe." Referring to the military threats against Iran related
to Tehran's peaceful nuclear program, he said, "Iran's efforts
are aimed at eliminating all ambiguities, and our nuclear
activities are all within the framework of the international
rules and regulations, so such talks are totally baseless."




*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: No Formal Iran-EU Talks 'Til Tuesday
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 11:46 AM
 	
By SLOBODAN LEKIC 
Associated Press Writer 

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The top Iranian and EU negotiators
agreed to meet Thursday night for informal discussions but
postponed until next week formal talks crucial to diffusing the
standoff over Iran's nuclear program, officials said. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear
negotiator, Ali Larijani, scheduled a dinner for Thursday night,
said EU spokeswoman Cristina Gallach. Solana and Larijani were
to discuss a package of incentives put forward by the United
States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany and presented
to Tehran by Solana in June. 

Larijani had been scheduled to meet with Solana on Wednesday,
but Iran canceled at the last minute, citing anger over
intensified activities of exiled Iranian opposition groups in
EU-member countries. 

Gallach said the two delegations will meet again next Tuesday in
Brussels to formally address the nuclear issue. Iranian
negotiator Javad Vaeidi made the same announcement on Iranian
state television. 

Iranian officials have said they will seek explanations for
``ambiguities'' contained in the incentives package. The nations
called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment for the duration of
any negotiations, and set out the priority of a long-term
moratorium of such activity until the international community is
convinced that Iran's nuclear aims are peaceful. The offer
includes such incentives as nuclear expertise and reactors. 

Western diplomats have threatened to seek Security Council
sanctions against Iran unless it stops enrichment and agrees to
talks by July 12, when foreign ministers of the five permanent
U.N. Security Council nations and Germany consult in Paris. 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran needed to give ``a
substantive response'' to the Western overture before the Group
of Eight leaders meet later this month in St. Petersburg,
Russia. 

``If indeed Iran is trying to stall, it's not going to work,''
Rice told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. ``The
international community has said that we need to get an answer,
an indication of where Iran is going with this. We need to know
if the path of negotiation is open or not.'' 

Earlier this week, EU officials said they did not anticipate
Larijani would fully respond to the offer but only seek
clarification of several points of the package - and perhaps
come up with a counterproposal. 

Tehran has asserted repeatedly that its nuclear program, which
includes uranium enrichment, is peaceful and aimed at generating
power. But the U.S., Israel and EU fear the research program is
a cover for the development of nuclear weapons. 

Work on a Security Council resolution was suspended May 3 to
allow the six powers to draw up the plan of perks if Iran agrees
to a long-term moratorium on enrichment - or punishments that
include the threat of selective U.N. sanctions if it does not. 

Possible U.N.-mandated sanctions include a visa ban on
government officials, freezing assets, blocking financial
transactions by government figures and those involved in the
country's nuclear program, an arms embargo and a blockade on the
shipping of refined oil products. 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Putin urges speed in Iran nuclear talks
 
Mark Oliver and agencies

Thursday July 6, 2006

[Russian president Vladimir Putin] 

President Putin took part in a webcast, answering questions
voted for by the Russian public. Photograph: AP
   

 The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, today said he wanted
Iran to respond quickly to international proposals concerning
the country's nuclear programme, but refused to discuss
sanctions.

Leaders of the world's richest countries have demanded a
response from Tehran by July 15, when the G8 will meet for a
summit in St Petersburg, but Iran has said it will not respond
until August 22.

Speaking on a webcast this afternoon, Mr Putin said of Iran: "We
would like this reaction to be quicker. The talks that should
begin on the basis of these proposals should be constructive.
 			 		 			 			Article continues
"To wait endlessly is counter-productive but it would be more 
counter-productive to drive this problem into a dead end. That is 
why I would not speak about sanctions at the moment." 

The US and UK want Iran to be hauled in front of the UN security
council to face sanctions over its refusal to meet international
demands to stop its uranium enrichment work. 

The US suspects Iran's nuclear activity is being carried out for
military reasons rather than, as Iran claims, for power
generation. 

The crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions is likely to be
a major topic during the summit and Russia and China are against
imposing sanctions.

Mr Putin said Iran had a right to seek "high technology to
enrich its economy". Russia suggests there are a number of
"international centres for uranium enrichment" that could
benefit Iran.

Mr Putin's webcast - which was broadcast on the BBC website and
the major Russian search site Yandex - was part of a charm
offensive ahead of the summit.

The Russian president spoke about North Korea's missile tests
this week, saying his country was concerned and "disappointed"
by the developments.

However, he stressed the need for diplomacy and echoed the
remarks of the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, by
calling for a return to the troubled six-nation talks. 

The tests "should not lead to such emotions that would drown out
common sense", said Mr Putin. "We have to create an atmosphere
that will lead to compromise."

He said his government had not confirmed reports that one
missile had fallen a few miles from the Russian port of
Nakhodka, adding: "Tests of this kind cannot be considered
normal. When civilised countries conduct such tests, they make
known the place and time ... and they warn foreign ships."

Speaking about the US, he said it was not Russia's role to act
as counterbalance to the superpower but called for a
"multilpolar" world. He said the US was "our principal partner"
on security and disarmament issues. 

When pressed to name Russia's chief enemies, Mr Putin said he
hoped "terrorists and drug barons" would become the only main
enemies of the leading nations. 

He described the US president, George Bush, as "a decent person"
and a good partner "with whom it is possible not just to talk
but to reach agreement". He went on: "As a human being, Mr Bush
is one of the people I consider to be my friend."

The Russian leader admitted democracy in his country had not
been "flawless" in recent years. He said part of the problem was
connected to certain financial interests but he insisted the
country was moving in the right direction. "There is no future
without democracy," he said.

He said there were 3,500 media companies in Russia and defended
their independence. Mr Putin added that the internet was an
increasingly influential medium and Russia, "unlike some
countries", did not place restrictions upon it. 

Mr Putin also defended the war against insurgents in Chechnya,
saying the policy was "worth it" and was necessary to stop
extremists imposing a breakaway Islamist state. 

When asked about gas supplies and the crisis that arose earlier
in the year when the supply to Ukraine was stopped temporarily,
Mr Putin said Russia needed to get a fair price for its
resources. He added, however, that Europe had "nothing to worry
about" with regard to gas supplies. 

Almost a million Russians voted on 140,000 webcast questions to
be put to the Russian leader, who talked for more than two
hours. 

Many wanted to know what the Russian leader planned to do about
the problem of affordable housing and military conscription as
well as racism and homophobia.

Mr Putin said problems such as racism were a "danger to the
fabric of our society" and admitted the government had not been
doing enough. He said education was crucial to tackle outdated
attitudes.

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: Iran's nuclear program no threat against global society -
Venezuelan envoy - 

Tehran, July 6, IRNA

Venezuela-Iran-Nuclear 

Venezuelan Ambassador to Tehran Arturo Galleos said here on
Wednesday that Iran's nuclear activities pose no threat at all
against the global society.

 According to IRNA's Political Desk reporter, Galleos who spoke
to IRNA on the sidelines of a ceremony celebrating his country's
national day at Venezuela's Embassy in Tehran, added, "Like all
other countries, Iran, too is entitled to take advantage of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes within the framework of the
International Atomic Energy Agency's rules and regulations."

 Referring to Iran's advancement in such fields as agriculture,
medical sciences, and pharmaceutical industries, the Venezuelan
Ambassador said, "Iran's progress in those fields is indebted to
your country's scientific research works in nuclear field during
the course of the past decades."

 He emphasized, "The Western countries' opposition against
Iran's full access to all aspects of that technology is due to
their real intention that is their opposition against Iran's
rapid advancement and comprehensive development."

 Referring to the US opposition against uranium enrichment in
Iran, Galleos said, "Such stands are mainly politically
motivated, rather than having a legal or technical basis."

 The Venezuelan envoy at the end reiterated, "Certain Western
countries are opposed to the development and advancement of some
Third World countries, like Iran, and resort to any pretext in a
bid to block the path for their advancement."

*****************************************************************
 6 BBC: World 'losing patience' with Iran
 
Last Updated: Friday, 7 July 2006
 
[Preliminary installation of a turbo generator at Iran's Bushehr 
nuclear power plant]                             

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes                                                              

The UN nuclear watchdog chief has warned Iran the world is 
"getting impatient" because it has not replied to incentives on 
its nuclear programme. 

Mohamed ElBaradei said "the earlier they can provide an answer" 
on the UN offer to get Tehran to halt uranium enrichment "is 
better for everybody." 

His comments came before Iran's top nuclear negotiator arrived in 
Brussels ahead of rescheduled talks with the EU. 

Ali Larijani said his country was serious about continuing 
negotiations. 

In Washington, a state department spokesman told reporters "it's 
high time that they provide an answer". 

Sean McCormack said foreign ministers of the US, Russia, China, 
Britain, France, Germany and the EU would meet next Wednesday to 
discuss negative steps against Iran if it had not given a clear 
answer, Reuters news agency reported. 

'Playing for time' 

Mr Larijani is meeting EU Foreign policy chief Javier Solana for 
an informal dinner in Brussels, while formal discussions have 
been scheduled for next week. 

Iran postponed a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, citing security 
concerns. 

[Javier Solana and Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki 
meet in Tehran.]                             

Mr Solana put the proposal to Iran in June                                                                

Correspondents say the announcement appeared to be linked to a 
visit to the European parliament by the leader of a controversial 
exiled Iranian opposition group. 

The BBC's Pam O'Toole say the postponement has stoked suspicions 
in some Western countries that Iran, under threat of UN Security 
Council action if it rejects the package, is playing for time. 

Thursday's dinner is the first face to face meeting between Mr 
Larijani and Mr Solana since early June, when Mr Solana presented 
Iran with the package of proposals. 

In public statements, Iranian officials have reacted relatively 
positively to the package, but have also said there are 
ambiguities which need to be ironed out. 

Time pressure 

But Tehran has yet to give an official substantive response, 
despite pressure from Western countries for it to do so before 
the G8 summit in St Petersburg in mid-July. 

Various Iranian officials have suggested that Tehran might give a 
formal response in early - or even late - August. 

There seems to be little expectation that Mr Larijani will 
definitively accept or reject the proposals during Thursday's 
meeting. 

But the EU says it is hoping to get at least an initial 
indication of what Iran is thinking - and to answer any questions 
it has on the package, in the hope of obtaining a substantive 
response next week.                                                          



*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: EU to sound out Iranian envoy on response to nuclear package -
    
Thursday July 6, 11:00 AM 

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The EU's top diplomat will sound out Iran's
nuclear negotiator about Tehran's readiness to accept an
international package aimed at easing its atomic standoff with
the West.

Over dinner in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
expects a "first response" from negotiator Ali Larijani on
whether Iran might be ready to suspend uranium enrichment in
exchange for political and economic incentives.

The talks come amid mounting international pressure on Iran to
show by next week that it is ready accept the offer, with the 
threat of UN Security Council action hanging over it.

But the Islamic republic, which denies it is trying to covertly
build an atomic bomb behind the screen of a civilian nuclear
programme, refuses categorically to suspend enrichment
activities; a key condition of the package.

"We still intend to have a substantive response from Iran before
the middle of July ...," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said Wednesday. "It simply makes sense for the world to have
some kind of indication of whether Iran intends to pursue the
negotiated track or not."

"But if, indeed, Iran is trying to stall, it's not going to
work. The international community has said that we need to get
an answer, an indication of where Iran is going with this," she
said.

Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial powers expect to
examine Iran's response at a meeting in Saint Petersburg
starting on July 15, but, as in the past, Iran has resisted all
attempts to set a calendar.

On Wednesday, Larijani tried to push back the Brussels talks
until next week, but Solana said that "waiting another week was
impossible" and "there had to be a contact before that",
according to the diplomat's spokeswoman.

"I had made clear to the Iranians and to Dr. Larijani that we
want to proceed rapidly to examine together the ideas I put to
him early last month," Solana said in a statement in reference
to the offer handed over on June 6.

The evening face-to-face meeting, tentatively scheduled for
around 8:00 pm (1800 GMT), will be a prelude to more substantial
talks in Paris on Tuesday.

Then, representatives from the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council plus Germany are expected to meet Solana but
not the Iranian delegation, according to the EU diplomat's
office.

The US State Department also said that foreign ministers from
the six world powers would meet to discuss Iran the following
day -- Wednesday -- just before the G8 summit.

In their offer, the six affirm Iran's right to develop nuclear
energy, support its building of light-water reactors and provide
for uranium enrichment to take place in Russia.

It would improve Tehran's access to international markets and
capital and back its efforts to join the World Trade
Organisation, among other incentives.

In return, Iran would suspend all enrichment-related activities,
which have sparked fears it may be trying to build a nuclear
weapon, and accept wider inspections by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
 
AFP

*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran 'won't give response' to nuclear offer in Brussels - official 

 Thu Jul 6, 7:43 AM ET 
		 	 
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Iran " /> Iran's top nuclear negotiator will not 
give a response to an international offer to persuade Tehran to 
curb its nuclear plans in talks with EU officials this week or 
next, an Iranian official has said. "We will not give a 
response," either in a dinner with European Union " /> European 
Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana on Thursday evening or 
next Tuesday, in planned talks including with officials from 
countries behind the offer," the senior official told AFP.
 
"We are just resolving ambiguities," he added.
 
Solana has said he expects a "first response" in the Brussels
talks from negotiator Ali Larijani on whether Iran might be
ready to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for political
and economic incentives.
 
The talks come amid mounting international pressure on Iran to
show by next week that it is ready to accept the offer, with the
threat of UN Security Council action hanging over it.
 
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: UN nuclear watchdog chief warns Iran West's patience running out
     
 Thu Jul 6, 2:38 PM ET 
		 	 
ANKARA (AFP) - The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog urged Iran " 
/> to respond quickly to international incentives to curb its 
atomic plans, saying that patience was running out. 

"I hope Iran understands that the international community is 
getting somewhat impatient," Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency " /> (IAEA), told 
journalists here after talks with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip 
Erdogan.
 
"The earlier they provide an answer, the better for everybody,"
he said.
 
The proposal affirms Iran's right to develop nuclear energy,
supports its building of light-water reactors, provides for
uranium enrichment to take place in Russia and offers a series
of economic incentives.
 
In return, Iran is asked to suspend all enrichment-related
activities, which have sparked fears it may be trying to build a
nuclear weapon, and accept wider IAEA inspections.
 
ElBaradei said Iranian officials told him they needed some time
to study the offer, put forward last month by the five permanent
UN Security Council members plus Germany.
 
He said he believed the Iranians "also need to make sure that
everybody in Iran is on board."
 
"We hope that Iran will respond promptly and positively to the
offer made by the six countries," ElBaradei said. "If there are
issues to be clarified, the parties are ready to clarify those
issues."
 
"But we need to get the parties to start the negotiations. And
the earlier we get parties to the negotiating table the better
for everybody," he said.
 
"A negotiated solution to the Iranian issue is a win-win
situation for everybody," the IAEA chief stressed.
 
"It is inevitable that every effort should be made to find a
negotiated solution to the Iranian issue. The Middle East cannot
stand an additional crisis," he added.
 
A senior Iranian official said earlier Thursday that no response
to the international proposals would be forthcoming at least in
the next week.
 
He spoke hours before Tehran's top nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani was due to dine with European Union
" /> foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
 
"We will not give a response," either Wednesday evening or next
Tuesday, at a wider meeting of Iranian officials with
representatives of countries behind the international nuclear
offer, the official told AFP.
 
He said his government was "resolving ambiguities" of the
package of incentives being offered to the Islamic republic.
 
Solana has said he expects a "first response" in the Brussels
talks on whether Iran might be ready to suspend uranium
enrichment in exchange for political and economic incentives.
 
But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said a formal
response will be given in August.
 
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Iran 'serious' on ending atomic row but delays response to offer
     
 Thu Jul 6, 3:16 PM ET 
		 	 
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Iran " /> Iran's top nuclear negotiator vowed 
that Tehran is "serious" about efforts to defuse an atomic row 
with the West, but refused to give any quick response to an 
international offer to ease the crisis. 

"We're serious about continuing negotiations and we're going to 
start next Tuesday our talks," Ali Larijani said through an 
interpreter, on arrival for dinner with European Union " /> 
European Unionforeign policy chief Javier Solana.
 
Thursday evening's dinner comes ahead of more substantial talks
in Paris next Tuesday, when representatives from the five
permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany will discuss
the row.
 
Asked if he was going to provide an immediate response to an
international offer to defuse the crisis, the Iranian negotiator
said: "We will talk about the offer on Tuesday."
 
Iran is facing mounting international pressure to show by next
week that it is ready to accept the offer, with the threat of UN
Security Council action hanging over it.
 
But Tehran, which denies it is trying to covertly build an
atomic bomb behind the screen of a civilian nuclear programme,
refuses categorically to suspend enrichment activities -- a key
condition of the offer.
 
Solana added: "We're going to have a meeting today and another
one on Tuesday to continue the process which we hope will
benefit both parties."
 
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: US says Iran delay could lead to UN Security Council action -
    
 Thu Jul 6, 4:46 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US State Department said that Iran " /> 
faced UN Security Council action if it failed to join 
international negotiations over its nuclear program. "There's the 
positive pathway. There's a negative pathway (that) leads to 
further isolation," said US State Department spokesman Sean 
McCormack even as Iran said it had no plans to respond in ongoing 
talks in Brussels to an international offer to curb its atomic 
plans.
 
McCormack said world powers had put together "a good,
comprehensive" proposal to Iran that affirmed its right to
develop nuclear energy and supported its building of light-water
reactors.
 
Iran in return would suspend all uranium enrichment-related
activity that it now views as its sovereign right but which
Washington fears is a cover for an illicit nuclear weapons
program.
 
Washington has been trying to pressure Iran to respond to the
offer before the Group of Eight summit of industrialized nations
meets for a July 15 in Saint Petersburg but some Iranian
officials said no reply could be expected next week either.
 
"There's agreement among all the ministers about where this
heads if the Iranians don't meet the conditions, and that is
down the pathway of the Security Council," McCormack said.
 
Russia and China have both opposed Security Council sanctions
against Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin
" /> reiterated Moscow's position on Thursday.
 
*****************************************************************
 12 PROVOKING NORTH KOREA: Did Bush Administration Policy on North Korea Help Provoke Ballistic Missile Tests?
 
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:11:45 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Did Bush Administration Policy on North Korea Help Provoke Ballistic
Missile Tests?

North Korea launched its first ballistic missile tests in eight years
on Wednesday firing seven missiles over the Sea of Japan. Leon Sigal,
author of "Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea"
says that the Bush administration's policy on North Korea "provoked
Kim Jong-il to accelerate nuclear arming and missile development."
[includes rush transcript] 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/06/1349234

..LEON SIGAL: Well, basically, the administration has spent six years
huffing and puffing, and they didn't blow Kim Jong-Il's house
down. What's happened is they've  provoked him to accelerate nuclear
arming and missile development. And the missile -- 

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean they provoked him? 

LEON SIGAL: Well, we were on our way in 2000 to a deal that would have
eliminated the North's development, production and testing of
ballistic missiles. The Bush administration stopped negotiating and
started threatening the North, mostly with words, not many deeds,
because our allies weren't going to go along with the deeds. The
ultimate bankruptcy of the policy drove us to the negotiating table,
because the allies were about to part company with us. They also led
to a very important joint statement out of the six-party talks last
September, in which the North agreed that it would abandon all nuclear
weapons and all existing weapons programs, which means both the
plutonium program that they have and the uranium enrichment program. 

And no sooner did that happen than the hardliners in the
administration, led by Vice President Cheney, got the U.S. negotiator,
Chris Hill, to back away from all the obligations we undertook in that
statement. And as a result to that, the North began warning us, and we
then saw the start of the ballistic missile test, which had been --
you know, it takes about a month to get things set up for a long-range
test. The short-range things, they've done before. And so, you know,
this once again shows that the policy is bankrupt. It's not working
[maybe it *is* working for Bush though, depending on what Bush's
actual goals are...-ED]

The key to this is -- and nobody knows the answer -- will the North
Koreans, in fact, negotiate away their program? One thing for sure,
they won't if you don't negotiate with them. And until now, this
administration has engaged in talks, but very rarely in
negotiations. Negotiations mean give and take. You don't get something
from North Korea [for nothing], without giving something in return.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Why do you think, given the enormous problems that the
White House has in the Middle East, does it continue not to try to
resolve and negotiate this situation out? 

LEON SIGAL: Well, I think fundamentally it's 
in the grip that the people at the very top are in a grip of a set of
ideological beliefs about American power, that you don't cooperate
, even with your allies. You push people around. And it goes back to
some notions that somehow after Vietnam, America was weakened. The
presidency was weakened. The whole logic of the position is, we're
going to show muscle, and that was there when the administration came
in. You could see it in the interregnum, if you looked closely. Some
of us actually missed it. But after 9/11, they had much more free
rein. The Democrats were afraid to take them on. The public gave them
some leeway. And you see that playing out not only in Iraq, but also
with respect to North Korea. 

The problem in the case of North Korea is, they don't really have a
military option. And the sanctions option is really quite worthless,
because the key players are not going to play. If you look at who
borders with North Korea, it's China, Russia and South Korea, and none
of them intend to impose the kinds of sanctions that would strangle
North Korea to death. So, given that they don't
have ["easy" options; the preceding two are not 'good', Sigal
notwithstanding -Ed] , the logical option is to negotiate, but that's
precisely what they don't want to do.

And so, the irony is, when the North Koreans did something quite
profound, which is during the Bush administration, they've made about
seven to nine bombs worth of plutonium -- they have reprocessed it,
exracted it from spent fuel -- that's here now, that's a real danger
to the United States and its allies -- the administration said , Now,
with the missile test, they are actually downplaying the significance
of the missile test. Why? Because if they said we're in a crisis,
they'd have to negotiate, and that's precisely what the Vice President
and apparently the President do not want to do. 

..AMY GOODMAN: Can I ask something? Didn't the U.S. test a missile
just a few months ago? 

LEON SIGAL: No, no. We -- I mean, yes. Missile testing is not illegal,
and the North, of course, keeps on emphasizing that. They're not
in violation of anything, except with respect to, you want to give
maritime warning in case there's 
debris, that sort of thing, but that's a trivial issue. The heart of
this is, the missiles are designed to pose a security threat, in the
North's view, because they need a deterrent, insofar as the Americans
-- they see [Washington] as threatening them [gosh golly gee whiz, how
would they EVER come to that conclusion about regime changing illegal
invading 'axis of evil' mouthing Washington?? ;-)  -ED]
and the Japanese as threatening them.

.On the other hand, they say -- and they keep saying this -- the
United States is no longer our enemy, they're no longer a threat to
us, and we don't need nukes and missiles. And they have, in the
six-party talks, as they had before, committed themselves to
eliminating their nuclear programs. And in 2000, they, in effect --
Kim Jong-Il, himself, in negotiations with the Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, put the missile program entirely -- I mean,
development, testing of long-range and medium-range missiles -- on the
negotiating table. Do they mean it? The only way I know -- I mean,
nobody knows for sure, with the possible exception of Kim Jong-Il, but
there's only one way to find out, and that is to start negotiating in
earnest, and that is precisely what this administration has refused to
do.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/06/1349234

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
 13 IPS-English POLITICS: N. Korean Missiles May Ease Indo-US
 
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:39:45 -0700


<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP NA WD IP SC NU=20
POLITICS: N. Korean Missiles May Ease Indo-US Nuclear Deal
Praful Bidwai=20

NEW DELHI, Jul 6 (IPS) - After the successful passage, last week, of two =
resolutions favouring the Indo-United States nuclear deal through the for=
eign relations committees of both chambers of Congress, it appears highly=
  likely that it will clear the full Senate and House of Representatives.=20

The nuclear agreement is strongly backed by U.S. business groups, the pow=
erful Indian-American community in the U.S., and by pro-Israel Zionist-Je=
wish lobbies influential on Capitol Hill.=20

But domestic opinion on the deal in India is even more sharply divided th=
an before the U.S. Congressional debate. A majority of political parties =
oppose the agreement as it is being reshaped in the U.S. Indeed, barring =
the Indian National Congress, which leads the coalition government of Pri=
me Minister Manmohan Singh, no party has come out strongly in its defence=
.=20

This, in part, is because the content of the resolutions passed with stro=
ng majorities in the Senate and House committees differs to some extent f=
rom what was agreed between Singh and President George W. Bush in July la=
st year and this past March during Bush's visit to India.=20

''In part, the growing rift on the deal is also because U.S. legislators =
have introduced language in resolutions which one-sidedly and exclusively=
  expresses American concerns=94, says M.V. Ramana, a physicist and indepe=
ndent nuclear expert based at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in=
  Environment and Development in Bangalore. =94Some of that language is in=
  non-binding clauses and in the preamble, and it does not have operationa=
l consequences. But it nevertheless offends Indian sensibilities, which a=
re prickly on issues like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Ind=
ia, like Israel and Pakistan, has not signed.=94=20

The strongest opposition to the nuclear deal comes, at the political leve=
l, from the pro-Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which says the a=
greement is loaded against India and must not be held to bind future gove=
rnments.=20

At the expert level, the fiercest opposition comes from former top offici=
als of the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, two former AEC chairmen Homi S=
ethna and P.K. Iyengar contend that the deal will cap India's ability to =
produce a =94minimum credible nuclear deterrent=94, open its nuclear faci=
lities to unacceptably intrusive inspections by the International Atomic =
Energy (IAEA), and bind India to the U.S. =94in perpetuity.=94=20

Sethna says it would be preferable to sign the much-hated NPT, rather tha=
n the present deal: =94The NPT may be discriminatory, but we will still b=
e allowed to exit whereas in the India-U.S. deal, India will remain bound=
  in perpetuity.=94 The NPT is a taboo-word in Indian political discourse.=
=20

Others too have criticised the deal, but on different grounds. India's Le=
ft parties, which command respect well in excess of their seven percent r=
epresentation in Parliament, say the deal is tied to conditions that inte=
rfere with India's foreign policy independence, for instance on Iran. (Th=
e House resolution demands in a non-binding section that India join the U=
.S. in isolating and sanctioning Iran.)=20

They also maintain that in its present shape, it alters the sequence of s=
teps India is asked to take. For instance, under earlier agreements, Indi=
a was asked to negotiate special safeguards with the IAEA and get approva=
l from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) after the deal's Cong=
ressional ratification. Now, it must do so before ratification. While the=
  Left opposes India's nuclear weapons, and also further tests, it does no=
t want the U.S. to dictate a unilateral test ban to India.=20

The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, an umbrella group of ove=
r 250 organisations, has also opposed the deal primarily because it will =
legitimise India's (and America's) nuclear weapons, and set back the agen=
da of global nuclear disarmament. =94It will also fuel an unhealthy compe=
tition between India and Pakistan, which is bitter at the U.S.-India deal=
=94, says Shukla Sen of the CNDP, based in Mumbai city.=20

The CNDP has strongly criticised the nuclear super-hawks of the AEC for m=
aking alarmist and exaggerated claims about the deal capping India's nucl=
ear weapons programme. =94It will allow India to import uranium and augme=
nt its weapons programme=94, says Sen.=20

The Manmohan Singh government faces a tough task in answering its domesti=
c critics from the Right and the Left, especially when Parliament opens i=
ts Session later this month.=20

=94It also faces two overseas challenges=94, says Ramana. =94One is to ge=
t the different resolutions of the Congress's two chambers =91reconciled'=
  in a way that favours India. And the second is to get approval for the d=
eal from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, an informal association of governm=
ents that seek to control the spread of nuclear technology.=94 =20

In its U.S. lobbying effort, New Delhi is working closely with the Americ=
an Jewish Committee, a powerful Zionist organisation, which is helping it=
  water down some of the stringent language of the Congressional resolutio=
ns.=20

Currently, Walter F. Isaacson, director of government and international a=
ffairs of the American Jewish Committee, is in New Delhi to hold talks wi=
th Indian diplomats, officials and politicians, =94as part of a stock-tak=
ing exercise=94 and to plan future steps. Isaacson told the media that be=
sides writing letters to Congressmen and telephoning them, =94our 32 offi=
ces in U.S. also contacted the federal representatives in their home cons=
tituencies.=94=20

Isaacson has been quoted in The Economic Times daily as saying, =94at thi=
s point, I am not ready to relax.=94 The AJC, working closely with the In=
dian embassy in Washington, will try to influence the two Bills' passage =
and their =94reconciliation=94. =94Ultimately the investment will pay off=
=94, Isaacson added.=20

The NSG may pose a bigger problem than the U.S. Congress if some of its r=
ecalcitrant members speak up at its forthcoming meeting in September. Sev=
eral of its member-states, including China, Japan, the Nordic countries, =
Brazil and South Africa, are believed to be uneasy with the India-U.S. de=
al.=20

Currently, reports trade journal =94Nuclear Fuel=94, the U.S. is working =
hard on them so that no public disagreement on the deal is expressed. The=
  NSG takes all its decisions by consensus. It is crucial for the U.S. tha=
t no disagreement is aired.=20

Indian diplomats believe that a completely new and unforeseen development=
  has suddenly come to their aid: North Korea's seven missile tests this w=
eek. These have produced consternation and dismay in Japan, the U.S. and =
South Korea. India could capitalise on this.=20

Said =94The Times of India=94 daily on this issue: =94India should quietl=
y relish the U.S. and Japanese discomfiture -- since these were the first=
  missile tests by North Korea, after 1998, it should be a kind of securit=
y awakening for Japan.=94  The Korean tests, the paper said on Thursday, =
could also serve to highlight the North Korea-Pakistan nuclear-missile li=
nks because =94a number of Pakistani missiles owe their origin to Pyongya=
ng.=94=20

The paper's reporter expressed the hope that this development might =94co=
ntribute to a more mature Japanese outlook=94 on the whole issue. =94As I=
ndia courts Japan for support in the NSG in the face of Japan's nuclear h=
omilies, India, said sources, would hope Tokyo can take a more =91reasone=
d' view of the nuclear debate that rages in this part of the world.=94  T=
his could help tilt Japan in India's favour at the NSG. =20
*****
+ Will Missile Tests Lead to New Talks?=20
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D33874)
(END/IPS/AP/NA/WD/NU/IP/SC/PB/RDR/06)

=20
=3D 07060850 ORP007
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: Hard to Read North Korea's Motives
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 11:31 PM
 	
AP Photo WHCD101 
By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush pushed for stern international
action against North Korea on Thursday but ran into resistance
from China and Russia. The North Koreans threatened to fire off
more test rockets. 

Bush, engaged in diplomacy from Washington to Moscow to Asia,
said the United States and its allies needed to speak with one
voice in pressing Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons and
return to multinational negotiations. 

``I think we've got to plan for the worst and hope for the
best,'' Bush said. ``And planning for the worst means to make
sure that we continue to work with friends and allies, as well
as those who've agreed to be a part of the six-party talks, to
continue to send a unified message.'' 

Bush expressed support for a draft U.N. Security Council
resolution, backed by Japan, to sanction North Korea for its
seven missile tests, which included a long-range Taepodong-2
believed capable of reaching U.S. soil. 

China, North Korea's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, showed
little interest in sanctions, saying diplomacy was the only way
to resolve the dispute. 

It remained unclear how serious the divisions were at the United
Nations - and whether China and Russia would use their veto
power as permanent members of the Security Council to kill a
resolution, or simply abstain. 

Bush, trying to build consensus among his partners in the
stalled six-party talks with North Korea, was deep in telephone
diplomacy. He spoke Thursday with Chinese President Hu Jintao
and Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, he had
called the leaders of South Korea and Japan. 

``My message was that we want to solve this problem
diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem
diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert,'' Bush
said. 

U.S. officials say they don't know why North Korea decided to
launch the missiles, and can't read the mind of its reclusive
leader, Kim Jong Il. But Bush said the United States cannot
afford to misjudge the situation. 

``There's not a lot of light shining in there,'' Bush said of
North Korea. ``And so we take his statements very seriously.
He's kind of declared himself to be a nuclear power.'' 

North Korea test-fired seven missiles this week in defiance of
warnings from the United States, Japan and China. The firings
included the long-range Taepodong-2, which failed 42 seconds
after liftoff, and splashed into the Sea of Japan with rest of
the short- to medium-range missiles. 

North Korea threatened to test-fire more missiles, and it warned
of ``stronger physical actions in other forms'' if nations
opposing the tests pressured Pyongyang too hard. 

The foreign ministry said that it was North Korea's sovereign
right to test missiles, and that the launches were part of
regular military drills. 

Asked for an assessment of Kim Jong Il, who has been described
in the West in unflattering terms, Bush chose instead to
describe North Korea as a closed society. 

``We do know there's a lot of concentration camps,'' he said.
``We do know that people are starving. As a matter of fact, our
nation has tried to help feed the hungry. But what we don't know
is his (Kim's) intentions.'' 

Pentagon officials said Thursday that the very brief flight of
the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful
technical data, such as its intended target, its payload and
even whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile. At this
point, U.S. officials are leaning toward the theory that it was
configured as a space launch to deliver a satellite into orbit,
rather than as a flight test of a ballistic missile. 

On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
plans to visit South Korea later this month for talks on the
missile tests. 

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei is heading to Pyongyang
with a high-level delegation to celebrate the 45th anniversary
of a friendship treaty between China and North Korea. Before he
goes, Wu will sit down on Friday with chief U.S. nuclear
negotiator Christopher Hill who also is making stops in the
region. 

At the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton tried to play
down any friction between the nations addressing the Korean
situation. 

``There may be disagreement at the moment over the vehicle that
we use here in the council, but no one speaks in favor of North
Korea. No one takes the North Korean line,'' Bolton said. 

Japan's draft resolution would prohibit any nation from
transferring funds, material and technology that could be used
in North Korea's missile or weapons of mass destruction
programs. 

China, which is an economic lifeline to North Korea by providing
it trade, aid and oil, doesn't want to push its neighbor too
hard. Beijing worries that if the communist government fails,
North Korean refugees would stream into China or that the North
would be unified with South Korea, which is strongly allied with
the United States. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against
threatening North Korea with sanctions that would only bring a
hostile response. Russia wants the U.N. Security Council to pass
a nonbinding statement with the goal of getting North Korea back
into six-party talks. 

South Korea condemned the missile tests and called for patient
dialogue with North Korea, rather than sanctions. 

White House press secretary Tony Snow said not to expect any
quick resolution of the nuclear standoff with North Korea. 

``This is not like a sitcom, it doesn't wrap up in 30 minutes
and come to a neat, happy conclusion,'' Snow said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Talks About North Korea in Webcast
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 8:01 PM
 	
AP Photo MOSB115 
By MARIA DANILOVA Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin criticized North Korea's
missile tests and urged Iran to respond to an international
offer on its nuclear program, but suggested Thursday it would be
counterproductive to threaten either country with sanctions. 

In a live Kremlin Internet conference, Putin also insisted he is
not backtracking on democracy and assured Europe that supplies
of Russian gas are secure. 

In his first public comment on the brazen missile tests by North
Korea - a country that has relatively friendly ties with Russia
- Putin said Moscow was concerned and disappointed, but stressed
the need for diplomacy and a return to six-nation talks. 

The tests ``should not lead to such emotions that would drown
out common sense,'' the Russian leader said, answering questions
from the public on the British Broadcasting Corp. Web site as
well as a Russian site. 

``We have to review the issue in all its entirety. We should be
aiming to resuming the negotiation process with North Korea. ...

We have to create an atmosphere that will lead to compromise.'' 

The Web broadcast was part of a charm offensive ahead of the
summit of the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, which
Putin is hosting in St. Petersburg on July 15-17. 

Putin spoke Thursday after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned
against threatening North Korea with sanctions. 

Putin said his government had not confirmed that a missile had
fallen a few dozen miles from the Russian port city of Nakhodka.

However, he said, ``tests of this kind cannot be considered
normal because all civilized countries ... make known the place
and time ... and they warn foreign ships.'' 

Russia has sought to rebuild Soviet-era ties with North Korea,
and Putin has hosted its reclusive leader Kim Jong Il. But
economic ties are much smaller than in Soviet times and Moscow's
sway pales compared to China's. 

Putin's message on Iran was similar: Don't ruin chances for a
diplomatic breakthrough with threats. 

``We hope our Iranian partners will listen to the suggestions''
of the five permanent U.N. Security Council nations, which have
offered a package of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to
halt uranium enrichment and enter talks on its nuclear
program,'' Putin said. 

``We would like the response to be faster, we would like ...
dialogue on the basis of the proposals to be more
constructive,'' he said. However, he added, ``I would not rush
forward and talk about sanctions,'' indicating that could
increase tension. 

``I agree with you that we cannot wait endlessly. ... But it's
even more counterproductive to get the situation into impasse.

... So at this point, I would concentrate on carrying the
proposals formulated by these six countries,'' Putin said. 

The online conference, organized by Yandex.ru and the BBC's Web
site, lasted for hours and marked the third time Putin has taken
part in live Webcasts since he was elected in 2000. Putin, who
clearly enjoys speaking to the public and press, also holds an
annual news conference and lengthy phone-ins with Russians. 

While some 140,000 questions ranged from the ordinary to the
offbeat, Putin stuck largely to serious domestic and
international issues. 

And, as usual, he included a mix of positive statements about
Russia's relations with the West and rebukes of criticism he has
increasingly faced on issues from democracy to energy policy. 

Asked whether Russia had become more authoritarian under his
rule, he said, ``Of course I do not agree,'' insisting the
country has irrevocably chosen a democratic path. ``I am sure
that without the development of democracy and freedom of the
press there is no future for Russia.'' 

Touching on a theme that will be prominent at the G-8 summit, he
said Russia will remain a reliable supplier of gas to Europe and
blamed Ukraine for a dispute earlier this year that resulted in
a temporary dip in deliveries to some European Union nations. 
Putin also defended the widely criticized war in Chechnya,
saying it has been ``worth it'' and suggesting that by battling
militants in the mostly Muslim region, the Kremlin was helping
to protect Europeans. 

Putin said the United States is ``our principal partner'' on
issues such as global security threats and nonproliferation. But
Putin - who has been seeking to boost energy-rich Russia's clout
- indicated Moscow's former Cold War foe should not dominate the
world, saying it is diverse and ``should be multipolar.'' 

Putin also called President Bush ``a decent person'' and a good
partner ``with whom it is possible not just to talk but to reach
agreement.'' He added: ``As a human being, (Bush is) one of the
people I consider to be my friends.'' 

---- 
On the Net: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking-point/default.stm 
http://www.president.yandex.ru 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Pushes for Stern N. Korea Sanctions
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday July 7, 2006 12:46 AM
 	
AP Photo WHCD122 
By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush pushed for stern international
action against North Korea on Thursday but ran into resistance
from China and Russia. The North Koreans threatened to fire off
more test rockets. 

Bush, engaged in diplomacy from Washington to Moscow to Asia,
said the United States and its allies needed to speak with one
voice in pressing Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons and
return to multinational negotiations. 

``I think we've got to plan for the worst and hope for the
best,'' Bush said. ``And planning for the worst means to make
sure that we continue to work with friends and allies, as well
as those who've agreed to be a part of the six-party talks, to
continue to send a unified message.'' 

Bush expressed support for a draft U.N. Security Council
resolution, backed by Japan, to sanction North Korea for its
seven missile tests, which included a long-range Taepodong-2
believed capable of reaching U.S. soil. 

China, North Korea's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, showed
little interest in sanctions, saying diplomacy was the only way
to resolve the dispute. 

It remained unclear how serious the divisions were at the United
Nations - and whether China and Russia would use their veto
power as permanent members of the Security Council to kill a
resolution, or simply abstain. 

Bush, trying to build consensus among his partners in the
stalled six-party talks with North Korea, was deep in telephone
diplomacy. He spoke Thursday with Chinese President Hu Jintao,
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Australian Prime Minister
John Howard. On Wednesday, he had called the leaders of South
Korea and Japan. 

``My message was that we want to solve this problem
diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem
diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert,'' Bush
said. 

U.S. officials say they don't know why North Korea decided to
launch the missiles, and can't read the mind of its reclusive
leader, Kim Jong Il. But Bush said the United States cannot
afford to misjudge the situation. 

``There's not a lot of light shining in there,'' Bush said of
North Korea. ``And so we take his statements very seriously.
He's kind of declared himself to be a nuclear power.'' 

North Korea test-fired seven missiles this week in defiance of
warnings from the United States, Japan and China. The firings
included the long-range Taepodong-2, which failed 42 seconds
after liftoff, and splashed into the Sea of Japan with rest of
the short- to medium-range missiles. 

North Korea threatened to test-fire more missiles, and it warned
of ``stronger physical actions in other forms'' if nations
opposing the tests pressured Pyongyang too hard. 

The foreign ministry said that it was North Korea's sovereign
right to test missiles, and that the launches were part of
regular military drills. 

Asked for an assessment of Kim Jong Il, who has been described
in the West in unflattering terms, Bush chose instead to
describe North Korea as a closed society. 

``We do know there's a lot of concentration camps,'' he said.
``We do know that people are starving. As a matter of fact, our
nation has tried to help feed the hungry. But what we don't know
is his (Kim's) intentions.'' 

Pentagon officials said Thursday that the very brief flight of
the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful
technical data, such as its intended target, its payload and
even whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile. At this
point, U.S. officials are leaning toward the theory that it was
configured as a space launch to deliver a satellite into orbit,
rather than as a flight test of a ballistic missile. 

On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
plans to visit South Korea later this month for talks on the
missile tests. 

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei is heading to Pyongyang
with a high-level delegation to celebrate the 45th anniversary
of a friendship treaty between China and North Korea. Before he
goes, Wu will sit down on Friday with chief U.S. nuclear
negotiator Christopher Hill who also is making stops in the
region. 

At the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton tried to play
down any friction between the nations addressing the Korean
situation. 

``There may be disagreement at the moment over the vehicle that
we use here in the council, but no one speaks in favor of North
Korea. No one takes the North Korean line,'' Bolton said. 

Japan's draft resolution would prohibit any nation from
transferring funds, material and technology that could be used
in North Korea's missile or weapons of mass destruction
programs. 

China, which is an economic lifeline to North Korea by providing
it trade, aid and oil, doesn't want to push its neighbor too
hard. Beijing worries that if the communist government fails,
North Korean refugees would stream into China or that the North
would be unified with South Korea, which is strongly allied with
the United States. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned against
threatening North Korea with sanctions that would only bring a
hostile response. Russia wants the U.N. Security Council to pass
a nonbinding statement with the goal of getting North Korea back
into six-party talks. 

South Korea condemned the missile tests and called for patient
dialogue with North Korea, rather than sanctions. 

White House press secretary Tony Snow said not to expect any
quick resolution of the nuclear standoff with North Korea. 

``This is not like a sitcom, it doesn't wrap up in 30 minutes
and come to a neat, happy conclusion,'' Snow said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Calls World Leaders About N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 3:01 PM
 	
AP Photo WHCD113 
By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, seeking a united stand against
North Korea, called the leaders of China and Russia on Thursday
as he stepped up pressure on communist regime in Pyongyang to
stop its missile tests and nuclear weapons programs. 

The calls to Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President
Vladimir Putin followed phone conversations Wednesday evening
with the leaders of South Korea and Japan, the White House said. 

Bush stressed the need for a unified response in the United
Nations and elsewhere to the North's missile tests, the White
House said in a statement after the first two calls. Bush also
said he seeks a diplomatic solution through the six-party talks,
which had sought to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions
but were suspended last fall. 

The administration brushed off blustering warnings from North
Korea, including a new threat to test-fire additional missiles. 

``We're certainly not going to overreact ... to these wild
statements out of Pyongyang and North Korea,'' said
Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns. ``We've seen them
before.'' 

The North Korean Foreign Ministry, in a statement carried by the
state-run Korean Central News Agency, insisted that the
communist state had the right to missile tests and argued the
weapons were needed for defense. 

On Tuesday, the country launched several missiles, including a
long-range Taepodong-2 missile - the object of intense
international attention for more than a month - that failed 42
seconds after liftoff, suggesting a catastrophic failure of the
rocket's first, or booster, stage. 

That heartened U.S. officials, since an earlier version of the
missile - last tested in 1998 - failed later in its flight,
apparently due to a third-stage malfunction. A working version
of the intercontinental missile, with a top range of 5,000 to
7,500 miles, could potentially reach the United States with a
light payload. 

``One thing we have learned is that the rocket didn't stay up
for very long,'' Bush said Wednesday. ``It tumbled into the
sea.'' 

The South Korean press reported Thursday that the North had
three or four short- or medium-range missiles on launch pads
ready for firing. 

Burns, asked on a round of morning television news shows about
North Korea's latest threat, said, ``I think the North Koreans
would like to pit the United States against themselves in a
one-on-one battle of wills. We're not going to fall for that.'' 
Instead, Burns said, the U.S. would work to muster international
pressure on North Korea to ``cease and desist'' such actions. 

``We are much stronger, frankly, from a diplomatic standpoint,
and much better off if we have a wide of countries working
together and sending the same message to the North Koreans,''
Burns told CNN. 

Russia and China, which have bargained alongside the United
States to end North Korea's nuclear program, said only diplomacy
could halt the isolated regime's nuclear and rocket development
programs. 

Japan, within range of proven North Korean missiles, circulated
a Security Council resolution that would ban any country from
transferring funds, material and technology that could be used
in North Korea's missile and weapons of mass destruction
programs. 

China, the North's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, favor a
weaker council statement with no threat of sanctions. Both
countries hold veto power on the council. 

North Korea, which has proclaimed itself a nuclear weapons
state, has said sanctions would amount to a declaration of war. 
The Bush administration declined to speculate Wednesday on the
motivation or objectives of a North Korean regime it describes
gingerly as ``opaque.'' 

Still, the United States assumes the launch was part of
Pyongyang's drive to accumulate both nuclear weapons and the
means to deliver them beyond the Korean Peninsula. 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that U.S.
interest in the launch goes beyond its possible reach to the
American continent, because of alliances with South Korea and
Japan. 

``The fact that it failed is a fact, but it does not change the
nature of the launch,'' Rumsfeld said. 

Bush said the failure does not diminish the need to push North
Korea to give up its weapons program, and the administration
repeatedly called on the North to return to stalled
international talks. 

The talks produced a breakthrough agreement last September that
would give North Korea economic rewards in exchange for
dismantling existing weapons and swearing off new ones. North
Korea walked away from the talks in December after the United
States imposed sanctions it says are unrelated to the nuclear
deal. 

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead U.S.
negotiator at the talks, said Pyongyang may wait a few days to
issue any explanation for the launch. That is what the regime
did in 1998, when it stunned the world by sending a missile over
northern Japan. The North had abided by a voluntary test
moratorium since then. 

``Their motivation is hard to fathom,'' Hill said in an
interview with The Associated Press. ``They may have thought
this would increase their bargaining power, but it does not.'' 

      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: Bush: U.S. Wants Diplomacy With N. Korea
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 5:46 PM
 	
AP Photo WHCD101 
By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Thursday that the United
States is seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff
with North Korea, but cautioned that diplomacy will take time. 

Bush said he was pleased that leaders of China, South Korea,
Japan and Russia, in telephone calls during the past few days,
agreed that the reclusive communist regime should not be allowed
to possess nuclear weapons. 

``My message was that we want to solve this problem 
diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem 
diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert,'' Bush 
said. 

Bush said the nations' message to Kim Jong Il was, ``We expect
you to adhere to international norms. We expect you to keep your
word.'' 

He said that what's important is that the international
community speak with one voice. 

``Diplomacy takes a while,'' he said, ``We're spending time,
diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified.'' 

``Let's send a common message that you won't be rewarded for
ignoring the world and that you'll be isolated if you continue
to do this and yet there's a way forward,'' Bush said. 

At the United Nations, there were differences over a
Japanese-backed draft resolution to sanction North Korea. U.S.
Ambassador John Bolton said the measure had ``broad and deep
support,'' but Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador told The
Associated Press that Moscow would not back sanctions, as the
resolution calls for. 

Instead, Russia wants the council to pass a nonbinding
presidential statement with the goal of getting North Korea back
into six-party talks on its nuclear program. 

While agreeing that North Korea's missile tests were a
provocative act, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who
appeared with Bush at the news conference, said Canada was not
ready to reopen discussions about joining the U.S. missile
shield. 

The shield involves basing missiles capable of taking out
incoming missiles launched by terrorists or rogue states -
although the system isn't designed to foil a mass attack by a
major power. 

Opponents of the missile scheme - including Canada's former
Prime Minister Paul Martin - say it won't work and risks kicking
off a new international arms race. Bush said he did not broach
the issue with Harper. 

``I didn't bring it up,'' Bush said. ``I figured if he was
interested, he would tell me.'' 

Bush said the more isolated North Korea becomes, the bigger the
threat is to the world. 

``It's hard for me to tell you what's on his mind,'' Bush said.

``This is a very closed society. We do know there are a lot of
concentration camps. We do know people are starving. 

``I think what we have to do is plan for the worst and hope for
the best.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: China Says It Has Little Leverage on North
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 6:01 PM
 	
AP Photo BEJ102 

By CHARLES HUTZLER Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING (AP) - When North Korea fired a volley of missiles this
week, it not only defied warnings from longtime enemies the
United States and Japan, it also spurned the pleas of its chief
benefactor - China. 

For a country that is North Korea's stalwart diplomatic
protector and economic lifeline, providing the North with trade,
lots of aid and all of its oil, China seemingly has little pull
with its neighbor and ally of 55 years. 

``China sends oil, grain and other assistance to North Korea.

But aid isn't a weapon if it's not used as a weapon,'' said
Zhang Liangui, a North Korea watcher at China's Central Party
School, a training academy for the communist elite. ``And China
doesn't contemplate using aid as a weapon, so its influence is
very poor.'' 

As U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill returns to
the region Friday and another furious round of regional
diplomacy unfolds, pressure is building on China to keep North
Korea from destabilizing a region vital to the interests of the
United States and its allies. 

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Wednesday urged
China ``to use that leverage, to apply it and encourage a change
of behavior in the North Korean regime.'' 

Beijing, however, is resisting, saying that while it condemns
the missile tests, it prefers to cajole rather than threaten or
punish Pyongyang. In the U.N. Security Council, China has called
for more diplomacy and so far refused to endorse a threat of
sanctions backed by Japan, Britain and the United States. 

Behind Beijing's reluctance is a hard-nosed calculation of
Chinese interests. Though relations between the Korean War
allies have been strained for decades, China feels less
threatened by North Korea's behavior than Tokyo and Washington
do. 

Beijing prefers a weak and unpredictable North Korea to the
likely alternatives: an implosion that would send North Koreans
streaming into China or a unified Korea under a South Korea
allied to the U.S. 

Still, Pyongyang's actions put Beijing in a bind between those
interests and a pressing need to allay concerns in the U.S. and
elsewhere about how an economically strong and rising China will
use its new power. 

``This is an important test of Chinese diplomacy and whether
Beijing is ready to play a responsible role even when its
comrade in arms makes bad choices,'' said Bonnie Glaser, a China
specialist at the Center for International and Strategic Studies
in Washington. 

After the terror attacks on New York and Washington in 2001,
China rallied to the U.S. side, deciding that playing a low-key
role would allow it to focus on its primary goal: economic
development. But as its economic might increased, China embraced
governments in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America at odds
with Washington, raising concerns about Chinese intentions. 

A failure by China to restrain North Korea and get Pyongyang to
resume negotiations over its nuclear program could solidify
suspicions in the Bush administration. 

``It's a headache for China's leaders,'' said Jin Canrong, an
international affairs expert at Renmin University in Beijing.
``Usually, like on the Iran issue, China can hide behind Russia.

But this time on North Korea, there's no escape.'' 

In recent days when North Korea placed a long-range Taepodong-2
rocket on a launching platform, China pleaded with Pyongyang to
back down. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly urged North Korea
to desist. Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei summoned North Korea's
ambassador to Beijing last Friday. 

In the wake of the missile launchings, China said Thursday that
Wu will be heading to Pyongyang with a high-level delegation to
celebrate the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between
the countries. 

Before he goes, Wu sits down with his U.S. counterpart, Hill, on
Friday to discuss options for getting North Korea to cease
missile tests and resume the nuclear negotiations. 

But with China having removed its trade, aid and other economic
ties as leverage, Beijing has few options other than diplomacy
for dealing with Pyongyang, Chinese analysts said. 

``China's unhappy, but what can it do? Fight?'' said Cui
Yingjiu, a retired professor at Peking University and a former
classmate of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's in the 1960s.

``If South Korea and China join Japan and the United States,
North Korea would collapse. What good would that be for China?
No good at all.''	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Vows to Continue Missile Launches
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 1:16 PM
 	
AP Photo TOK801 
By KWANG-TAE KIM Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - A defiant North Korea on Thursday
threatened to test-fire more missiles and warned of even
stronger action if opponents of the tests put pressure on the
country, amid signs of further activity at the reclusive
regime's launch sites. 

The Bush administration dismissed what it called ``wild
statements'' from North Korea and pressed for international
efforts to get the secretive communist regime to ``cease and
desist'' such actions. 

``We're certainly not going to overreact ... to these wild
statements out of Pyongyang and North Korea,'' said
Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns. ``We've seen them before.'' 

The further show of bravado by Pyongyang came amid intense
diplomatic jockeying by the United States and its allies to prod
the U.N. Security Council to take stern action against the
North's seven missile tests on Wednesday. 

The North Korean Foreign Ministry, in a statement carried by the
state-run Korean Central News Agency, insisted that the
communist state had the right to missile tests and argued the
weapons were needed for defense. 

``The successful missile launches were part of our military's
regular military drills to strengthen self-defense,'' the
statement said. ``As a sovereign country, this is our legal
right and we are not bound by any international law or bilateral
or multilateral agreements.'' 

The statement did not mention the apparent failure of the most
advanced missile fired on Wednesday, the long-range Taepodong-2,
which security officials say aborted less than a minute after
takeoff. 

The ministry also appeared to confirm mounting fears in South
Korea that the North was preparing for further launches. South
Korean officials said intelligence showed continued activity at
Northern missile sites, though at least one official said
another launch was not imminent. 

Pyongyang vowed to retaliate against efforts to interfere with
the launches, but it did not specify what it would do. 

``Our military will continue with missile launch drills in the
future as part of efforts to strengthen self-defense deterrent.
If anyone intends to dispute or add pressure about this, we will
have to take stronger physical actions in other forms,'' the
statement said. 

At the United Nations, splits emerged among the critics of the
North's testing program. China, the North's closest ally, and
Russia, which has been trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties
with Pyongyang, said only diplomacy could halt North Korea's
nuclear and rocket development programs. 

Japan, within range of North Korean missiles, circulated a U.N.
Security Council resolution Wednesday that would ban any country
from transferring funds, material and technology that could be
used in North Korea's missile and weapons of mass destruction
programs. 

China and Russia countered that they favor a weaker council
statement without any threat of sanctions. Both countries hold
veto power on the council. 

Council experts were to meet again Thursday morning and council
ambassadors may then meet in the afternoon to review progress,
the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because
the session was closed. 

In a bid to coordinate strategy, President Bush held separate
telephone talks Thursday morning with the leaders of Japan and
South Korea to consult on the North, but with differing results. 

Japanese officials said Tokyo and Washington agreed to push for
sanctions against Pyongyang, while South Korean officials said
they agreed only to cooperate in diplomacy, with no mention of
punishing North Korea. 

Chief U.S. nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill was to head to
the region this week. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
also planned to visit South Korea in late July for talks on
North Korea, South Korea's Foreign Ministry said. 

In addition, China's Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei will travel
to North Korea next week to urge a return to the stalled
six-party nuclear disarmament talks, the ministry said. 

The report also said that Wu had proposed bilateral U.S.-North
Korean talks, and said the missile launches were probably in
reaction to a U.S. crackdown on alleged North Korean
counterfeiting, money-laundering and other wrongdoing. 

The missiles, all of which apparently fell harmlessly into the
sea, provoked international condemnation, the convening of an
emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and calls in
Japan for economic sanctions. Japan's ruling party was set to
give rapid consideration to a bill to impose the sanctions, but
the measure would not be implemented until a fall session of
parliament. 

South Korean media reported Thursday, meanwhile, that North
Korea has three or four more missiles on launch pads and ready
for firing. The North has also barred people from sailing into
some areas off the coast until July 11 in a possible sign of
preparations for additional launches, Chosun Ilbo newspaper
said. 

South Korea's National Intelligence Service ``is closely
watching the situation by keeping in mind that North Korea could
fire a missile after repairing a technical defect,'' Choi
Jun-taek, a senior official at the agency, told the National
Assembly, according to agency spokesman Choi Jae-kun. The
spokesman, however, said another missile test isn't imminent,
adding it will take time for the country to repair the glitches. 

The Japanese government also said there were no immediate signs
of long-range missile launch. 

Despite the rise in tensions, South Korean officials said they
had no plans to abandon their strategy of attempting to forge
stronger ties with Pyongyang. While Seoul condemned the missile
tests, it has also called for ``patient dialogue'' rather than
sanctions in response. 

Bush has urged world leaders to stand united in demanding that
North Korea give up its nuclear weapons program, saying the
communist nation remains a threat even though its long-range
missile faltered. The U.S. administration said North Korea's
barrage of seven test missiles further walled off the reclusive
nation from the rest of the world. 

``One thing we have learned is that the rocket didn't stay up
very long and tumbled into the sea, which doesn't, frankly,
diminish my desire to solve this problem,'' Bush said. 

--- 
Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer and Nick Wadhams at
the United Nations and Hiroko Tabuchi in Tokyo contributed to
this report. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: Pyongyang faces united criticism at UN meeting 

Japanese resolution calls for sanctions and block on funds and
technology 

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Justin McCurry in Tokyo
and Jonathan Watts in Beijing

Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian 		 

South Koreans look at displays of North Korea's Scud-B missile
and other missiles at the Korea war memorial museum in Seoul.
Photograph: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty
   

 North Korea faced united condemnation of its missile tests at
the UN security council yesterday, with the US and Japan
pressing for a strong response to the launch of seven missiles
in 24 hours.

In an emergency session convened after North Korea launched the
missiles, including a long-range weapon that failed seconds
after lift-off, Japan asked security council members to endorse
a call for Pyongyang to halt missile development and its nuclear
programme.
 			 		 			 			Article continues
The draft resolution also urged North Korea to return to
six-party negotiations without pre-conditions.

"We hope that the response of the council will be swift, strong
and resolute," said Kenzo Oshima, Japan's ambassador to the UN.
Among the measures sought by Japan were a ban on the transfer of
technology and funds that could contribute to North Korea's
missile programme or other weapons of mass destruction.

Japan has already imposed sanctions on North Korea, cancelling a
weekly ferry and charter flights and South Korea said it would
withhold 500,000 tonnes of rice Pyongyang had sought this year.

In Washington, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, warned
Pyongyang could face further penalties for defying warnings
against missile tests.

"The international community does have at its disposal a number
of tools to make it more difficult for North Korea to engage in
this kind of brinksmanship and to engage in the continued
pursuit of its nuclear weapons programmes," she told reporters.

But hopes of maintaining a tough and united front to what the
Bush administration has described as a "provocation" were
tempered by the awareness that there was limited support for the
ultimate censure - a security council resolution - from Russia
and China.

As North Korea's ally and neighbour, China has led international
negotiations aimed at resolving North Korea's nuclear stand-off.

The latest provocation is a slap in the face for the China's
prime minister, Wen Jiabao, who last week warned North Korea not
to raise tension in the region.

In a statement from Beijing, China called on all sides to
maintain restraint, and avoid actions that would "add to
tensions and further complicate the situation".

However, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the UN, told
reporters: "If all council members feel that some appropriate
action is needed by the council, we will see."

Despite those signs of reluctance, the US ambassador to the UN,
John Bolton, said he believed that the security council would
manage to craft a unanimous response to the missile tests,
underlining North Korea's isolation.

"I think there is support for sending a clear signal to
Pyongyang, and we'll proceed to see if we can't get that done in
the next few days," he said.

The measured tones were a departure from the harsh rhetoric the
White House has employed in the past towards North Korea. US
officials said yesterday they believed that North Korea was
trying to prod Washington into direct negotiations after
six-party talks stalled last year.

North Korea has asked repeatedly for one-on-one meetings with US
officials, and for the release of funds in a Macao bank frozen
by the US Treasury.

Washington said it would not be drawn into a head-on
confrontation. "I view this as an opportunity to remind the
international community that we must work together to continue
to work hard to convince the North Korean leader to give up any
weapons programs," Mr Bush said in his first public comments on
the tests.

Yesterday's emergency session of the security council was called
after North Korea defied warnings from the US, Japan and China
to test fire its long-range Taepodong missile, as well as six
Scud-like missiles.

As North Korea underlined its disregard for international
opinion by the launch of a seventh missile yesterday morning,
speculation mounted that the country was about to conduct more
missile tests.

"We think they probably intend to launch more missiles in the
next day or two," Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign
minister, said after a conversation with Pyongyang's ambassador
to Australia.
 
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News Agency

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea defies critics over missiles
 
Justin McCurry in Tokyo

Thursday July 6, 2006

The Guardian             

A tourist walks past a display of North and South Korean
missiles at a war memorial in Seoul. Photograph: Chung
Sung-Jun/Getty Images
 
North Korea rounded on its critics in dramatic fashion on
Thursday, warning the US and Japan that it planned to
test-launch more missiles and would resort to "physical actions"
against any country that continued to pressure it to abandon its
missile programme. 

The secretive state acknowledged for the first time that it had
launched seven missiles on Wednesday in a move that had drawn
immediate condemnation from the US, Japan and Britain and
prompted an emergency meeting of the UN security council. The
missiles all landed harmlessly in the Sea of Japan. 

			 		 			 			Article continues
In comments reported by South Korea's Yonhap news agency, 
Pyongyang said the tests had been conducted in self-defence, and 
threatened unspecified measures against those who insisted it 
abandon the tests. 

"The successful missile test was part of a regular military
exercise conducted by our military to boost our self-defence," a
North Korean foreign ministry spokesman was quoted as saying.
"As a sovereign country, this is our legal right and we are not
bound by any international law or bilateral or multilateral
agreements. 

"Our military will continue with missile launch drills in the
future as part of efforts to strengthen self-defence deterrent.
If anyone tries to discuss the rights and wrongs about [future
tests] and apply pressure, we will be forced to take physical
actions of a different nature." 

The statement came after differences emerged among UN security
council members over how to respond to Wednesday's launches.
President George Bush and the Japanese prime minister, Junichiro
Koizumi, want the council to block the provision of funds,
materials and technology for Pyongyang's missile programme. But
Russia and China, longtime allies of the communist state, favour
a weaker statement that does not mention sanctions, measures
Pyongyang has said it would regard as a declaration of war. 

China will attempt to persuade North Korea to return to stalled
six-party talks on its nuclear weapons programme, last held in
Beijing in November. The vice foreign minister, Wu Daiwei,
reportedly told visiting Japanese politicians he would visit
North Korea soon to urge it to return to the talks, which
Pyongyang boycotted in response to a US crackdown on its alleged
counterfeiting and money laundering operations. 

Though it condemned the launches, South Korea said there was no
change in its policy of rapprochement towards the North. "There
is no change in the Sunshine policy," the unification minister,
Lee Jong-seok, told the national assembly. 

Seoul also warned that three or four missiles, thought to be
short and medium-range, were in position ready for firing,
though it did not provide a timeframe. 

Citing US sources, the NBC television network said the rockets
now in place could include a second Taepodong-2, a long-range
missile that some experts believe is capable of striking Alaska
and the West Coast of the US. On Wednesday, a Taepodong-2
malfunctioned and splashed down in the Sea of Japan 40 seconds
after launch. 

The Japanese government spokesman, Shinzo Abe, said Japan could
not rule out further launches of long-range missiles, but added:
"They are not prepared to launch another one right now." 

Japan, a potential target for North Korean missiles, said it
would ask the G8 group of rich countries to issue a statement
denouncing the tests when they meet in St Petersburg later this
month. 

Pressure is also mounting in Japan to impose unilateral
sanctions. The ruling Liberal Democratic party is reportedly
considering passing by the autumn a bill allowing Japan to adopt
a raft of punitive measures against North Korea, including
freezing private remittances from Japan to deprive the regime of
a major source of foreign currency. 

But the foreign minister, Taro Aso, said Tokyo would wait until
the UN had finished discussions on a Japanese resolution calling
for multilateral sanctions. "The issue now is the UN security
council's resolution," Mr Aso said. 

"No resolution was issued in 1998 [when North Korea launched a
Taepodong-1 missile over Japan], but we are pushing for a
resolution now because the situation has changed. I think it is
necessary for us to think about the next step based on the
content of the resolution." 

The country's defence agency said it would speed up efforts to
develop a missile shield with the US to protect it against a
possible attack by North Korea. "In addition to building
monitoring radar networks, we would like to cooperate with the
United States and put our joint missile interception into shape
as quickly as possible," Fukushiro Nukaga, the agency's chief,
told a parliamentary committee. 

Speculation that North Korea was about to test a long-range
missile led Tokyo last month to agree to host US Patriot
interceptor missiles for the first time, possibly by the end of
the year. 

In response to Wednesday's tests Japan barred North Korean
officials from entering Japan and banned a North Korean
passenger ferry from docking at Japanese ports for six months. 

Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News                                       
               Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC: N Korea vows more missile tests
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006
 
[2002 picture of Taepodong-type missile]

The Taepodong-2 test-firing failed shortly after take-off
		
North Korea has confirmed that it has test-fired a series of 
missiles and said it would continue launching them. 

It also warned of "stronger physical actions" if the 
international community tried to put pressure on Pyongyang. 

The North launched seven missiles, one of which was a failed test 
of a long-range Taepodong-2, believed to be capable of hitting 
Alaska. 

The UN Security Council resumed debate on Thursday on a draft 
resolution in response to the launches. 

Map of North Korean missile ranges                               

The document, co-sponsored by the US, UK and Japan, calls for 
sanctions against North Korea, but differences in approach are 
already emerging among key powers. 

	
Tests of this kind cannot considered normal Vladimir Putin 
Russian President In quotes: Putin webcast                                

Japan is reportedly pushing for economic sanctions while China
and Russia - sympathetic to the North - oppose any punitive
measures. 

But Russian President Vladimir Putin said the test launches were
"disappointing", and stressed the need to resume diplomatic
talks. 

Speaking on a webcast for the BBC, and Russian website
Yandex.com, Mr Putin said concern over the tests "should not
drown out common sense". 

He added that it was "practically impossible" for the North to
build a missile capable of striking targets 6,000km (3,700
miles) away, with its current level of technology. 

Who stands where?                                                                       World press reaction                    
S Koreans fear more missiles                            

US envoy Christopher Hill is travelling to the region to discuss
the next steps, and a senior Chinese negotiator is heading to
Pyongyang next week aiming to kick-start negotiations. 

In a statement reported by South Korean media, the North made
its first public acknowledgement on Thursday that it had
recently test-fired missiles. 

It described the tests as successful - even though the
long-range Taepodong-2 failed shortly after take-off. The
missiles all landed in the Sea of Japan. 

The launches were part of "regular military drills to strengthen
self-defence", the North's foreign ministry said in a statement
carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. 

"Our military will continue with missile launch drills in the
future," it added, insisting such action was "our legal right". 

South Korean media reported on Thursday that there were three or
four more missiles waiting on North Korean launch pads, although
they were not thought to be long-range. 

International divide 

US President George W Bush has stressed the US's commitment to
six-party talks and the need for the international community to
"speak with one voice". 

The message to Kim Jong-il should be: "There is a better way
forward for you than isolating yourself," he said. 

He said the US took the North Korean's leader's statements "very
seriously" and did not know what North Korea's intentions were. 

"We need to plan for the worst and hope for the best," he said. 

NORTH KOREAN MISSILE MOVES               

1998: Test long-range Taepodong-1 over Japan 
1999: Agrees to moratorium on long-range tests 
2003: Six-nation talks begin on N Korea's nuclear programme 
2005: Six-nation talks stall July 
2006: N Korea launches seven missiles, including long-range 
Taepodong-2, which fails N Korea's missile programme                             

He has already spoken to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro 
Koizumi and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in an effort to 
reach a consensus. 

There are, however, obvious differences between the parties 
involved. 

Tokyo - one of North Korea's harshest critics, and in easy reach 
of its missiles - has led regional condemnation of the launches 
and supports sanctions. 

But South Korean officials have only agreed to co-operate in 
diplomacy, with Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok calling for 
"patient dialogue". 

North Korea's closest allies China and Russia are also extremely 
unlikely to back sanctions. 

The last time North Korea tested a long-range missile was in 
1998, when it launched a Taepodong-1 over northern Japan. 

*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: China to send chief nuclear negotiator to NKorea 

  Thursday July 6, 09:41 AM 
      
 BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - China said it would send its chief
negotiator on the North Korean nuclear issue to Pyongyang next
week while stressing that it was making 'unremitting efforts' to
resolve the crisis.

 Deputy foreign minister Wu Dawei will travel to Pyongyang on
Monday as part of a delegation to attend celebrations for the
45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the two
countries, foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said.

 Jiang announced last week that Vice Premier Hui Liangyu would
lead the delegation from July 10 to 15, although today was the
first time the government had said Wu would attend.

 Wu is China's chief delegate to the six-nation talks on North
Korea's nuclear program that began in August 2003.

 'China is making unremitting efforts to resolve this issue
through peaceful dialogue,' Jiang told a regular briefing.

 'The six-party talks have got the recognition of the
international community as a peaceful way to resolve the issue
through dialogue.

 'China believes this is an effective way to resolve the North
Korean issue,' Jiang said.
   

 Copyright � 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: Sanctions on NKorea would stymie 6-party talks - Russian envoy
    
  Thursday July 6, 12:18 PM 

 TOKYO (XFN-ASIA) - Slapping sanctions on North Korea would
undermine efforts to bring the secluded state back to six-way
talks on its nuclear program, the Russian ambassador to Japan
was quoted by Jiji Press as saying.

 Imposing sanctions would make it 'impossible for North Koreans
to return to the table of the six-nation negotiations' on its
nuclear arms development programs, Alexander Losyukov was quoted
as telling reporters.

 However, the report said he expressed 'deep concerns' over
Pyongyang's test-firing of seven missiles, including a
long-range Taepodong-2, in Japan's direction.

 Losyukov said the Group of Eight industrial nations will talk
about the issue at a summit to be held in Saint Petersburg,
Russia, on July 15-17.

 'It will be discussed at the summit and included in the (G8)
statement,' Losyukov said.

 Russia, along with China, is opposing a draft UN Security
Council resolution prepared by Japan and the United States
calling for sanctions against Pyongyang.
   
 Copyright � 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
 26 New York Times: Few Good Choices in North Korean Standoff - 

By Published: July 6, 2006 			 

The Bush administration has tried to ignore , then, reluctantly,
to engage it, and then to squeeze its bankers in a manner
intended to make the country's leader, , personally feel the
pinch. 

President Bush has frequently expressed his dislike for Kim Jong
Il and North Korea's government. 

Yet none of these steps in the past six years has worked. So
now, after a barrage of missile launchings by North Korea,
President Bush and his national security advisers found
themselves on Wednesday facing what one close aide described as
an array of "familiar bad choices."

The choices have less to do with North Korea's newest missile �
which, as Mr. Bush pointed out on Wednesday, "didn't stay up
very long and tumbled into the sea" � than with the bigger
question of whether the president is prepared to leave office in
2009 without constraining an unpredictable dictator who boasts
about having a nuclear arsenal. 

"We're at the moment when the president has to decide whether he
wants an unconstrained, nuclear North Korea to be part of his
legacy," said Jonathan D. Pollack, a professor of Asian and
Pacific studies at the Naval War College who has spent much of
his career studying North Korea and its improbable strategies
for survival. 

"Until now, the attitude has been, 'If the North Koreans want to
stew in their own juices, let them,' " Mr. Pollack said. "But
it's becoming clear that Mr. Bush may leave office with the
North Korean problem much worse." 

Dealing with North Korea has frustrated every president since
Truman. But it has proved particularly vexing for Mr. Bush
because his administration has engaged in a six-year internal
argument about whether to negotiate with the country or try to
plot its collapse � it has sought to do both, simultaneously �
and because America's partners in dealing with North Korea each
have differing interests in North Korea's future. 

On Wednesday, rejecting pressure from the Bush administration,
and said they would not get behind an American drive to bring
sanctions against North Korea, saying they favored less punitive
actions. 

It was the latest disappointment in a string of attempts to
enlist China to help moderate the North. Still, answering
questions on Wednesday, Mr. Bush expressed no interest in
dropping his objections to one-on-one talks with the North, a
government he once said he "detests."

Another alternative for Mr. Bush would be take a hard line that
might risk an escalation of the half-century-old confrontation
between the United States and North Korea. But such a tack is
now complicated by the widespread assumption that even if the
North does not have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon, it
now probably possesses enough extra nuclear fuel that it may be
tempted to sell some to a terrorist group or another state. 

That is Mr. Bush's biggest concern, and late last year the
ordered a study of the likelihood that Mr. Kim, in his effort to
seek attention or gain negotiating leverage, would threaten to
do it. The results, according to a senior administration
official who would not speak for attribution about intelligence
matters, were inconclusive. 

But so far the North has only dared to offer reminders, like the
test firings while Americans were celebrating the Fourth of
July, that it possesses weapons that could destroy Seoul or
threaten Japan, including American forces based there. The
launchings were only the second time that North Korea had tested
an intercontinental-range missile that, depending on whose
numbers one believes, could eventually hit the United States.
(The last such test launching was in 1998, and as Anthony H.
Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies
put it Wednesday, "both failed dismally.")

To many experts, the missile tests fit into a pattern: whenever
Mr. Kim has concluded that he was not getting attention to his
demands, he has staged a crisis. His father, Kim Il Sung, did so
in 1994, and won an agreement from the Clinton administration
that later fell apart. Kim Jong Il did so in 2003, as American
troops were flowing toward Iraq, when North Korea threw out
international inspectors and reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear
fuel rods into what the says is enough bomb-grade material for
six or more weapons. 

At that time, top Pentagon officials briefed Mr. Bush on his
military options, including bombing the North's nuclear
facilities. "It didn't take very long," one official deeply
involved in that briefing said, "because it was pretty clear
there wasn't an acceptable military option � or at least, a risk
anyone was willing to take."

But Mr. Bush came to office appearing to have already determined
that he would not negotiate, either. He often said that he
distrusted North Korea's government and detested how Mr. Kim
treated the North Korea people. In the first months of his
presidency, he refused to endorse "sunshine policy" of luring
North Korea out of its shell with economic incentives. Yet the
isolation strategy ultimately failed: North Korea kept producing
plutonium.

Mr. Bush then reversed course, reluctantly agreeing to engage
with the North Koreans at a distance, through six-nation talks
convened by China and joined by Japan, South Korea and Russia.
An agreement in principle was reached in September, calling for
disarmament for security guarantees and eventual aid, but with
no timetable. Even before the ink was dry, the North Koreans
were interpreting it differently than the other signatories were.

Mr. Bush has most recently bet that China would eventually tire
of the North Korean antics and enforce some discipline. Mr. Bush
repeated that he and , China's former leader, had agreed that a
nuclear North Korea was "unacceptable." But the reality,
administration officials acknowledge, is that China fears a
collapsed and chaotic North Korea more than it fears a
nuclear-armed North Korea. 

That could change now. The Chinese warned the North Koreans not
to fire the missiles; the fact that Mr. Kim dismissed that
warning is bound to anger China's leaders.

But so far, Mr. Bush has not been able to harness his partners
into coordinated pressure on the North. If that changes soon, at
the and around the world, it could be that the president will
finally have a way forward. 

NYTimes.com

*****************************************************************
 27 AFP: Bush backs NKorea sanctions but seeks consensus - 

 Thu Jul 6, 1:41 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush " /> said he was 
pleased with early reactions from key US partners to North Korea 
" /> 's missile barrage but warned that forging a unified 
response would take time. 

In a public appearance after talks with Canadian Prime Minister 
Stephen Harper, Bush emphasized that he sought a diplomatic 
solution to the crisis and reiterated US support for a Japanese 
draft UN resolution calling for sanctions.
 
"One way to send a message is through the United Nations " /> . 
And the Japanese laid down a resolution which we support. But 
we're working with our partners to make sure we speak with one 
voice," said the president.
 
The draft measure, co-sponsored by the United States and
Britain, would urge UN member states to prevent the transfer of
financial resources, items, goods and technology that could
contribute to Pyongyang's missile program and other weapons of
mass destruction programs.
 
After telephone discussions with leaders of China, Japan, Russia
and South Korea
" /> , Bush declared: "I was pleased from the response I got
from the leaders. They, like me, are concerned."
 
But Bush, facing opposition from veto-wielding UN Security
Council members Russia and China to any sanctions against
Pyongyang, cautioned that it would take time to cement what he
described as a critical international consensus.
 
"Diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you're dealing with
a variety of partners. And so, we're spending time
diplomatically making sure that voice is unified," he said.
"These problems won't be solved overnight."
 
Asked to assess how much of a threat North Korean leader Kim
Jong-il posed to international security, Bush said it was hard
to say because "what we don't know is his intentions."
 
"And so I think we've got to plan for the worst and hope for the
best," he said. "And planning for the worst means to make sure
that we continue to work with friends and allies as well as
those who've agreed to be a part of the six-party talks, to
continue to send a unified message."
 
In the past, Bush has said that any action against North Korea
would require consensus, a reflection, according to aides, that
permanent UN Security Council members Russia and China could
block any UN resolution with their vetos.
 
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Bush had not raised
the issue of sanctions in his telephone conversations with 
Chinese President Hu Jintao " /> or Russian President Vladimir 
Putin " /> .
 
But Snow acknowledged that there was not yet a "unified front"
among Washington's partners in the stalled six-party talks aimed
at ending the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons programs.
 
And Bush himself said: "I was on the phone this morning saying
as clearly as I could to our fellow partners, four other
leaders, to say, 'Let's send a common message that you won't be
rewarded for ignoring the world and that you'll be isolated if
you continue to do this, and yet there's a way forward.'"
 

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 28 New York Times: North Korea Vows to Continue Missile Tests - 

By NORIMITSU ONISHIPublished: July 6, 2006 			 

SEOUL, South Korea, July 6 � North Koreadeclared today that it
will continue to test-fire missiles, and vowed to resist with
force if other nations tried to stop it, even as it acknowledged
for the first time that it had launched seven missiles the day
before.

 Pool photo by Dmitry Astakhov 

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia answered questions during
an online conference in the Kremlin today. 

Video: U.N. Condemns Missile Test

 Korea News Service, via Reuters 

President Bush has frequently expressed his dislike for Kim Jong
Il and North Korea's government. 

Responding to international condemnation with characteristic
defiance and vagueness, North Korea said that the launchings of
the seven missiles, including the new intercontinental Taepodong
2, had been "routine military exercises" designed to raise the
nation's "capacity for self-defense."

In a statement attributed to the North Korean foreign ministry
and released on its official KCNA news agency, the North stated
that it "will have no option but to take stronger physical
actions of other forms, should any other country dare take issue
with the exercises and put pressure upon it."

The North issued its warning as the American and Japanese
diplomats tried with mixed success to gather international
support for a United Nations Security Councilresolution drafted
by Japan, threatening sanctions if the North does not dismantle
its nuclear program. 

President Bush called the leaders of China and Russia today,
seeking a unified response against the test firings. But China
and Russia, each a permanent member of the United Nations
Security Council with a veto over its actions, said they opposed
taking punitive measures against North Korea.

At a White House appearance with Prime Minister Stephen Harper
of Canada, Mr. Bush played down American differences with Moscow
and Beijing. 

"You know, diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you're
dealing with a variety of partners, and so we're spending time
diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified," the
president said. "Let's send a common message: You won't be
rewarded for ignoring the rest of the world." 

Still, China and Russia gave little sign today that they were
willing to consider sanctions. "We think the Security Council
should make a necessary response, but the response should be
helpful to maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula
and should help diplomatic efforts," Jiang Yu, the spokeswoman
for the Chinese foreign ministry, said in a news conference in
Beijing.

Asked whether China � the North's biggest trading partner and
aid donor � was considering cutting aid as a result of the
tests, Ms. Jiang said, "At present we are not taking this aspect
into consideration."

In Moscow, President Vladimir V. Putinsaid he was disappointed
by the test firings, but added that North Korea was correct to
say it had the legal right to conduct them. 

North Korea said it was no longer bound by past moratoriums on
the test firing of missiles because the United States and Japan
had broken previous agreements.

In its statement, the North said Wednesday's missile launchings
were successful. Experts said, however, that the Taepodong 2
failed just 42 seconds after takeoff. 

North Korea's continued defiance appears intended to press the
United States into direct talks with North Korea, analysts and
politicians said. The country has demanded that Washington stop
cracking down on banks that do business with North Korea, and
has twice invited Christopher R. Hill, the assistant secretary
of state for East Asia and the main negotiator with North Korea,
to visit Pyongyang.For its part, Washington wants the stalled
six-nation talks over the North's nuclear program, which include
Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, to be revived
instead, and it has refused to meet bilaterally with North Korea
on the issue.

"These actions by North Korea are an act of defiance meant to
remind the U.S. that to ignore it comes at a price," said Peter
Beck, director of Northeast Asia at the International Crisis
Group in Seoul.

"The tests may also have been intended to rally the North Korean
people, to justify the hardships that they are undergoing," Mr.
Beck said, adding that one of the biggest anti-American rallies
in years was held in Pyongyang last week.

At a National Assembly hearing here, South Korea's Defense
Minister, Yoon Kwang Ung, said that North Korea may fire
additional missiles. Mr. Yoon said he was basing his assessment
on "the traffic of equipment and personnel in and out of launch
sites."

The South Korean media reported Wednesday that North Korea has
three or four more mid-range missiles sitting on launch pads.
According to experts, North Korea is believed to have about 200
mid-range and 600 short-range missiles in all.

The missile launchings have drawn contrasting responses from
South Korea and Japan, America's two allies in the region.

Caught between its alliance with the United States and its
policy of engaging the North, South Korea condemned the tests
but appeared unlikely to impose more than a few very limited
penalties against the North.

 In the long term, few people here expect South Korea, which is
the North's second largest trading partner and aid donor after
China, to significantly alter its policy of engagement of the
North. What both China and South Korea fear almost as much as
military confrontation, experts say, is the sudden collapse of
the North Korean regime and a subsequent flood of millions of
refugees. At a National Assembly hearing, Lee Jong Seok, the
Minister of Unification, said that cabinet-level meetings
between the North and South will go ahead as scheduled next
week, and that economic joint ventures will proceed. Military
talks between the two Koreas are also scheduled for later this
month.

By contrast, Japan has taken a very tough stance. Fukushiro
Nukaga, the head of Japan's Defense Agency, told a parliamentary
committee today that Japan will step up its efforts to establish
a missile defense shield with the United States. 

"We would like to cooperate with the United States and put our
joint missile interception into shape as quickly as possible,"
Mr. Nukaga said.

John O'Neil reported from New York for this article, and Choe
Sang-Hungfrom Seoul.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 29 AFP: N.Korea threatens new missiles, warns of sanctions retaliation -
     
 by Shaun Tandon Thu Jul 6, 8:10 AM ET 
		 	 
SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea " /> has threatened to fire more 
missiles and warned of "all-out countermeasures" if the 
international community punished the impoverished state with new 
sanctions. 

As Japan and South Korea " /> remained on guard for more tests, 
the United States launched a diplomatic drive to further isolate 
Pyongyang but ran into opposition from China, North Korea's 
neighbor and main ally.
 
North Korea, in its first formal reaction to Wednesday's launch
of seven missiles, including a new long-range Taepodong-2, said
it was aiming to defend itself and did not violate any
international agreements.
 
"The latest successful missile launches were part of the routine
military exercises staged by the KPA (Korean People's Army) to
increase the nation's military capacity for self-defence," said
a foreign ministry statement.
 
"The KPA will go on with missile launch exercises as part of its
efforts to bolster deterrent for self-defence in the future,
too," it said.
 
Pyongyang, which last year declared it had nuclear weapons,
warned it "will have no option but to take stronger physical
actions of other forms, should any other country dare take issue
with the exercises and put pressure upon it."
 
It said it had security concerns in light of US President George 
W. Bush " /> 's 2002 grouping of North Korea with Iraq " /> and 
Iran " /> as an "axis of evil". Saddam Hussein " /> 's Iraq was 
invaded a year later.
 
The North warned specifically against sanctions by the United 
Nations " /> Security Council, which was set for a second day of 
discussions on a resolution.
 
"If sanctions are imposed, all-out countermeasures will be 
taken," North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, 
Han Song-Ryol, said in an interview with Japan's Tokyo 
Broadcasting System.
 
South Korean intelligence officials were quoted saying that the 
North was likely to carry out a second Taepodong-2 test after 
fixing technical problems that doomed the first one to crash into 
the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 
"We are watching the situation closely, judging that the North 
will certainly fire the second Taepodong-2 when these technical 
defects are fixed," Chung Hyung-Keun, an opposition Grand 
National Party lawmaker, quoted the National Intelligence Service 
as saying.
z The missile tests were seen by some analysts as a way for North 
Korea to seek one-on-one talks with the United States, whose 
attention has been focused in recent months on the nuclear drive 
of Iran.
 
But US leaders ridiculed the launch and tried to intensify 
international pressure on Pyongyang.
 
The Taepodong-2 "didn't stay up very long, it tumbled into the 
sea, which doesn't, frankly, diminish my desire to solve this 
problem," US President George W. Bush said. "We will hold them to 
account."
 
Bush spoke by telephone with South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun 
" /> and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whose 
countries are part of the stalled six-way talks on dismantling 
its nuclear program.
 
Bush said the five countries negotiating with Pyongyang "spoke 
with one voice about the rocket launches, and we will work 
together to continue to remind the leader of North Korea that 
there is a better way forward for his people."
 
However, China, the host of the six-way talks, offered only a 
softly-worded condemnation of the missile launches and, along 
with Russia, opposed a draft resolution at the United Nations 
calling for sanctions.
 
China said it was dispatching its top nuclear envoy to Pyongyang
next week, saying diplomacy -- not sanctions -- were the best
approach. 

"We think the Security Council should make a necessary response
but the response should be helpful to maintain peace and
stability on the Korean peninsula and should help diplomatic
efforts," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. 

The United States in turn dispatched its senior envoy on North
Korea, Christopher Hill, to Asia and he is due Friday in
Beijing. 

The UN draft resolution prepared by Japan and the United States
called for a ban on sending to Pyongyang financial resources,
items, goods and technology that could help it build missiles
and weapons of mass destruction. 

The United States has its own sanctions on North Korea, which
led Pyongyang in November to walk away from the six-nation talks
just two months after it reached a general agreement to give up
its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. 

The main provider of aid to the impoverished North has been South 
Korea, which is considering calling off a shipment of rice and 
other humanitarian aid after Pyongyang defied its appeals not to 
test.
 	 		 			
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 30 AFP: US urges action on North Korea as Security Council haggles -
    
 by Stephen Collinson Thu Jul 6, 5:07 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush " /> pressed for 
robust action against North Korea " /> , calling the leaders of 
China and Russia as the defiant Stalinist state threatened to 
fire off new missile tests. 

But despite a flurry of diplomacy, the UN Security Council, 
meeting for a second day over Pyongyang's seven previous missile 
launches, appeared little closer to agreeing to both condemn and 
punish North Korea.
 
Bush said he was "pleased" with the response to his telephone 
calls, after also speaking to South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun 
" /> and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi late 
Wednesday.
 
"The best way to solve the problem diplomatically is for all of
us to be working in concert and to send one message," Bush said.
 
"And that is -- to (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il -- ... 'we
expect you to adhere to international norms, and we expect you
to keep your word.'"
 
The White House admitted, however, there was as yet no joint
position on how to respond to tests which sparked condemnation,
but nuanced responses from major powers.
 
Experts from the 15 nation Security Council meanwhile searched
for consensus on a Japanese draft resolution urging financial
sanctions against Pyongyang.
 
But the session ended after two hours with China and Russia
still opposing punitive measures, diplomats said.
 
"Our position remains unchanged," Chinese UN delegate Li Junhua
told AFP after the two-hour meeting. "We need some flexible
signals from our Japanese colleagues."
 
US ambassador John Bolton had insisted before the talks that the
council would close ranks and pass a binding resolution
condemning the missile launches.
 
"The support remains really overwhelming to make a very strong
statement of condemnation of the North Korean missile launches
and to take strong effective measures in response," Bolton said.
 
The North earlier warned specifically against action by the
Security Council.
 
"If sanctions are imposed, all-out countermeasures will be
taken," North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations
" /> , Han Song-Ryol, said in an interview with Japan's Tokyo
Broadcasting System.
 
Bush's telephone diplomacy followed North Korea's first formal
statement since its missile volley Wednesday, which warned of
"all-out countermeasures" should it be hit with new economic
sanctions.
 
He cautioned that there would not be immediate results from his
intervention or the intense UN haggling.
 
"Diplomacy takes a while ...these problems won't be solved
overnight."
 
Bush's spokesman Tony Snow, also warned against expecting a
"snap resolution" saying diplomacy was not like a TV sitcom,
guaranteeing a "neat, happy" ending within 30 minutes. He
acknowledged differences remained between top powers.
 
"There are going to be a whole series of conversations. When
that is all put together, and when there's a unified front, then
you're going to hear from them, but right now it's
inappropriate." 

Hu told Bush that China -- the North's neighbor and main ally --
was "seriously concerned" about the situation but favored "calm
and restraint," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a
statement. 

"China was committed to maintaining peace and stability in the
Korean Peninsula and was opposed to any actions that might
intensify the situation," Hu told Bush, a day before senior US
envoy Christopher Hill was due in Beijing. 

Putin, who also spoke to Bush said Russia was "worried about the
situation, and said during an Internet question-and-answer
session broadcast on Russian television that "an atmosphere
needs to be created for reaching a compromise." 

Snow said that the issue of sanctions on North Korea was not
addressed in either conversation. 

North Korea's foreign ministry, earlier said Pyongyang "will go
on with missile-launch exercises as part of its efforts to
bolster deterrent for self-defence in the future." 

The isolated state, which last year declared it had nuclear
weapons, warned it "will have no option but to take stronger
physical actions of other forms, should any other country dare
take issue with the exercises and put pressure upon it." 

It said it had security concerns in light of Bush's 2002 grouping 
of North Korea with Iraq " /> and Iran " /> as an "axis of evil". 
Saddam Hussein " /> 's Iraq was invaded a year later. 

In Washington, senior State Department official Nicholas Burns 
warned on CBS television that the United States would not 
"overreact ... to these wild statements out of Pyongyang and 
North Korea." 

Burns also stepped up pressure on China: "they've got a lot of
influence ... so we're hoping that the Chinese will choose to
use that influence." 

"I think the North Koreans would like to pit the United States
against themselves in a one-on-one battle of wills. We're not
going to fall for that." 

South Korean intelligence officials were quoted saying that the
North was likely to carry out a second Taepodong-2 test after
fixing technical problems that doomed the first one to crash
into the Sea of Japan (East Sea). 

But several US officials doubted whether Pyongyang would quickly
risk another launch of the missile, which in theory could hit US
soil.
 	 		 			
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 31 AFP: UN weighs punitive response to North Korean missile tests -
    
 Thu Jul 6, 8:04 AM ET 
		 	 
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN Security Council members are to resume 
debating whether a draft resolution condemning North Korea " /> 
's missile launches should call for sanctions, even as Pyongyang 
threatened retaliation if it is punished. 

Drafted by Japan and the United States with support from Britain, 
the draft resolution contained a reference to punitive measures 
that raised stiff opposition from China and Russia before debate 
stopped late Wednesday without reaching an agreement.
 
Experts from the 15-member council have reported back to their
capitals for detailed instructions on how to proceed when
deliberations resume Thursday at 11 am (1500 GMT).
 
It was unclear how the council would react to North Korea's
boast that its missile launches had been "successful" exercises
aimed at defending itself, and threat to "retaliate with
stronger physical actions" if it is put under pressure.
 
North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations " /> , Han 
Song-Ryol, in an interview with Japan's Tokyo Broadcasting System 
in New York, warned: "If sanctions are imposed, all-out 
countermeasures will be taken."
 
The draft resolution condemns North Korea's test launch of seven 
missiles -- including a long-range Taepodong-2 capable of 
reaching US soil -- and called on the Stalinist state to 
immediately cease all missile testing, deployment and 
proliferation.
 
Despite such calls, NBC Television late Wednesday cited US 
officials as saying that preparations appeared under way in North 
Korea for another launch of a Taepodong-2.
 
The draft said UN member states should prevent the transfer of 
financial resources, items, goods and technology that could 
contribute to Pyongyang's missile "and other WMD" programs.
 
It also urged North Korea to immediately resume six-party talks 
involving China, Japan, Russia and South Korea " /> and to work 
toward speedy implementation of its September 19, 2005 pledge to 
give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for offers of aid and 
security.
 
The draft cites Chapter Seven of the UN charter which is invoked
in cases of threats to international peace and security and can
authorize sanctions or even military action as a last resort.
 
During closed-door morning consultations, Japan pushed for a
swift and strongly-worded resolution condemning the missile 
tests.
 
Tokyo has slammed the North Korean launches and threatened "stern 
measures," including possible economic sanctions.
 
US President George W. Bush " /> and Japanese Prime Minister 
Junichiro Koizumi agreed Thursday in a 10-minute telephone 
conversation to jointly push the council to take "a resolute 
stance and offer a strong and clear message" against Pyongyang, a 
Japanese foreign ministry official said in Tokyo.
 
While 13 council members spoke in favour of a resolution, Russia
and China said they would prefer a non-binding council
presidential statement.
 
Warning against "whipping up emotions too much," Russian
Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the council should keep its focus
on the resumption of six-party talks.
 
"I think we should be clear-headed," said Churkin, who all but
ruled out any possibility of a resolution that contained
punitive measures against Pyongyang.
 
"In the discussion today, I didn't hear the word sanctions and I
frankly do not expect that anybody will be proposing any
sanctions," he said.
 
China, which has refrained from condemning the missile tests,
said Thursday it would refuse to endorse sanctions. Foreign
ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in Beijing that his
government favored "dialogue and consultation." 

"We think the Security Council should make a necessary response
and the response should be helpful to maintain peace and
stability on the Korean peninsula and should help diplomatic
efforts to achieve a positive result," she added. 

US Ambassador John Bolton voiced strong support for a resolution
and stressed that no council member had sought to defend
Pyongyang's test-firing. 

"I think that the tenor of that discussion shows how little
support there is in the international community as a whole for
these North Korean missile launches," he said. 

Bolton also expressed hope that the council would reach
agreement on the draft resolution as quickly as possible. 
Pyongyang abandoned the six-party talks in November 2005 after

Washington imposed financial sanctions for alleged
counterfeiting and money laundering activities. 

In Seoul, analysts said North Korea's first ballistic missile
test since 1998 was aimed at forcing Washington to hold direct
negotiations. 

But the United States again ruled out direct talks and US 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " /> said North Korea may 
have "miscalculated" if it thought its "brinksmanship" would 
divide the international community. 

The White House said it had sent its senior US envoy on the North 
Korean nuclear crisis, Christopher Hill, to Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo 
and Moscow to consult US partners on Pyongyang's missile 
launches.
 	 		 			
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 32 AFP: US expresses concern over North Korea's weapon exports 

 Thu Jul 6, 4:00 PM ET 
		 	 
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States repeated concerns over North 
Korea " /> North Korea's weapon exports, saying it would ensure 
that aid to the impoverished Stalinist state was not diverted to 
beef up its missile and nuclear programs. 

North Korea's weapons and weapons technology exports "is a real
source of concern" to Washington as well as the international
community, especially after Pyongyang declared itself a nuclear
weapons state, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
 
He spoke as Japan proposed a resolution to the UN Security
Council urging members of the world body to prevent the transfer
of financial resources, items, goods and technology that could
contribute to Pyongyang's missile and other weapons programs.
 
North Korea drew international condemnation after it test-fired
Wednesday seven missiles, including a new long-range Taepodong-2
which could theoretically reach US soil.
 
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill will discuss
concerns over North Korea's missile and nuclear programs during
his current trip to China, South Korea
" /> South Korea, Japan and Russia, McCormack said.
 
The discussions would include "how to ensure that they are not
able to benefit in any way from assistance from the outside in
developing those programs; and also how to ensure that that
technology, that know-how ... is not proliferated," McCormack
said.
 
Washington has labelled Pyongyang a leading global proliferator
of missiles and missile technology. The cash-strapped state has
refused to stop missile exports, a major source of hard currency
earnings.
 
"Certainly, North Korea, one of their only exports, aside from
counterfeit bills, is weapons and weapons technology. That's
what they deal with. The bazaar is open, as far as they're
concerned," McCormack said.
 
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 33 Guardian Unlimited: Comment is free: Pyongyang's bartering chip

North Korean leaders know that without their weapons nobody
would give them a second glance.
 
Lawrence Freedman

about WebfeedsJuly 6, 2006 10:39 AM 

The most important thing about the series of seven North Korean
missile shotsis that the most important failed. The long-range
Taepodong-2simply failed shortly after take-off. That has three
consequences. First, the North Koreans managed to be provocative
without being completely menacing. Second, for this reason, they
may need to try again, although they will want to be confident
that the next test will not also end in embarrassment. Third, as
the UN security council is likely to condemnthe tests without
imposing much, if anything, by way of sanctions, should there be
another test of the Taepodong-2 this will look like an even more
deliberate rebuff for international opinion.
 
More tests will be particularly likely if the North Koreans
really do see their nuclear/missile capability as vital to their
future defence. Deterrence depends on the ability to mount a
credible riposte to any attempt at unification from the South or
regime change from the US. 

Yet it may be that the North Koreans are not too bothered by the
failure of the missile and can content themselves with the
political effects they have already generated. According to one
view the main purpose of their weapons programmes is extortion
rather than defence. They know that these shows of destructive
capability alarm their neighbours and annoy the Americans. They
are looking for bribes to slow down or limit these programmes,
although they will always be reluctant to abandon them
altogether because then they would have absolutely nothing left
that would require anybody to pay any attention to them.
 
The only exception might be the extent of its cumulative
political, economic and social failure. This weakness has become
a source of leverage: both China and South Korea know that any
action against North Korea makes its internal situation more
wretched. This would in turn create more refugees and possibly
the sort of terminal decline that would be likely to conclude
with an enforced, expensive and destabilising unification with
the South. North Korea's best defence is that given the choice
nobody would wish to take it over.
 
On this basis there is no real diplomatic solution to the
current crisis. Whether its motives lie in defence or extortion
North Korea will be determined to hold on to some capability;
regional powers will be wary of sanctions let alone military
operations lest it push North Korea over the edge, yet it will
be pointless to offer too many concessions.
 
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 34 UPI: Pakistan asks for nuclear deal with U.S.

 United Press International - Energy - 
		 
7/6/2006 9:48:00 AM -0400                               

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 6 (UPI) -- In a move to get a civilian
nuke deal with the United States, Pakistan said it is ready to
allow foreign companies to invest in its atomic power plants. 

Islamabad also said it is prepared to take back the unspent fuel
to allay fears over proliferation. 

"There is no case for not giving this nuclear technology to
Pakistan," said Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri. "Just give us
energy." 

Kasuri said he would press the leaders of the United States and
France to rethink their refusal to reach a pact with Pakistan
similar to the one they have with India. 

"We are a declared nuclear power. Wherever I go, whether the
U.S. or Europe, I will press our case. 

"No harm would be done to global counter-proliferation efforts
if Pakistan got nuclear technology," he said before leaving for
a tour to the United States and France. 

Pakistan's Foreign Officials said meetings in Washington are the
follow-up to the bilateral cooperation agenda chalked up by
Islamabad and Washington during President George Bush's visit to
Pakistan in March.

� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 35 IRNA: India, IAEA to hold "technical talks" on Indo-US N-deal on Friday - 

New Delhi, July 6, IRNA

India-IAEA-Technical talks 

India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will
hold technical talks on the Indo-US nuclear deal here on Friday.

 In this regard, a four-member team from the Safety and Legal
Division of the IAEA will be here on Friday and Saturday for the
technical talks aimed at concluding a nuclear safeguards
agreement, an Asian Age report said.

 India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Dr Anil
Kakodkar visited Vienna in April for talks with the IAEA on the
India-specific safeguards agreement proposed under the
India-United States nuclear deal.

 He also discussed with the IAEA an additional protocol as
mentioned in the Indo-US joint statement of July 18, 2005.

 The agreement with the IAEA was necessitated because India is
neither a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty nor does it
come under the category of a non-nuclear weapons state.

 However, the safeguards agreement constitutes a departure from
the text of the understanding reached between India and the
United States on July 18, 2005.

*****************************************************************
 36 New York Times: The Myth of the New India - 

By PANKAJ MISHRA Published: July 6, 2006 			 

London
 
INDIA is a roaring capitalist success story." So says the latest
issue of Foreign Affairs; and last week many leading business
executives and politicians in India celebrated as Lakshmi
Mittal, the fifth richest man in the world, finally succeeded in
his hostile takeover of the Luxembourgian steel company Arcelor.
India's leading business newspaper, The Economic Times, summed
up the general euphoria over the event in its regular feature,
"The Global Indian Takeover": "For India, it is a harbinger of
things to come � economic superstardom."

This sounds persuasive as long as you don't know that Mr.
Mittal, who lives in Britain, announced his first investment in
India only last year. He is as much an Indian success story as
Sergey Brin, the Russian-born co-founder of Google, is proof of
Russia's imminent economic superstardom. 

In recent weeks, India seemed an unlikely capitalist success
story as communist parties decisively won elections to state
legislatures, and the stock market, which had enjoyed record
growth in the last two years, fell nearly 20 percent in two
weeks, wiping out some $2.4 billion in investor wealth in just
four days. This week India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh,
made it clear that only a small minority of Indians will enjoy
"Western standards of living and high consumption."

There is, however, no denying many Indians their conviction that
the 21st century will be the Indian Century just as the 20th was
American. The exuberant self-confidence of a tiny Indian elite
now increasingly infects the news media and foreign policy
establishment in the United States. 

Encouraged by a powerful lobby of rich Indian-Americans who seek
to expand their political influence within both their home and
adopted countries, President Bush recently agreed to assist
India's nuclear program, even at the risk of undermining his
efforts to check the nuclear ambitions of Iran. As if on cue,
special reports and covers hailing the rise of India in Time,
Foreign Affairs and The Economist have appeared in the last
month. 

It was not so long ago that India appeared in the American press
as a poor, backward and often violent nation, saddled with an
inefficient bureaucracy and, though officially nonaligned,
friendly to the Soviet Union. Suddenly the country seems to be
not only a "roaring capitalist success story" but also,
according to Foreign Affairs, an "emerging strategic partner of
the United States." To what extent is this wishful thinking
rather than an accurate estimate of India's strengths? 

Looking for new friends and partners in a rapidly changing
world, the Bush administration clearly hopes that India, a
fellow democracy, will be a reliable counterweight against China
as well as Iran. But trade and cooperation between India and
China is growing; and, though grateful for American generosity
on the nuclear issue, India is too dependent on Iran for oil (it
is also exploring developing a gas pipeline to Iran) to
wholeheartedly support the United States in its efforts to
prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The world, more interdependent now than during the cold war, may
no longer be divided up into strategic blocs and alliances.

Nevertheless, there are much better reasons to expect that India
will in fact vindicate the twin American ideals of free markets
and democracy that neither Latin America nor post-communist
countries � nor, indeed, Iraq � have fulfilled.

 Since the early 1990's, when the Indian economy was
liberalized, India has emerged as the world leader in
information technology and business outsourcing, with an average
growth of about 6 percent a year. Growing foreign investment and
easy credit have fueled a consumer revolution in urban areas.
With their Starbucks-style coffee bars, Blackberry-wielding
young professionals, and shopping malls selling luxury brand
names, large parts of Indian cities strive to resemble
Manhattan. 

Indian business tycoons are increasingly trying to control
marquee names like Taittinger Champagne and the Carlyle Hotel in
New York. "India Everywhere" was the slogan of the Indian
business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, this year.

But the increasingly common, business-centric view of India 
suppresses more facts than it reveals. Recent accounts of the 
alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the country's 
$728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher 
than that of sub-Saharan Africa and that, as the 2005 United 
Nations Human Development Report puts it, even if it sustains its 
current high growth rates, India will not catch up with 
high-income countries until 2106.

Nor is India rising very fast on the report's Human Development 
index, where it ranks 127, just two rungs above Myanmar and more 
than 70 below Cuba and Mexico. Despite a recent reduction in 
poverty levels, nearly 380 million Indians still live on less 
than a dollar a day.

Malnutrition affects half of all children in India, and there is 
little sign that they are being helped by the country's market 
reforms, which have focused on creating private wealth rather 
than expanding access to health care and education. Despite the 
country's growing economy, 2.5 million Indian children die 
annually, accounting for one out of every five child deaths 
worldwide; and facilities for primary education have collapsed in 
large parts of the country (the official literacy rate of 61 
percent includes many who can barely write their names). In the 
countryside, where 70 percent of India's population lives, the 
government has reported that about 100,000 farmers committed 
suicide between 1993 and 2003.

Feeding on the resentment of those left behind by the 
urban-oriented economic growth, communist insurgencies (unrelated 
to India's parliamentary communist parties) have erupted in some 
of the most populous and poorest parts of north and central 
India. The Indian government no longer effectively controls many 
of the districts where communists battle landlords and police, 
imposing a harsh form of justice on a largely hapless rural 
population.

The potential for conflict - among castes as well as classes - 
also grows in urban areas, where India's cruel social and 
economic disparities are as evident as its new prosperity. The 
main reason for this is that India's economic growth has been 
largely jobless. Only 1.3 million out of a working population of 
400 million are employed in the information technology and 
business processing industries that make up the so-called new 
economy.

No labor-intensive manufacturing boom of the kind that powered 
the economic growth of almost every developed and developing 
country in the world has yet occurred in India. Unlike China, 
India still imports more than it exports. This means that as 70 
million more people enter the work force in the next five years, 
most of them without the skills required for the new economy, 
unemployment and inequality could provoke even more social 
instability than they have already.

For decades now, India's underprivileged have used elections to 
register their protests against joblessness, inequality and 
corruption. In the 2004 general elections, they voted out a 
central government that claimed that India was "shining," 
bewildering not only most foreign journalists but also those in 
India who had predicted an easy victory for the ruling coalition.

Among the politicians whom voters rejected was Chandrababu Naidu, 
the technocratic chief minister of one of India's poorest states, 
whose forward-sounding policies, like providing Internet access 
to villages, prompted Time magazine to declare him "South Asian 
of The Year" and a "beacon of hope."

But the anti-India insurgency in Kashmir, which has claimed some 
80,000 lives in the last decade and a half, and the strength of 
violent communist militants across India, hint that regular 
elections may not be enough to contain the frustration and rage 
of millions of have-nots, or to shield them from the temptations 
of religious and ideological extremism.

Many serious problems confront India. They are unlikely to be 
solved as long as the wealthy, both inside and outside the 
country, choose to believe their own complacent myths.

Pankaj Mishra is the author of "Temptations of the West: How to 
Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond."

NYTimes.com
*****************************************************************
 37 [NYTr] Cracks found in UK nuclear stations' reactor cores
 
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:05:50 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

July 06, 2006: The Irish Times
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0706/236195642FR06BRITNUKE.html

Cracks found in nuclear stations' reactor cores

by Kim Pilling in London
 
BRITAIN: Unexplained cracks in the reactor cores of Britain's atomic
power stations have been uncovered by nuclear inspectors, it was
reported yesterday.

The safety assessments, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,
show the Nuclear Safety Directorate has issued warnings over the state
of the reactor cores at Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other UK nuclear
plants.

The Guardian reported that the directorate also criticised British
Energy, which runs 13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors, including
Hinkley.

It is understood the documents state that British Energy is unaware of
the full extent of the damage to the reactor cores, cannot explain why
the cracking has occurred and is unable to monitor the deterioration.

The Nuclear Safety Directorate says it does not believe there is any
immediate risk to the public but believes the appearance of the reactor
core cracks puts questions over the future of other nuclear plants of
the same design. But the most recent safety checks of Hinkley, completed
in April, found that continued operation was likely to increase the risk
of an accident, the directorate found.

An inspector reported: "While I do not believe that a large release [of
radiation] is a likely scenario, some lesser event. . . is, I believe,
inevitable at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not
adopted.

"There is an increased likelihood of increased risk should we agree to
continued operation."

The papers, which were obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local
nuclear watchdog group, indicate the directorate requires more stringent
inspections of the plants, which would require the closure of reactors
for weeks.

In 2004, British Energy warned that its plants at Hinkley Point B,
Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness might not be able to extend their
30-year lives because of cracked bricks.

Yesterday, prime minister Tony Blair said energy security and climate
change targets cannot be achieved without new nuclear power stations.

But he denied claims that he had pre-empted a forthcoming energy White
Paper, to be published later this month, and insisted that he was
responding to the evidence before him. He told the Commons Liaison
Committee it was "very difficult" to see how Britain could secure energy
supplies and meet emissions goals without replacing nuclear power.

) PA 
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 38 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear last resort, say Tories
 
Helen Dowd and Will Woodward

Friday July 7, 2006

The Guardian             

David Cameron yesterday positioned the Conservatives in the
middle of the debate on atomic energy by promising that a future
Tory government would allow the building of new nuclear power
stations only as a "last resort".

Mr Cameron would be content to leave it to the market to fill
the "energy gap" created by the loss of 30% of the UK's current
generating capacity in the next 20 years, including all but one
of the existing nuclear plants. There would be no government
subsidy under the Tories for new power stations but planning
regulations would be freed up to allow them to be built more
quickly.
                                                                  
The government - which will unveil its long-awaited energy review 
next week - is also committed to both of these ideas.

Ministers regard Mr Cameron's move as posturing with little real
policy difference behind it, though Alistair Darling, the trade
and industry secretary, criticised the Tory plan to remove the
renewable energy sources subsidy, which will be worth �1bn by
2010.

"Where the government see nuclear power as the first choice,
under our framework it would be a last resort," Mr Cameron said
in a speech to local government leaders in Bournemouth.

Unveiling provisional findings of the Conservatives' energy
review in London, Alan Duncan, Mr Darling's shadow, anticipated
a technological revolution in green energy that would help to
solve the gap in supplies.
 
	
David Cameron

Email comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 39 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear planning powers face reform
 
[UP] 

Press Association 

Thursday July 6, 2006 8:08 AM
 	
Local planning authorities may be forced to accept the building
of new atomic power stations.
 
The proposals to drive through the next generation of nuclear
plants will be announced next week in the Government's energy
review, the Financial Times said.
 
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told the newspaper
he wanted to "make it easier for people to replace power plants
that are going out of commission and to meet our energy needs".
 
He said he backed the publishing of "a statement of need" that
would highlight projects of national importance at an early
stage.
 
"We need to streamline the planning laws for big infrastructure
projects ... we need to move to the stage, where, basically, the
Government needs to publish a statement of need," he said.
 
Too many big power projects, wind farms and transmission lines
had become bogged down in long inquiries or blocked, he said.
 
A White Paper would consult on making it impossible for councils
to reject power plants on the grounds that they were not needed.
However, planning inquiries could still change the appearance
and precise location of sites.
 
The Government was also considering imposing time limits on
inquiries that had stalled several projects.
 
Mr Darling said: "Given the fact that we may need to replace a
third of our electricity generation, there is a serious risk
that one day we'll switch on the lights and there won't be gas
or electricity unless we deal with this planning problem."
 
He said the Government would not set a target for the number of
new nuclear plants but would leave it to industry operators to
make a "commercial decision" on whether to build and manage
stations.
 
� Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
 
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is 'last resort', says Cameron 

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Thursday July 6, 2006
Guardian Unlimited 		 

A new divide in British politics opened today when the Tory
leader, David Cameron, signalled that nuclear power should be "a
last resort", while the government appeared to be clearing the
path for a new generation of power stations.

Tony Blair told senior MPs this week that he had "changed his
mind" on nuclear power, saying Britain's energy needs could not
be met without it.

Today the Financial Times reported that next week's energy
review is expected to recommend that local authorities objecting
to new nuclear power plants should be overruled if the
government decrees the stations to be "essential".
 			 		 			 			Article continues
In an interview with the newspaper, the trade and industry 
secretary, Alistair Darling, said that he also favoured 
"rigorous" timetables on planning inquiries for all new power 
plants - be they nuclear or windfarms - to reduce wrangles often 
lasting years.

The preview of next week's energy review came as the
Conservatives published interim results of their own energy
taskforce, which does not rule nuclear out, but leaves it as a
"last resort".

According to Mr Darling, next week's energy review will contain
a proposal to make it impossible for councils to reject large
power plants on the grounds that they were not needed.

He told the paper: "We need to streamline the planning laws for
big infrastructure projects...we need to move to the stage
where, basically, the government needs to publish a statement of
need, saying this is a project of national importance."

Calling for "rigorous" time limits on inquiries, he added: "You
would have thought that most issues can actually be covered in a
matter of weeks or maybe months."

That could knock years of the current procedures.

He said "Given the fact that we may need to replace a third of
our electricity generation, there is a serious risk that one day
we'll switch on the lights and there won't be gas or electricity
unless we deal with this planning problem."

Under the white paper proposals, planning inquiries could only
change the appearance and precise location of sites. He said the
government would not set a target for the number of new nuclear
plants but would leave it to industry operators to make a
"commercial decision" on whether to build and manage stations.

He insisted there would be no direct government subsidy, and
that private contractors would have to pay for the costs of
waste and decommissioning, but appeared to suggest that rising
oil and gas costs and stricter carbon emission charging would
make this economic.

The Local Government Association (LGA), meeting in Bournemouth,
reacted coolly to the suggestion their veto could be removed
from the decision-making process.

A spokesperson said: "Public consultation is an important part
of the local planning system. Only councils, with their local
knowledge, have the ability to make decisions which are suited
to local circumstances. Under the government's proposals local
people's right to have a say on new development in their area
would be taken away."

In a speech today the Tory leader urged a massive increase in
devolved "combined heat and power" production in the 21st
century.

In his own speech to the LGA, Mr Cameron called for more
electricity to be generated in local communities.

He told council leaders that decentralised energy could make "an
enormous contribution" to slashing carbon emissions. Pioneering
local authorities had already shown what was possible by using
waste wood to fuel homes or setting up efficient renewable local
sources, he said. Now that "exciting vision" had to be extended
across the country.

"In Britain we are still lumbered with the same
backward-looking, central-planning mindset that has dominated
thinking on electricity since the first half of the last
century, he said.

"There will always be a need for a robust and secure national
grid; energy security is vital.

"But it is a myth that it can only be provided from remote and
inefficient power stations or that electricity has to travel
hundreds of miles to market.

"We live in a fast-changing world of scientific research and
innovation. I want Britain to be at the forefront of the green
energy opportunity and I want local government to be in the
forefront of Britain's environmental progress.

"We need to think in an entirely new way about energy. The
future of energy is not top-down, it's not centralised - it's
bottom-up and decentralised."

He will add: "Decentralised energy - electricity generated in
smaller, more local units such as neighbourhood combined heat
and power schemes - could make an enormous contribution to
reducing carbon emissions and improving energy efficiency.

"Decentralised energy offers an exciting vision of 21st-century
energy supply, re-engineering the system and opening it up to
new, smaller technologies and more local participants.

"This would be to the long-term advantage of the consumer as
well as helping to tackle climate change."

"One of the main awards was won by Barnsley council, which has
pioneered the most extensive use of biomass heating in the UK."
"Barnsley uses waste wood to heat community housing and other
public buildings and, by replacing coal and gas, the council
saves nearly 3,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year."

Woking borough council was another example to be followed, he
suggested.

"It isn't waiting for a global solution to climate change; it
has pioneered the use of decentralised energy to reduce carbon
emissions through the use of combined heat and power; solar
power, geothermal power, and hydrogen fuel cells.

"It is developing more sustainable energy from waste, and
delivering a 30% improvement in home energy efficiency. "In
total Woking has been able to reduce its carbon emissions by a
staggering 77% across its municipal estate.

Mr Darling later attacked Mr Cameron's talk of a "level playing
field" for renewables and other energy providers, saying it
would set the development of green energy sources "back by a
generation".

Renewables are currently provided with a cross-subsidy which
will be worth �1bn a year by 2010. 

The Tory energy review proposed reform of the renewables
obligation, which subsidises electricity providers to purchase
energy from renewable sources. 

Conservatives argue that in its current form, it encourages the
sector to focus on a few technologies, such as onshore wind
farms and methane from landfill, to the exclusion of others. 

But Mr Darling said: "The question is whether you give
renewables an advantage or put them on a level playing field.

And if we're serious about getting more green energy, they need
support to deliver it. 

"If Cameron is going to talk green, sooner or later he's going
to have to do something green. Scrapping the climate change levy
and undermining renewables moves us further from a green future
not towards it."

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron's own domestic wind turbine received
recommended planning permission from his borough of Kensington
&Chelsea today.

Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 newsobserver.com: A more efficient energy future
 
Thursday, July 6, 2006

Raleigh � Durham � Cary � Chapel Hill   

�    Chatham Olive CHARLOTTE - In the season
of our 230th national birthday, some North Carolinians are
calling for more energy independence, and it's just possible
their call will be answered. Both the General Assembly and the
state Utilities Commission could begin to make North Carolina a
cleaner, stronger, freer state, and not just an energy "colony."
We need to wake up to the possibilities of energy efficiency and
renewable energy generated from sunshine, wind and bio-based
fuels. The environmental benefits -- cleaner air, bluer skies,
less mercury in our future food chain -- are substantial. The
economic benefits would be a stronger economy, a more
diversified, thus more stable energy supply, and jobs.

The Energy Independence Act, state Senate Bill 2051, offers
North Carolina a chance to take a leadership role in reducing
costly dependence on energy imports. Just as colonies imported
their finished goods and sent away their natural resources, we
now import 98 percent of the energy used in the state each year,
and we send up to $15 billion out of our economy to pay for it.
If we could keep a portion of that money in the state to
generate energy efficiency and renewable energy, we would have
more efficient, less-polluting energy sources and a stronger
economy. This is an achievable opportunity.

While other states have made efficiency a policy priority, North
Carolina has sat on the sidelines. This legislation will help us
boost our energy sector by, among other things, lowering the
price at the pump for homegrown "freedom fuels" such as
biodiesel. (The Senate bill provides a tax credit to the
distributor of biodiesel fuels in order to bring the cost of
biodiesel closer to the cost of regular diesel.) The bill also
will save taxpayers money by reducing government's use of energy
and by lowering the cost of an energy-efficient home.

Why now? Duke Energy has begun planning to build two more
expensive, polluting coal-fired plants. The planning horizon for
traditional energy plants is long, and if power companies are
going to switch from sources such as coal and nuclear fuel it
will take time. This legislation gives them the opportunity to
make real progress by developing renewable energy sources and
better programs that encourage efficiency by rewarding customers
for using less electricity. These options will save consumers
money, and our state will be doing its part to decrease our
dependency on foreign oil.

The Utilities Commission, whose job it is to regulate the
industry on behalf of the public, is in the process of examining
the potential for efficiency and renewable energy measures in
formal hearings. The commission will hear expert testimony
looking into why Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Dominion have
downplayed energy efficiency in their future plans in favor of
more expensive nuclear and coal power plants.

Public hearings about our energy future were recently held in
Raleigh, Asheville and Greenville by the Utilities Commission.
The usually quiet hearing rooms were wall-to-wall with
ratepayers demanding that efficiency and renewables be given
full consideration before turning to more of the same old
sources. In Raleigh, 125 citizens filled a large hearing room to
capacity, and 41 people -- ranging from professors to farmers to
representatives of the N.C. Council of Churches -- gave sworn
statements or submitted written comments. Asheville was no
different, with over 150 people in attendance, and 40 testifying.

(You can read all about it on the Utilities Commission Web site
(http://www.ncuc.net ) by selecting the Search tab and entering
Docket No. E-100 Sub 103 and looking at Transcript of Testimony
Volumes 1 and 2 (heard 5-01-06)).

In the meantime, the General Assembly has the ability to act
now. North Carolina, which stood firm for freedom and the Bill
of Rights in revolutionary times, has a chance to declare its
energy independence. The people have spoken, and the General
Assembly should not go home this summer without making us freer
and stronger economically.

(Chatham Olive of Charlotte is a recent graduate of N.C. State's
Renewable Energy Diploma Series. He serves on the Energy and
Executive committees of the N.C. Sierra Club.) All rights
reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published,
broadcast or redistributed in any manner.   

� Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 42 FT.com: Debate tilts in nuclear power's favour

By Christopher Adams, Political Correspondent 

Published: July 6 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 6 2006 03:00

When Tony Blair launched a review of energy needs last autumn,
his support for nuclear power was never in doubt. The big
question was how, after rejecting nuclear energy as uneconomic
three years ago, the government could justify investment in a
new generation of plants and make it a reality.

In an interview yesterday with the Financial Times, Alistair
Darling, trade and industry secretary, explained that soaring
oil and gas prices and the need to tackle climate change had
tilted the argument in nuclear power's favour.
[Advertisement] 
Pointing to disruption last winter when Russian gas supplies to
Europe were cut because of a dispute with Ukraine over prices,
he argued Britain had to diversify away from imported gas if it
were to avoid over-reliance on any one supplier.

"I've always been clear that a mix of electricity generation is
good for two reasons. One is it means your eggs are not all in
one basket and, in relation to security of supply, that is very
important. Also, of course, nuclear generation of itself does
reduce carbon emissions."

Nuclear energy provided a stable and ever-ready source of
baseload electricity that gave it the edge over "greener" forms
of power generation. "Renewables have many strengths. But, on
present technology on a day like this, when it's absolutely
still and it's very hot and the demand for energy is high, if
the windmills are not going round, there's no electricity being
generated."

Nuclear power had become commercially attractive because of the
surge in oil and gas prices, which were expected to remain
higher than in the past, and the introduction of a carbon
pricing regime in Europe that would become tougher in coming
years.

The UK relies on nuclear power for 19 per cent of its
electricity generation needs, a share of the mix that is
projected to diminish to about 6 per cent over the next 20 years
as ageing reactors are decommissioned.

In making the case for new power stations, next week's report
will include estimates of the projected cut in carbon emissions
from replacing existing capacity. But, Mr Darling said, the
government would not set a target for how many plants should be
built.

Any decision to invest would be left to the market. It would be
for industry operators, which have argued that nuclear power
does not need subsidies to be competitive, to make a "commercial
decision" on whether to build and manage plants.

There would be no fiscal incentives and the government had ruled
out extending the renewables obligation, under which high energy
users must source some of their power from alternative energy
sources, to nuclear.

"If somebody's coming along saying, 'I want to build a nuclear
power station', they've got to factor in all the usual costs,
construction and the rest of it, including decommissioning and
disposing of the waste."

However, Mr Darling said the government would act to accelerate
the building of plants and cut upfront in-vestment costs for the
industry by simplifying the planning and licensing regime. The
industry has lobbied for these changes, arguing they would
reduce risk.

"We need to streamline the planning laws for big infrastructure
projects . . . we need to move to the stage where, basically,
the government needs to publish a statement of need, saying this
is a project that's of national importance."

Too many big power projects, wind farms and transmission lines
had become bogged down in long inquiries or blocked, he said.

A white paper would consult on making it impossible for councils
to reject large power plants, whether nuclear, coal, gas or wind
farms, on the grounds that they were not needed.

He was in favour of imposing time limits on inquiries. There
would be a pre-licensing system for approving a
one-size-fits-all design for new nuclear plants. "You would have
thought that most issues can actually be covered in a matter of
weeks or maybe months.".

Mr Darling, conscious that nuclear power has dominated public
debate, wants to give the review a "greener" feel. Next week's
report, while sanctioning new nuclear plants, would recommend
moves to cut electricity use. Power companies should be given
incentives to encourage consumers to install mini wind turbines
or loft insulation.

There would be a "big push" on renewable energy and steps to
encourage micro-generation projects that made use of heat
generated by power plants. "We are at a very low level at the
moment. We could do more."

 The Financial Times Limited 2006

  + © Copyright 2006. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks
of The Financial Times Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 43 BBC NEWS: Climate change 'real and severe'
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006, 03:50 GMT 04:50 UK [

  By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website   

[James Lovelock.  Image: BBC]                           

James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis                                                               

An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate 
change is "real and dangerous". 

Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the 
century, with impacts likely to be "severe" but not 
"catastrophic", the panel said. 

It also concluded that politicians are unlikely to cut emissions 
sufficiently to prevent dangerous global heating. 

The panel's discussions were based on themes set by Professor 
James Lovelock in his latest book The Revenge of Gaia. 

The book argues that human society, through greenhouse gas 
emissions and other forms of environmental degradation, has 
brought the natural world to the brink of a crisis. 

Would you get on an aeroplane if the pilot told you there was a 
5% or a 1% probability that you wouldn't reach your destination?            

 Chris Rapley    

Temperatures will rise, Professor Lovelock warns, reliable 
supplies of water will be disrupted, life in the oceans will be 
compromised, food production will decline, and there will be mass 
migrations to areas of the planet's surface which remain 
habitable. 

With fossil fuels currently the dominant source of energy, he 
sees a large-scale switch to nuclear power as vital if 
electricity supplies are to continue reliably and carbon dioxide 
emissions are to be brought down. 

Testing times 

After its publication earlier this year, The Revenge of Gaia was 
criticised by some scientists who felt it painted an overly 
apocalyptic vision and did not reflect uncertainties in 
scientific understanding. 

[Vicky Pope, Hans von Storch and Susan Owens. Image: BBC]              

 Climate panel: the verdict Your questions answered                                

Despite the phrase "How we can still save humanity" in the book's 
subtitle, others argued it was an alarmist text, likely to 
promote despair and hopelessness rather than being a "call to 
action", as the author intended. 

For perspectives on these issues, BBC environment affairs analyst 
Roger Harrabin brought together a panel of seven eminent 
academics with expertise including climate modelling, the 
Antarctic, and social aspects of environment policy. 

On Monday and Tuesday they discussed and debated issues raised in 
The Revenge of Gaia in BBC Broadcasting House in London, a 
discussion recorded for use on Thursday's edition of the Today 
programme on Radio 4 and for a future BBC World Service 
broadcast. 

'Pessimistic but possible' 

There was general agreement that Professor Lovelock had used 
rather severe projections of future climate change. 

If we go out and say to journalists 'we will have this and that 
disastrous event', I think we are doing a disservice to the 
public          

Hans von Storch [ src=] UK 'lagging on renewables'                              

But, he insisted, he had not gone further than the science 
indicated; a temperature rise of between 3C and 5C over this 
century was within the range projected by the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent major report. 

Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, declared 
that Professor Lovelock's choice was fully justified. 

"The fact that you've been taking higher-end, pessimistic 
predictions of the IPCC is something that shouldn't be 
dismissed," he said, "even if there's only a 5% or even a 1% 
probability that they might be real. 

"Would you get on an aeroplane if the pilot told you there was a 
5% or a 1% probability that you wouldn't reach your destination? 
No of course you wouldn't; you have to take even very 
low-probability scenarios very seriously." 

The panel spent a vigorous session debating how precisely to word 
their view of the climate "threat", eventually concluding 
unanimously that it will "probably bring severe changes" to human 
societies and rejecting the phrase "catastrophic changes". 

There was acknowledgement that some areas of climate-related 
science remain substantially uncertain. The behaviour of forests 
and the impacts of rising greenhouse emissions on oceans were two 
fields picked out as needing further study. 

[Ron Oxburgh.  Image: BBC]                                     

 The future is not inevitable, but we have to work hard to avoid 
the scenarios Jim has described       

Ron Oxburgh     

Hans von Storch from the Institute for Coastal Research in 
Geesthacht, Germany, cautioned against making public statements 
on the basis of science that is not fully mature. 

Early computer models of climate, he said, had predicted 
increases in storminess, which had not shown up in later, more 
sophisticated models. 

"So as long as we simply play around with these models as toys 
and enjoy ourselves and develop our knowledge, that's fine," he 
said. 

"But if we at the same time go out and speak to journalists and 
say 'therefore we will have this and that disastrous event', I 
think we are doing a disservice to the public." 

Nuclear solution 

There was general agreement that the rising global population and 
rising levels of consumption are major issues which are largely 
absent from discussion in political and public circles in many 
countries. 

But on nuclear power, Professor Lovelock found himself at odds 
with the BBC panel. 

While declaring it an option meriting "full public and political 
discussion" for the UK, they could not endorse his view in The 
Revenge of Gaia that it was "the only effective medicine we have 
now". 

Professor Lovelock insisted he did not rule other energy options 
out. "I'm not a nuclear fanatic, I don't believe in it for all 
the world, or that it's the absolute solution for everything," he 
told the panel. 

"But it happens to be the cheapest, the cleanest, and the most 
reliable source of electricity; and that's the key thing, 
electricity. You can't run a modern city without it; London would 
die within a week, totally die, if the electricity supply was cut 
off." 

'In our own grasp' 

If the panel endorsed Professor Lovelock's climate diagnosis, 
what of its potential impact on society? Views were divided on 
whether it was likely to promote action or apathy. 

[Brian Hoskins, Ed Stourton and James Lovelock. Image: BBC] Brian 
Hoskins and James Lovelock with Ed Stourton of Today                                                               

"I hope the reaction won't be the one that I think there may be, 
that everything is so bleak that we should just throw up our 
hands and enjoy what remains, or commit suicide, or whatever 
occurs to us," said chairman Brian Hoskins of Britain's Reading 
University. 

"I think it should be a call for action, and that action has to 
involve organisations and governments worldwide." 

The panel did not believe, however, that governments were hearing 
alarm bells as loudly as they should, with only one of the seven 
members feeling that carbon emissions would be cut sufficiently 
to avoid "dangerous" warming. 

Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, contended that the die 
had not yet been cast. 

"Whether the very serious and gloomy scenarios that Jim is 
emphasising come about is really within our own grasp," he said. 

"I'm confident on the technology; I'm much less confident that we 
have the social and political will to make the hard decisions 
that are required. 

"The future is not inevitable, but we have to work hard to avoid 
the scenarios Jim has described." 

*****************************************************************
 44 BBC: Climate panel: Your questions
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006
 
[James Lovelock.  Image: BBC]                           

Professor James Lovelock, author of The Revenge of Gaia                                                                 

The BBC has convened an expert panel to examine issues raised in 
James Lovelock's latest book, The Revenge of Gaia. 

Professor Lovelock argues that climate change, combined with 
other environmental factors, is a major threat to human society 
and the natural world. 

We asked for your views and questions. Here are extracts from the 
discussion which address some of your points. 

Size of the human footprint 

While it is clear that there is significant climate change
occurring and that humans have had some role to play in this, do
we yet know the extent to which humans are the root cause?
Rajat, Toronto 

While I am prepared to accept that there may be global warming,
nothing I have seen shows a causal connection. Tim, UK 

One of the most persistent arguments made by those who do not
believe that climate change is caused by human activity is that
there is "no consensus" amongst climatologists about this. How
would you respond to this? Tim Dennell, Sheffield, United
Kingdom 

Five hundred years ago the scientific consensus was that the
world was flat. Thirty years ago, we were about to enter another
ice age. Twenty years from now we will all have a good laugh
about "global warming". Thumper3181 

Chris Rapley
	  	There are a lot of people who are very sceptica
about climate models, and it is very difficult to build a true
Earth simulator; after all, the Earth system has the potential
to have in it processes that we do not even see at the moment,
and so cannot model. 

But what we do know is that in the last 100 years, we have
shifted the carbon dioxide concentration up by the same amount
as it normally varies on a 100,000-year cycle. 

So we have done something in about one thousandth of the time
that the natural system takes, and it is bound to have an effect
because we have seen those effects on global temperature. In
fact, the global temperature changed by 5C or more when carbon
dioxide varied by that much in the past. 

I would not want anyone to think that we are relying on computer
models to tell us this is a dangerous situation. It is very
simple; we are hitting the system with a whacking great hammer,
and it is bound to respond. 	


Ron Oxburgh
	  	The point to emphasise is that the basic physic
associated with the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and
its effect on the Earth's temperature has been known for well
over 100 years. 

And the temperature rises that we see today and which are
predicted by our sophisticated computer models are very much of
the same order predicted at the end of the 19th Century - this
is not something new. 

We are not talking about whether this is a serious problem, but
whether it is serious or very serious. 	


End of the scale 

[Vicky Pope.  Image: BBC]                               

Vicky Pope: Bleak picture of our future is "possible"                                                             

Surely if the book is at the "upper end of expectation", then it 
is actually possible. Chris Wills, Fareham 

Vicky Pope This book paints a very bleak picture of the futur - 
bleak but possible, and I think that is the point; it is 
possible. 

If it is possible, then we should take it very seriously.


'No science' of prediction 

Since the weather today cannot be predicted reliably for more 
than 12 hours, the science of predicting 100 years or more seems 
no science at all. Chuck Rogers, Jacksonville, Florida, US 

Susan Owens We have two messages emerging from our discussions.

One is something we are familiar with - 'systems are incredibly 
complex, there is a huge amount that needs to be understood about 
the science' - on the other hand, we are certainly being told by 
Jim Lovelock and by others that there is a certain urgency to 
this problem. 

These things seem somewhat incompatible to me. In some ways we 
are asking questions of the science that the science cannot 
answer, either because they are not fundamentally scientific 
questions, they are political or ethical questions; or because we 
are asking science to resolve questions on a timescale on which 
it cannot resolve them.   

Natural balance 

Could the Earth achieve a "balanced" state where it handles the 
human impact through natural processes? Eric Nondahl, Middleton, 
WI, US

Ron Oxburgh The real difference between now and the geologica 
past is the speed of the change. The only geological event of 
comparable impact and speed really has to be the impact of a 
meteorite or something of that kind. 

And all of the changes we know about in the past have taken 
place, even the very fast ones, over tens of thousands of years; 
and over that sort of period, organisms have time to change, to 
accommodate, to evolve slightly. 

We do not see that at the moment; that is the big difference.   [ 

Adapt and survive 

Does it not seem prudent that every government should be 
preparing for the eventuality that the global warming scenario 
may be real? Herb, Los Angeles, California 

Hans von Storch We need to talk about adaptation. But when we tal 
about heatwaves in Europe for example, we have to ask ourselves: 
'how is it possible that people can live in conditions where we 
have such thermal regimes nowadays?' 

[Hans von Storch.  Image: BBC]                                  
Hans von Storch: Is regular flooding so terrible?                                                                

Obviously people can do that and they live very happily and 
productively, and that means we have somehow to change how we 
live in Europe. Maybe we have different houses and things of that 
sort. 

Then let us talk about coastal inundation, which has been studied 
on the German Bight. Water levels in storm surges in the year 
2080 may amount to 70cm and that is something we have to be 
concerned about. 

I would say we have no big chance of avoiding it. We could 
increase the dikes but sometimes it is not possible; so in 
certain areas people have to expect that they will be flooded 
every 20 years. Is that particularly bad?       

Political winds 

I think Mr Lovelock has a very good point, even if he may make it 
a little too strongly and emotionally. However, to effect real 
change globally we need to change the behaviours of three nations 
above all others: the US, China, and India. Martin W, Coventry


How do we persuade those (such as our president) who claim that 
climate change is a natural process, and that the effects of 
human activity on this process haven't been proven? Charles 
Peach, Charlotte, North Carolina, US 

Brian Hoskins I believe we know quite enough to persuade an 
politician who is paying any attention that this is one of the 
most serious things, the most serious thing that will come across 
their desk. 

We don't know the details of what we are doing, but by God we 
know we're doing it. Any other issue that crossed their desk that 
has a 95% certainty attached to it - they would just throw up 
their hands and say it's incredible.         

Nuclear fuelled 

Nuclear fission is the only way through the problem of global 
warming which can cope with the ever-increasing world population. 
Gaz, Liverpool 

I am in full agreement with Professor Lovelock's position, but I 
fear the short-term solution of nuclear power. The waste disposal 
problem has not been solved so would we not be replacing excess 
heat with radioactive poisoning? Alex McKeon, Los Gatos, CA, US 

Nuclear energy is said to be the more efficient energy compared 
to the other sources. But how safe is it to depend on nuclear 
fission, looking into long-term effects caused by the radiation 
let out from it? Anil Kumar, Bangalore 

Susan Owens I think the nuclear option raises a number of rea 
problems. 

[Susan Owens.  Image: BBC]                              

Susan Owens: Problems with the nuclear option                                                                 

There is of course the problem of the public and political 
acceptability of nuclear power, and in a democracy we cannot just 
wish those concerns away. For example, how would we deal with the 
consultation and planning processes that we would need in order 
to bring forward a nuclear power programme? 

There are also issues of cost - I do not agree with Jim Lovelock 
that nuclear is the cheapest source of electricity - and if you 
went for a quick nuclear programme there are questions about the 
sheer capacity to deliver in terms of construction capacity and 
skills. 

Jim presents nuclear as a short-term bridging option, but it is 
difficult to see how a major nuclear programme could be a 
short-term solution because of the very long lead times. 

I also feel this concentration on how we supply electricity is 
taking our eye off major issues like transport, where we are 
letting those sectors develop in energy-profligate ways.        [ 

Ron Oxburgh I think it is fair to make the point that moder 
nuclear technology is as unlike traditional designs as a modern 
car is to a vintage car. 

Nuclear has undergone a major transformation, and there are not 
many of the problems around today that there were 20 or 30 years 
ago.    


Brian Hoskins I find the stress on nuclear power is perhaps no 
helpful. 

I think the first thing we have to concentrate on is being more 
miserly with the energy we have, and secondly we should be 
looking for a diverse energy system. 

Electricity is part of the whole energy mix which we have to deal 
with, and nuclear may be part of that energy mix for electricity. 

But I think diversity is the important thing, and we should 
explore a lot of the technologies and see what we can get into 
play as early as possible; it is incredibly important for example 
that we try carbon sequestration on fossil fuel plants as soon as 
we can.      

James Lovelock The issue of the public perception of nuclear powe 
is a very ephemeral, trivial thing. 

We have found in the last two years by stressing the need for 
nuclear that it has been possible to swing public opinion in the 
UK round from something like 98% against to something like 40% in 
favour; so public opinion is easily changed. 

On energy conservation, I agree entirely, and I don't see why we 
cannot use other sources of energy. 

I am talking about nuclear only in the context of electricity, 
and electricity is vital for modern civilisation. We have become 
hooked on it, we are utterly dependent on it, and we have to 
think really seriously about the consequences of any major 
cutback in electricity supplies; it would hit hard and 
immediately, within a period as short as a week. 

Ultimately we could have a civilisation - I grew up in one - 
where there was very little electricity at all, and it worked 
very nicely; but it takes a hell of a time to switch back to 
something like that.    

Small solutions 

Nuclear power is NOT the answer. Instead we should set about 
massively and rapidly reducing our excessive consumption of all 
resources, but particularly of fuel. We should start by 
introducing fuel rationing. Tony Hamilton, Broadstone, Dorset, UK 

Wouldn't it be better to develop a fundamental new energy system 
based on a holistic approach to sustainable energy production and 
use? Simon Carroll, Stockholm 

Micropower to the people and help save the planet! Clare Finley, 
Hereford, UK 

Andrew Watson
	 		
[Ron Oxburgh and Brian Hoskins.  Image: BBC] Ron Oxburgh and 
Brian Hoskins listen to discussions                                                                 

I think that we are going to need ever source of energy we can 
get. 

Wind power is one of those which may never be a huge source of 
energy; but if you can save a few tonnes of carbon dioxide here 
and there by using wind energy, I think that is good. 

We should in particular be encouraging microgeneration of energy 
on individual houses; it is not the case that huge turbines are 
the only way of exploiting wind energy.         


James Lovelock We have no option to nuclear; wind just canno 
compare in quantity, and we would never be able to get a 
constant, stable supply of wind. 

If we depended wholly on windmills, what would happen during 
warm, still summer weather? The windmills stop working and there 
is no electricity, whereas nuclear keeps steadily going, as it 
has done for 40 years, keeping things working.  


Material world 

Ultimately it's our own fault because of our obsession with 
consumerism, so perhaps we should just take our lumps like grown 
ups. Jez Lawrence, Leeds, UK 

Susan Owens We live in a culture of consumption; an particularly 
we live in a culture of high energy consumption. 

So people get very mixed messages; they read a book like Jim's, 
saying 'what we are doing is destroying the planet, it is very 
dangerous'; but they go about their daily lives and they are 
locked into patterns of high energy consumption and they are 
being persuaded to consume more. 

People exist within a cultural and social context, and they 
cannot simply change their behaviour to respond to messages like 
the ones in Jim's book, or indeed to messages that the government 
gives out about 'being responsible and doing your bit and 
changing your behaviour'.   


James Lovelock I tend to think in terms of the higher part of th 
range given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 
temperature rise over this century - that is between 3C and 5C - 
because I think that we as peoples will not take the necessary 
measures in time to stop carbon dioxide increasing. 

Many of the lower predictions are based on very optimistic 
assumptions about what the people of the world are going to do 
about emissions and various other things. 

I do not believe they will happen, and I think emissions will if 
anything tend to grow. 

If you are a reader of The Economist magazine, you get the 
impression that all of prosperity depends on finding more and 
more carbon fuel as quickly as possible everywhere.     

The BBC panel comprised: 

Brian Hoskins (Chair) Royal Society Research Professor, Reading 
University 

Susan Owens Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge 
University 

Ron Oxburgh University scientist; former chairman of Shell 

Vicky Pope Head, Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley Centre 

Chris Rapley Director, British Antarctic Survey 

Hans von Storch Director, Institute for Coastal Research, 
Geesthacht, Germany 

Andrew Watson Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of 
East Anglia
		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 45 BBC: Nuclear 'last resort' for Tories
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006
 
[Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk] 
                                
Tony Blair has said older nuclear plants will have to be replaced                                                                

The Conservatives have said nuclear power should be used only as 
"a last resort" to supply the UK with energy. 

Their Energy Review's interim findings say there should be a 
"level playing field" for environmentally-friendly sources and 
other means of power. 

Labour argued the Conservatives' proposals would "set renewable 
development back by a generation". 

Meanwhile Tory leader David Cameron used a speech to say councils 
had a key role in ensuring a low carbon future. 

He argued that, in a post-Cold War world, global warming 
represents the greatest long-term threat to the planet. 

Tony Blair has said that nuclear power is back on the agenda as a 
result of fears over the security of energy supplies to the UK, 
rising prices and also climate change. 

But at the weekend shadow trade secretary Alan Duncan said his 
party wanted to "explore every conceivable method of generating 
electricity before we go to nuclear". 

'Security vital' 

Mr Cameron meanwhile stressed the "enormous contribution" he 
believes local councils can make to slashing carbon emissions. 

In a speech to the Local Government Association's annual 
conference he said: "In Britain we are still lumbered with the 
same backward-looking, central-planning mindset that has 
dominated thinking on electricity since the first half of the 
last century. 

Where the government se nuclear power as the first choice, under 
our framework it would become a last resort David Cameron           

"There will always be a need for a robust and secure National 
Grid; energy security is vital. 

"But it is a myth that it can only be provided from remote and 
inefficient power stations or that electricity has to travel 
hundreds of miles to market. 

"We live in a fast-changing world of scientific research and 
innovation. I want Britain to be at the forefront of the green 
energy opportunity and I want local government to be in the 
forefront of Britain's environmental progress. 

"We need to think in an entirely new way about energy. The future 
of energy is not top-down, it's not centralised - it's bottom-up 
and decentralised." 

Increasing dependency 

The interim report of the Tory energy review states that when it 
comes to nuclear power there would have to be "total 
transparency" on its full lifetime costs, clarity over nuclear 
waste and no subsidies or special favours. 

"Where the government sees nuclear power as the first choice, 
under our framework it would become a last resort; where the 
Liberal Democrats rule out nuclear power, we rule out subsidies 
and special favours for nuclear power." 

[David Cameron]                                 

Mr Cameron says Britain's stance on electricity is 
"backward-looking"                                                            

The report points out that Britain is "increasingly dependent on 
imported fossil fuels for power generation" and says the country 
increasingly at risk from terrorist attempts to interrupt source 
supplies. 

It also argues that green energy options are on the brink of a 
scientific and technological revolution that could transform both 
effectiveness and affordability. 

"We therefore believe it is now vital to give green energy a 
chance to demonstrate its potential on a level playing field with 
other sources of electricity." 

'Harmful' policy 

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling it was very 
difficult to see how the Tory policy could do anything but harm 
if green energy needed to be put on a level playing field. 

"When you aren't prepared to support low-carbon renewable energy, 
you're going to get higher carbon emissions. It's not that 
complicated," he said. 

"If Cameron is going to talk green, sooner or later he's going to 
have to do something green. Scrapping the Climate Change Levy and 
undermining renewables moves us further from a green future not 
towards it." 

Earlier this week the prime minister told MPs he had changed his 
mind in the last three years on the need for new nuclear power 
stations. 

An Energy White Paper in 2003 was sceptical about building new 
nuclear plants, but left the option open. 

A government energy review, due this month, is expected to call 
for additional nuclear power stations.                                                   



*****************************************************************
 46 BBC: Climate panel: The verdict
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006
 
[James Lovelock.  Image: BBC]                           

Professor James Lovelock, author of The Revenge of Gaia                                                                 

The BBC has convened an expert panel to examine issues raised in 
James Lovelock's latest book, The Revenge of Gaia. 

Professor Lovelock argues that climate change, combined with 
other environmental factors, is a major threat to human society 
and the natural world. 

At the end of their discussions, the BBC panel gave its verdict 
on 20 key questions. All were based on issues raised by Professor 
Lovelock in his book, and were formulated in conjunction with the 
panel. 

1. It is likely that temperatures will rise by 3C to 5C by the
year 2100 unless we act swiftly to cut greenhouse gas emissions
and protect natural forests. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

2. Temperatures might rise by as much as 8C by 2100, but this is
less likely. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

3. A temperature rise of 3C to 5C would probably bring severe
changes for humans. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

4. A temperature rise of 3C to 5C would probably bring
catastrophic changes for humans. VERDICT: YES 0, NO 3, ABSTAIN 4 

5. A global recession would result in rapid, dangerous climate
change as a result of the diminution of aerosols in the
atmosphere. VERDICT: YES 0, NO 7 

6. Continuing to increase CO2 will have a major effect on oceans
through temperature stratification and acidification. VERDICT:
YES 1, NO 0, ABSTAIN 6 

7. We are being reckless with the planet through greenhouse gas
emissions combined with broader human-driven environmental
change. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

8. James Lovelock's metaphor that the Earth will react against
us like an irritant if we continue treating it this way is
helpful in public understanding. VERDICT: YES 5, NO 2 

9. The climate system is so complex that individual climate
experts struggle to see the whole picture. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

10. Politicians need to draw on intuition in formulating climate
policy. VERDICT: YES 5, NO 1, ABSTAIN 1 

11. Professor Lovelock insufficiently acknowledges in the book
the uncertainty over how hot the climate will become. VERDICT:
YES 5, NO 1, ABSTAIN 1 

12. Population growth is a major issue. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

13. Professor Lovelock is wrong to give the impression that
nuclear fission is our only realistic short-term solution.
VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

14. In the UK context, nuclear fission is one of several options
that merits full public and political discussion. VERDICT: YES
7, NO 0 

15. In the UK context, Professor Lovelock is wrong in the book
to reject wind power. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

16. His apocalyptic comments made around the time of the launch
of the book, such as: "There will be a few breeding pairs of
humans in the Arctic", are likely to lead to despair and
disengagement rather than determination to act. VERDICT: YES 4,
NO 3 

17. Politicians are unlikely to cut greenhouse gas emissions
sufficiently until it is too late to prevent dangerous warming.
VERDICT: YES 6, NO 1 

18. James Lovelock is a towering figure in environment science
and has been a major influence on understanding the way in which
the Earth system works. VERDICT: YES 6, NO 1 

19. The book is helpful in the climate debate. VERDICT: YES 7,
NO 0 

20. Climate change is real, dangerous and significant in our own
lifetimes. VERDICT: YES 7, NO 0 

The BBC panel comprised: 

Brian Hoskins (Chair)
Royal Society Research Professor, Reading University 

Susan Owens
Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge University 

Ron Oxburgh
University scientist; former chairman of Shell 

Vicky Pope
Head, Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley Centre 

Chris Rapley
Director, British Antarctic Survey 

Hans von Storch
Director, Institute for Coastal Research, Geesthacht, Germany 

Andrew Watson
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 47 BBC: Nuclear planning to be speeded up
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2006
 
[Trade and industry secretary Alistair Darling] 

Mr Darling is hoping to accelerate the building of nuclear plants                                                          

Local objections to nuclear power plants could be over-ridden 
under planning changes proposed by the government's energy 
review. 

Councils could alter the appearance and precise location of the 
sites but would be unable to reject power plants on the grounds 
they were not needed. 

Trade Secretary Alistair Darling told the Financial Times a 
"statement of need" would prioritise energy projects. 

He said the measures were necessary to ensure power supplies did 
not run out. 

"Given the fact that we may need to replace a third of our 
electricity generation, there is a serious risk that one day 
we'll switch on the lights and there won't be gas or electricity 
unless we deal with this planning problem," he said. 

He said the government needed to "streamline the planning laws 
for big infrastructure projects" to ensure proposals of national 
importance were identified at an early stage and seen through 
properly. 

'Mix needed' 

The idea of time limits for inquiries which had stalled was being 
considered, he said. 

He also wanted to "make it easier... to replace power plants that 
are going out of commission". 

The government's energy review is expected to be published next 
week. 

Emphasising his backing for nuclear power, Mr Darling told the 
newspaper: "I've always been clear that a mix of electricity 
generation is good for two reasons. 

"One is it means your eggs are not all in one basket and, in 
relation to security of supply, that is very important. 

"Also, of course, nuclear generation itself does reduce carbon 
emissions."                                                      



*****************************************************************
 48 APP.COM: TOPIC OF THE DAY: Nuclear safety 

 Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Thursday, July 6, 2006
  	 	 
Evacuation plan fails

 It's that time again for the Shore population to swell from its
350,000 year-round residents to more than 550,000 in the summer
within 10 miles of the Oyster Creek nuclear generating plant in
Lacey. Many more will be vacationing within a 20-mile radius.

And it's time for another annual ritual � the public hearing on
the Oyster Creek evacuation plan. We, and many other local
citizens, are alarmed about the inadequacy of the evacuation
plan for this aged plant, especially in light of the safety
issues regarding Oyster Creek's radiation protection barrier.

Local citizens' groups such as ours have raised concerns about
the extensive rusting of the drywell liner, the safety barrier
at Oyster Creek, the oldest operating nuclear plant in the
country. We are not alone in this concern. The rusting of the
drywell liner, which is supposed to protect the public from the
severe health effects of a nuclear accident, also troubles the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

After citizens' groups brought the corrosion of the drywell
liner to the attention of the NRC technical staff, and only
after considerable resistance from plant operator AmerGen Energy
and the NRC legal staff, did the NRC begin questioning AmerGen
and its parent company, Exelon Corp., regarding the corrosion
and their monitoring programs.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in
cooperation with the Division of State Police, will hold a
public hearing Tuesday about the effectiveness of the New Jersey
Radiological Emergency Response Plan at 7 p.m. at the Ocean
County Administration Building, 101 Hooper Ave., Room 119, in
Toms River.

We also call upon all Ocean County mayors, council and committee
members and our freeholders to stand with us at this hearing.
They should go on the record with what many have been saying
publicly for years: "This evacuation plan will not work." It is
time for the state to refuse to certify this inadequate
evacuation plan.

Paula Gotsch
GRAMMES (GRANDMOTHERS, MOTHERS AND MORE FOR ENERGY SAFETY) BRICK
		   		   		 
  Copyright � 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 49 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10523 
[Federal Register: July 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 129)] 
[Notices] [Page 38429-38430] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jy06-114]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. 
The title of the information collection: NRC Form 244, 
Registration Certificate--Use of Depleted Uranium under General 
License.
 
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 244. 4. How often the 
collection is required: On occasion. NRC Form 244 is submitted 
when depleted uranium is received or transferred under general 
license. Information on NRC Form 244 is collected and evaluated 
on a continuing basis as events occur.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Persons receiving, 
possessing, using, or transferring depleted uranium under the 
general license established in 10 CFR 40.25(a). 6. An estimate of 
the number of annual responses: 5 (2 NRC licensees and 3 
Agreement State licensees).
 
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 5 (2 NRC licensees 
and 3 Agreement State licensees).
 
8. The number of hours needed annually to complete the 
requirement or request: 5 (1 hour per response--2 hours for NRC 
licensees and 3 hours for Agreement State licensees).
 
9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR part 40 establishes requirements for 
licenses for the receipt, possession, use and transfer of 
radioactive source and byproduct material. NRC Form 244 is used 
to report receipt and transfer of depleted uranium under general 
license, as required by section 40.25. The registration 
certification information required by NRC Form 244 is necessary 
to permit the NRC to make a determination on whether the 
possession, use, and transfer of depleted uranium source and 
byproduct material is in conformance with the Commission's 
regulations for protection of public health and safety.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge
 
[[Page 38430]] at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. 
OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web 
site: .
 
The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 
days after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by August 7, 2006. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (3150- 0031), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be e-mailed to  or submitted by telephone at 
(202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10523 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 50 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Consideration of Request for 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10525 
[Federal Register: July 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 129)] 
[Notices] [Page 38430] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jy06-115]                         
 
Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Receipt and consideration of request for action under 10 
CFR 2.206. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1396; Fax 
number: (301) 415-8555: E-mail: Irw@nrc.gov. Introduction Notice 
is hereby given that by petition dated April 4, 2006, Mr. Terry 
J. Lodge (Counsel for Petitioners) has requested that the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to the 
Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) Palisades Nuclear Plant 
(PNP). The petitioners' request that the NRC take enforcement 
action against PNP by condemning and stopping the use of the two 
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) concrete 
pads, constructed in 1992 and 2003, which hold dry spent fuel 
storage casks at the plant site.
 
Request As the basis for the request, the petitioners state that 
both ISFSI concrete pads at PNP do not conform to NRC 
requirements for earthquake stability standards and pose a 
distinct hazard in the event of an earthquake.
 
The request concerning slope stability of the 2003 concrete pad 
is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's 
regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the 
Spent Fuel Project Office within the Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate 
action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. 
Representatives of Mr. Lodge spoke with the Petition Review Board 
on April 26, 2006, to discuss the petition. The results of that 
discussion were considered in the Board's determination regarding 
condemning and stopping the use of the two ISFSI concrete pads 
and in establishing a schedule for the review of the petition. By 
letter dated June 27, 2006, the Spent Fuel Project Office Deputy 
Director accepted the petition for review in part, specifically 
with respect to slope stability of the concrete pad constructed 
in 2003.
 
Further Information A copy of the petition may be inspected at 
NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. This document may also 
be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have 
access to the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day 
of June, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10525 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 51 NRC: Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10529 
[Federal Register: July 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 129)] 
[Notices] [Page 38430-38432] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jy06-116]                         
 
Company, the City of Riverside, CA, the City of Anaheim, CA; San 
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Exemption 1.0 
Background Southern California Edison Company (the licensee) is 
the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15, 
which authorize operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 
Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), respectively. The 
licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is 
subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in 
effect.
 
The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors located 
in San Diego County, California.
 
2.0 Request/action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix G, which is invoked by 10 CFR 50.60, 
requires that pressure- temperature (P-T) limits be established 
for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal operating and 
hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix G, states that ``[t]he appropriate requirements 
on both the pressure-temperature limits and the minimum 
permissible temperature must be met for all conditions,'' and 
``[t]he pressure-temperature limits identified as `ASME [American 
Society for Mechanical Engineers] Appendix G limits' in Table 3 
require that the limits must be at least as conservative as 
limits obtained by following the methods of analysis and the 
margins of safety of Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code 
[Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code].'' Part 50 of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix G, also specifies that the 
editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, which are 
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a, apply to the 
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,
 
[[Page 38431]] Appendix G. In the 2005 Edition of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, the 1977 Edition through the 2003 Addenda of 
the ASME Code, Section XI are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 
50.55a. Finally, 10 CFR 50.60(b) states that, ``[p]roposed 
alternatives to the described requirements in Append[ix] G * * * 
of this part or portions thereof may be used when an exemption is 
granted by the Commission under [10 CFR 50.12].'' In the 
licensee's January 28, 2005, license amendment request to 
implement a pressure-temperature limits report (PTLR) for SONGS 2 
and 3, the licensee identified Combustion Engineering (CE) Owners 
Group Topical Report NPSD-683-A, ``The Development of a RCS 
[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature Limits Report 
for the Removal of P-T Limits and LTOP [low temperature 
overpressure protection] Setpoints from the Technical 
Specifications,'' as the PTLR methodology that would be cited in 
the administrative control section of the SONGS 2 and 3 Technical 
Specifications governing PTLR content. CE NPSD-683-A refers to an 
NRC-approved version of Topical Report CE NPSD-683. The NRC staff 
evaluated the specific PTLR methodology in CE NPSD-683, Revision 
6. This evaluation was documented in the NRC safety evaluation 
(SE) of March 16, 2001, which specified additional licensee 
actions that are necessary to support a licensee's adoption of CE 
NPSD-683, Revision 6. The final approved version of this report 
was reissued as CE NPSD-683- A, Revision 6, which included the 
NRC SE and the required additional action items as an attachment 
to the report. One of the additional specified actions stated 
that if a licensee proposed to utilize the methodology in CE 
NPSD-683, Revision 6, for the calculation of flaw stress 
intensity factors due to membrane stress from pressure loading 
(KIM), an exemption was required since the methodology for the 
calculation of KIM values in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, could not 
be shown to be conservative with respect to the methodology for 
the determination of KIM provided in editions and addenda of the 
ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through the 2003 Addenda. 
Therefore, in connection with the licensee's January 28, 2005, 
license amendment request, as supplemented by its letter dated 
January 12, 2006, the licensee also submitted an exemption 
request, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to 
apply the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, 
Revision 6, as part of the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR methodology.
 
During the NRC staff's review of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, the NRC 
staff evaluated the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683, 
Revision 6, versus the methodologies for KIM calculation given in 
the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G. In the staff's March 16, 
2001 SE, the staff noted, ``[t]he CE NSSS [nuclear steam supply 
system] methodology does not invoke the methods in the 1995 
edition of Appendix G to the Code for calculating KIM factors, 
and instead applies FEM [finite element modeling] methods for 
estimating the KIM factors for the RPV shell * * * the staff has 
determined that the KIM calculation methods apply FEM modeling 
that is similar to that used for the determination of the KIT 
factors [as codified in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G]. 
The staff has also determined that there is only a slight 
non-conservative difference between the P-T limits generated from 
the 1989 edition of Appendix G to the Code and those generated 
from CE NSSS methodology as documented in Evaluation No. 
063-PENG-ER-096, Revision 00. The staff considers that this 
difference is reasonable and that it will be consistent with the 
expected improvements in P-T generation methods that have been 
incorporated into the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code.'' 
In summary, the staff concluded in its March 16, 2001, SE that 
the calculation of KIM using the CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, 
methodology would lead to the development of P-T limit curves, 
which may be slightly non-conservative with respect to those 
which would be calculated using the ASME Code, Section XI, 
Appendix G, and that such a difference was to be expected with 
the development of more refined calculational techniques. 
Furthermore, the staff concluded in its March 16, 2001, SE that 
P-T limit curves that would be developed using the methodology of 
CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, would be adequate for protecting the RPV 
from brittle fracture under all normal operating and 
hydrostatic/leak test conditions.
 
3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon 
application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, 
grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) 
the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue 
risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the 
common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances 
are present.
 
This exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing the 
use of an alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress 
intensity factors in the reactor pressure vessel due to membrane 
stress from pressure loadings in lieu of meeting the requirements 
in 10 CFR 50.60. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows NRC to 
grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. In 
addition, the granting of the exemption will not result in 
violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the 
Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized 
by law.
 
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix G, is to ensure that appropriate pressure-temperature 
limits and the minimum permissible temperature are established 
for the reactor pressure vessel under normal operating and 
hydrostatic or leak rate conditions. The licensee's alternative 
methodology for establishing the P-T limits and low-temperature 
overpressure protection setpoints are described in Combustion 
Engineering Owners' Topical Report NPSD-683-A, and has been 
approved by the NRC staff. Based on the above, no new accident 
precursors are created by using the alternative methodology, 
thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased.
 
Also, based on the above, the consequences of postulated 
accidents are not increased. In addition, the licensee will use 
an NRC-approved methodology for establishing P-T limits and 
minimum permissible temperatures for the reactor vessel. 
Therefore, there is no undue risk to the public health and 
safety.
 
The exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing an 
alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress intensity 
factors in the reactor vessel. This change to the calculation of 
stresses in the reactor vessel material has no relation to 
security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is 
not impacted by this exemption.
 
Special circumstances, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are 
present in that continued operation of SONGS 2 and 3 with P-T 
limit curves developed in accordance with the ASME Code, Section 
XI, Appendix G, without the authorization to utilize the 
alternative KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, 
Revision 6, is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. Application of the KIM calculational 
methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in lieu of the 
calculational methodology specified in the ASME Code, Section XI, 
Appendix G, provides an acceptable alternative evaluation
 
[[Page 38432]] procedure, which will continue to meet the 
underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The underlying 
purpose of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, is to 
provide an acceptable margin of safety against brittle failure of 
the RCS during any condition of normal operation to which the 
pressure boundary may be subjected over its service lifetime.
 
Based on the staff's March 16, 2001, SE regarding CE NPSD-683, 
Revision 6, and the licensee's rationale to support the exemption 
request, the staff accepts the licensee's determination that an 
exemption would be required to approve the use of the KIM 
calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6. The staff 
concludes that the application of the technical provisions of the 
KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, by 
SONGS 2 and 3 provides sufficient margin in the development of 
RPV P-T limit curves such that the underlying purpose of the 
regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G) continues to be met. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption requested 
by the licensee is justified based on the special circumstances 
of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``[a]pplication of the regulation in 
the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying 
purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying 
purpose of the rule.'' Based upon a consideration of the 
conservatism that is explicitly incorporated into the 
methodologies of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and ASME Code, 
Section XI, Appendix G, the staff concludes that application of 
the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, 
as described, would provide an adequate margin of safety against 
brittle failure of the RPV. Therefore, the staff concludes that 
the exemption is appropriate under the special circumstances of 
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), and that the application of the technical 
provisions of the KIM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, 
Revision 6, should be approved for use in the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR 
methodology.
 
4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, 
will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, 
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, 
special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission 
hereby grants Southern California Edison Company an exemption 
from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, to allow 
application of the KIM calculational methodology of CE 
NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in establishing the PTLR methodology for 
SONGS 2 and 3.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the 
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on 
the quality of the human environment (71 FR 19553; dated April 
14, 2006).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10529 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 52 courant.com: Nuclear Plant's Dome Coming Down 

 Demolition Work Lowers Concrete Structure By 100 Feet, And
Removal Of The Rest Should Begin Soon

 July 6, 2006 

By GARY LIBOW, Courant Staff Writer   

HADDAM --        The landmark concrete dome that for decades 
housed Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant's reactor has been 
markedly lowered.

The company expects to fully demolish the reactor containment 
dome this month and restore the landscape along the Haddam 
stretch of the Connecticut River.

Connecticut Yankee permanently shut down in 1996, after producing 
110 billion kilowatt hours of electricity over 28 years.

 Since April, demolition crews have shortened the dome's height
from 175 to 75 feet.

Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman Kelley Smith reported Wednesday
that decommissioning at the Haddam Neck plant site is more than
90 percent completed.

One of the final decommissioning tasks is dismantling the
massive, steel-reinforced concrete dome, which has walls between
2� and 4� feet thick.

The company plans to transport 37 million pounds of dome debris
by rail to a Utah disposal site.

Large hydraulic hammers have been used by demolition crews. 

"We essentially used gravity to slowly bring down the
containment dome," Smith said. "Little by little, we have
dropped it 100 feet."

Workmen initially cut open three sections at the dome bottom.
Then, chipping away at the concrete, crews systematically
weakened the dome's support pillars to allow gradual settling of
the structure.

Smith said Connecticut Yankee officials expect the containment
dome will be down this month.

Work on the remaining 75 feet is scheduled to begin this week or
next week, the company official said.

First Selectman Tony Bondi, who has been keeping abreast of
Connecticut Yankee's decommissioning homestretch, said noise
from the demolition could be heard in mainland Haddam, across
the river.

The dome demolition work initially extended into evening, but
the company then reduced the work from two shifts to one, Smith
said.

Connecticut Yankee has repeatedly made public assurances that
its land will be cleaned of radiation, in line with federal
government standards.

 Not all residents believe that standard will be met.

Among those concerned is Rosemary Bassilakis, an anti-nuclear
activist who lives on Old Turnpike Road.

Bassilakis, who visited the Connecticut Yankee site recently,
views the removal of the dome with mixed feelings.

"On one hand, it's a visual marking of the closing of the plant.
It's symbolic to see that dome gone," Bassilakis said. "On the
other hand, removing the dome doesn't erase the contamination of
the land and the water, and doesn't change the concerns we have
regarding safe high-level waste storage."

A short distance from the dome site is a fenced, high-security
complex where 43 concrete casks, housing radioactive spent
nuclear fuel rods and metals, are stored. Many locals have
voiced concerns that it could be decades before the federal
government moves the materials off site.

Contact Gary Libow at glibow@courant.com. 	 

courant.com is Copyright � 2006 by The Hartford Courant   

*****************************************************************
 53 Boston Globe: Sides convent in Plymouth to debate who gets say in Pilgrim's future 

By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent  |  July 6, 2006
 
PLYMOUTH -- Lawyers representing the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission , Pilgrim plant owner Entergy Corp., the
Massachusetts attorney general , and the citizens group Pilgrim
Watch will square off today over who gets to take part in
deciding whether to extend the life of the nuclear reactor for
20 years.

A quasi-judicial branch of the NRC will hear oral arguments from
representatives of Attorney General Thomas Reilly and Pilgrim
Watch, both of which filed motions in May to intervene in the
review of Pilgrim's re licensing application.

Other members of the public also will get a chance to be heard,
although briefly, this evening from 5:30 to 7:30 . An attorney
from Duane Morris LLP -- the industry specialist hired by the
town of Plymouth to represent its interests in the license
renewal process and with Entergy -- is then expected to speak.

The central issue in today's proceedings, held at the Radisson
Hotel Plymouth Harbor, is whether issues raised by the attorney
general's office and the citizens group should be considered as
part the NRC's deliberations on whether to extend Pilgrim's
license to 2032.

Reilly based his motion on the contention that ``the risk of a
severe accident" in Pilgrim's spent fuel pool should be
addressed by the NRC before it grants a license extension. Used
nuclear fuel rods are currently stored inside the reactor and
cooled in water. Critics of the practice have urged that the
rods should instead be buried in a hard containment shell
outside the reactor, called ``dry cask" storage.

Legal specialists on nuclear regulatory law from the NRC's own
staff, from Entergy, and from a firm hired by Entergy will argue
that such an issue is not permitted by the laws governing the
license process.

Staff lawyers for the NRC argue that parties who want to
intervene in the license renewal proceedings must offer
contentions that are specific to the plant in question and can
be backed up by expert testimony. The attorney general's motion
failed to pass that test, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

NRC staff said the expert testimony offered on the probability
of a pool fire was based on 1990 risk information. More recent
assessment information places the risk at 40 times lower,
Sheehan said.

Entergy's response to Reilly's motion cites numerous legal
precedents and concludes the state failed to make a case that it
should be part of the review process.

The two days scheduled for oral argument begin at 9:30 this
morning and continue until 5 p.m. The lawyers will go back to
work tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. [ /] 

� Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. More: 
*****************************************************************
 54 Charleston Daily Mail: Low brow nuke promo

George Hohmann Daily Mail business editor 

Thursday July 06, 2006 


 Michael Green, a retired radioactivity specialist for Union
Carbide Corp., recently wrote an essay proposing that West
Virginia consider nuclear power.

 It's an idea that is growing in popularity. Several utilities,
including Progress Energy of Raleigh, N.C., are exploring the
possibility of building new nuclear power plants.

 But as Green pointed out in his essay, a company could not
build a nuclear plant in West Virginia, even if it wanted to.
That's because of a 1996 state law then-Del. Paul Prunty,
D-Marion, got passed with the help of Chuck Chambers, who was
House speaker.

 The Prunty bill prohibits nuclear power plants from being built
in West Virginia until at least two years after a national
facility has been established to safely dispose of nuclear
waste. The Prunty bill was passed with the support of
environmental lobbyists, including the Sierra Club.

 For more than 20 years the federal government has been studying
a plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas. The U.S. Department of Energy is
currently preparing an application to obtain a license from the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the repository.
 
� Copyright 2005 Charleston Daily Mail -- Privacy policy -- Send
*****************************************************************
 55 Permalink: Call for Congressional Oversight of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
 	
July 05, 2006
 		 		 							
OSC says "trust us" to make the statutory required PPP 
determination
 			 			 				 					
OSC's essential statutory obligations to federal employees who 
seek its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP's) 
are detailed . (Note:  By law, OSC is to "act in the interest of 
those who seek its protection.") include: 

1) investigating their PPP complaint to extent necessary to 
determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP 
occurred 

2) making such a determination ( and 

3) if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every 
instance, to the involved agency.   
 
4) Informing the complaintant of its PPP determination, positive 
or negative, in its pre-determination notice and/or PPP 
investigation termination letter 

OSC thinks differently.  It thinks the complaintant should "trust 
it" that 1) it made the statutory required determination, by the 
statutory required evidentiary standard, and 2) reported it to 
the agency if positive.  This is indicated in an 

Additionally, OSC claims its actions are beyond judicial review, 
that a , while, according to the current Special 

Finally, OSC says "trust us" to Congress also.  Its do not 
contain the required information about its positive PPP 
deteriminations and associated reports to agencies.
 				 				 				 				 			 			
                                July 05, 2006 | Permalink                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|                               
			
 		 	 						 		 		 							
Evidence of OSC's not making a single 1214(e) report since 1989.
 			 			 				 					
By the law at OSC must make a public record of every 1214(e) 
report it makes, together with the agency response.
 
OSC regulations about access to its public records are located at 
.   
 
The for FY 1989 through FY 2003 were obtained from OSC in April 
2004.  Not a single 1214(e) report is listed.  A visit to OSC HQ 
in March 2005 verified that no reports were made from the end of 
FY 2003 (September 30, 2003) to March 2005. 
				 				 				 				 			 			
                                July 05, 2006 | Permalink                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|                               
			
 		 	 						 		 		 							
call to action
 			 			 				 					
July 1, 2006

Open Letter to Past or Present Federal Employees Who Have Sought 
the Protection of the From Prohibited Personnel Practices 
(PPP's), particularly Whistleblower Reprisal, Since 1989.

We (others like you) need your help in obtaining justice from the 
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and we may be able to help you 
obtain it also.

We believe OSC is a systemic, years-long, lawbreaking failure in 
protecting federal employees from PPP's.  This, its primary 
function, stated at ), has received little, if any, Congressional 
oversight since 1989, when it was created as an independent 
agency by the federal Whistleblower Protection Act.

We think OSC's lawbreaking, indirectly at least, contributed to 
9/11, the failure of the levees in New Orleans, the loss of 
Columbia Space Shuttle, and many other, less well-known, federal 
agency mishaps impacting public health and safety or national 
security.  If OSC's lawbreaking continues, uncorrected, we fear 
it may indirectly contribute to a nuclear 9/11 in an American 
city in the next decade.

1)   What are OSC's statutory obligations to the federal 
employees who seek its protection? 

OSC's obligations to concerned federal employees are mentioned at 
A and detailed in .  OSC was created for the primary purpose of 
protecting federal employees from PPP's and, by law, is to act in 
the interest of those who seek its protection.  Its essential 
statutory obligations to these concerned employees include: 

1) investigating the PPP complaint to extent necessary to 
determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP 
occurred 

2) making such a determination and
 
3) if a positive determination is made, reporting it, in every 
instance, to the involved agency.   
 
The law allows OSC two methods of making its required report - 
either directly to the head of the involved agency, in which case 
the agency head must certify a response addressing what the 
agency will do to correct the PPP and by when ( - or, in the 
alternative, or if dissatisfied with the initial agency response, 
to both the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) and the agency, 
as part of establishing jurisdiction for seeking corrective 
action on behalf of the affected employee, if the agency does not 
promptly correct the PPP    

Additionally, when OSC terminates a PPP investigation, it is 
required to include a ?termination statement? in its 
investigation termination notice as described in the ?amendment? 
section of 5 USC 1214, that allows the employee to talk to an 
appropriate OSC official about its investigation, its findings, 
and how the law was applied by OSC.

2) How does OSC fail to comply with these obligations?

It's impossible to ascertain the extent of OSC's lawbreaking 
without court-ordered discovery or Congressional oversight, but 
the following has been admitted by OSC or can be verified by the 
public record:   1) it has not included the required "termination 
statement" in its approximately 18,000 PPP investigation 
termination letters since 1994, 2) it has not issued a single 
1214(e) report since 1989, not for approximately 25,000 PPP 
investigations, 3) its PPP pre-determination notices and 
termination letters do not state that OSC either made the 
statutory required determination, by the statutory established 
standard or evidence, or what it was.  Instead, OSC informs such 
employees that "there is insufficient evidence" for it to take 
further action on their behalf.

We estimate that OSC made positive PPP determinations in several 
thousand of its 25,000 PPP investigation since 1989, but has only 
formally reported them, per in several hundred cases.  We think 
OSC wants a 95%+ chance of winning a conviction at MSPB before it 
will make formally make a positive PPP determination. We think 
OSC, contrary to its statutory obligations, only reports its 
positive PPP determinations in the few instances (perhaps 10%) 
when it decides to prosecute them.  We think OSC has unlawfully 
suppressed about 90% of its positive PPP determinations - several 
thousand - since 1989, causing immense harm to the affected 
employees, their agencies, and the health, safety, and security 
of the American public.

3)   Why is it vital that OSC formally report every positive PPP 
determination it makes? 

OSC?s reporting of its positive PPP determinations is essential 
to the heads of agencies complying with their positive obligation 
as well as for agencies to make accurate reports to Congress, per 
the 

, its first as an independent agency after the 1989 Whistleblower 
Protection Act, stressed the shared responsibilities of different 
people and offices in the three branches of government to protect 
the merit principles of the federal civil service.

4)  What do we hope you will do?

Contact us if you are interested in either or both the following:  

A) petitioning Congress to conduct the necessary oversight of 
OSC's compliance with law and its record in protecting federal 
employees from PPP's, so that Congress can assure federal 
employees that if they risk their jobs and careers by responsibly 
voicing concerns to protect public health, safety, and national 
security, that OSC will comply with its statutory duty to protect 
them.   Congress has the power to make OSC report every instance 
in which it made a positive PPP determination internally, but did 
not formally report it, since 1989.

B) Investigating if there is a reasonable basis to bring a 
class-action suit against OSC, by some or all of the 25,000 
federal employees who trusted OSC to comply with its statutory 
duties to protect them from PPP's since 1989 and whose trust was 
misplaced.

5)  Anything else?

Yes, please circulate this open letter to others who might be 
interested.

6)  How can I contact you?
 

July 05, 2006 | Permalink                                                                       
 		 	 						 					 					 						 							 	
Petitions for Congressional Oversight of OSC
*****************************************************************
 56 Hudson Valley News: Indian Point 3 safely shuts down   

Thursday, July 6, 2006 

The Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant stopped producing
electricity Thursday morning after an electrical relay in the
plants main electric generator shut down the generator, which,
as designed, automatically led to a safe shutdown of the plants
reactor. The relay is an electrical device that detects problems
with the generator, which is located on the non-nuclear side of
the plant, shutting it down if necessary. 

There was no release of radioactivity to the environment.
 
The plant had safely operated continuously for 273 days, the
plants third longest continuous operating run.
 Plant engineers and technicians are inspecting the relay and
the generator to determine the cause of the shutdown. The plant
will return to service once the cause is identified and a repair
is made.
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local public
officials were notified.
 
Indian Point 2, which is unaffected by the shutdown, is
operating at full power. Each plant produces about 1,000
megawatts of electricity, approximately the amount used by 2
million homes. 

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
                only Internet radio news report. 
*****************************************************************
 57 Navy Times: Reactor expert warns of possible risk involving carrier
 
   July 06, 2006
 
 Associated Press

TOKYO (Kyodo) � A U.S. expert on nuclear reactors said Thursday
that concerns over radiological risk involving the planned
deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at a U.S. Navy
base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, cannot be cast
aside. 							

Gordon Thompson, head of a nonprofit U.S. institute on natural
resources and security, told a press conference in Tokyo that
the probability of an accident caused by sabotage by carrier
personnel or a terror attack by a sub-national group �cannot be
quantified,� citing a boat-bomb attack on the guided missile
destroyer Cole in October 2000. 							

The executive director of the Institute for Resource and
Security Studies has been invited to Japan by a Japanese civic
group to announce a report on the radiological risk involving
the deployment of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at
Yokosuka. 				 			

He also said a reactor of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier may
have �comparatively high potential for a destructive hydrogen
explosion� when an incident involving damage of a reactor core
occurs. 							

The press conference was held after Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi
Kabaya effectively accepted on June 14 that the city, about 45
kilometers south of Tokyo, will host a nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier to replace the Kitty Hawk, a diesel-powered aircraft
carrier scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008. 							

�My judgment is that the probability of an accident at a
nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier reactor and a commercial
reactor is rather the same,� he said, adding, �The probability
of sabotage or attack cannot be quantified so each person must
reach their own judgment.� 							

Masahiko Goto, a lawyer and one of the representatives of the
civic group, said the group expects the state, prefecture and
the city to further examine the safety of the planned deployment
based on the report. 							

Goto criticized the city mayor for accepting a nuclear-powered
vessel in line with a Navy fact sheet which �advertised safety�
of U.S. nuclear-powered warships. 							

�We feel that Mr. Thompson�s report has cited several important
risk factors that we have not been explained about. We don�t
think it is too late to have this matter reconsidered,� Goto
said, adding that his group will step up its efforts to call for
the mayor to withdraw his remark. 		 


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
 58 Whitehaven News: BNG contract

Published on 06/07/2006

by staff reporter
 
THE sometimes murky world of security in Russia is being entered
by British Nuclear Group.
 
In a country where the Mafia figure prominently, British Nuclear
Group’s specialist contracting business, Project Services, has
been awarded a new contract from the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) to manage its security enhancement programme at
nuclear sites in Russia and the Former Soviet Union (FSU). 

The work, which runs until 2012, forms a major component of the
UK’s £32.5 million annual contribution to the G8 Global
Partnership to address the nuclear legacies of the Former Soviet
Union and will provide a major income stream for Project
Services.
 
Project Services’ managing firector, Paul Hamer, said: “This
is a major success for Project Services and proves our ability
to win new business in the face of strong competition.
 
“We were successful in gaining this contract for nuclear
security in Russia because of our 100% in-house capability in
this area. 

“We are one of the world’s leading companies in the
management, design, updating and monitoring of security systems
for nuclear sites.”
 
UK and Russian personnel from British Nuclear Group Project
Services and British Nuclear Group’s Security, Safeguards and
International Affairs section will be deployed on these
projects. 

This team will ensure that existing systems are updated in line
with Russian Federation legal requirements and current
international best practice. 

Most of the work, which will include installation of physical
protection and security management systems, upgrading of site
perimeter barriers, pedestrian and vehicle access controls and
guard force facilities, will be implemented.
 
Russian contractors who have been security cleared by the
Russian authorities will be used.
 
*****************************************************************
 59 Arizona Republic: A new atomic age faces hurdles in America 

July 6, 2006     

Complex comeback 

When the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station came on line in 
the Arizona desert in 1986, it seemed destined to be the last 
American atomic-power plant. 

The Chernobyl accident happened the same year, and memories of 
the mishap at Three Mile Island were still fresh. Economics were 
also against nuclear: Fossil-fuel prices were cheap; reactors 
were plagued by cost overruns and regulatory issues.

 Twenty years later, nuclear power is back, thanks to high oil 
prices and concerns over global warming. 

"Nuclear energy has come a long way," said James Levine,
executive vice president for generation at Arizona Public
Service Co. "The plants are more efficient. Nuclear contributes
nothing to aggravating climate change."

 Whether the capital markets are ready to support a
nuclear-energy revival in the United States is another matter.
Even with incentives from Washington and strong backing from the
Bush administration, the nuclear business in America faces
hurdles that go beyond environmental critics.

 Still, early signs of a nuclear comeback are abundant.

 Fourteen new plants are at various stages of development,
according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the major industry
group.

 Among the first utilities to move forward is Progress Energy,
based in Raleigh, N.C. Progress, which already operates four
nuclear plants, has preliminary plans for four new reactors.

 Other southeastern utilities with nuclear experience are also
in the running to be the first to apply for a license, among
them Duke Energy, Southern Cos., Entergy and Florida Power
&Light. 

In another deal, Hitachi Ltd. and General Electric have been
hired to build two reactors for Houston-based NRG Energy. The
deal is worth $5.2 billion. 

Closer to home, APS has begun a study on adding two reactors at
Palo Verde, although it's on a longer timetable.

 Aiding the companies are incentives for nuclear power approved
in the new energy bill. The federal government will offer
insurance against project delays, as well as the possibility of
loan guarantees, for the first new reactors.

 Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last month
approved the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility in New
Mexico, the first license for a major commercial nuclear
facility in 30 years. 

The facility, which will produce enriched uranium for reactors,
is run by Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of nuclear
companies.
 
Power shortage
 
Nuclear's new appeal comes not merely from higher energy costs
but the likelihood that oil prices will keep rising and the most
abundant remaining oil reserves are located in dangerous parts
of the world.

 Demand for power is also exploding. In the United States,
commercial electricity demand is projected to increase 75
percent by 2030 and residential demand is expected to rise by 47
percent, according to the federal Department of Energy. Demand
will be especially strong in the West and South. 

Yet another plus for nuclear: It produces none of the greenhouse
gases that most climate scientists agree are a major factor
behind global warming. Environmentalists make the point that
fossil fuels are consumed in making nuclear components. Even so,
from a climate-change standpoint, nuclear is far preferable to
coal, the other abundant fuel.

 Earlier this year, President Bush said, "For the sake of
economic security and national security, the United States of
America must aggressively move forward with the construction of
nuclear-power plants. Other countries are."

 Indeed, 27 nuclear plants are under construction worldwide,
from Argentina to Ukraine. Asia is the industry's hot spot, with
China hoping to build as many as 30 by 2020. 

Already, the world has 441 nuclear plants, including 103 in the
United States. No wonder some of the world's biggest
conglomerates are in the nuclear business.

 France, a world leader in nuclear energy, chose to focus on
reactors after the 1973 oil shock. With no oil and little coal,
France depends on 56 nuclear stations.

 But are Americans are ready to be so . . . French? Only 44
percent of Americans supported nuclear energy in a Pew Research
Center poll earlier this year. A total of 49 percent opposed
promoting nuclear as a way to meet the nation's energy needs.

 Disposal of reactor waste remains a problem, according to
environmentalists. The federal facility to bury spent
radioactive fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has yet to begin
operations. Nuclear plants are also inviting targets for
terrorists, they say. And mining and processing uranium creates
a host of environmental problems.

 For example, the proposed New Mexico uranium plant will
generate a form of waste that can't be handled by any existing
American disposal site. No processing facility exists in this
country to turn the waste into lower-level radioactive material.
Louisiana Energy is working with a French company to build such
a facility.

Environmental uncertainties

"From environmental standpoint, nuclear is a disaster," said the
Sierra Club's Jon Findley, a Mesa resident who once helped write
training manuals for nuclear plants. "We can't even deal with
the waste we are generating today."

 But the nuclear industry must also get past business hurdles
that are at least as daunting. They include:

 
��The history of cost overruns and busted timetables that proved
costly to utilities in the past by raising the cost of
borrowing. Under favorable circumstances, it can take eight to
10 years to build a nuclear station in the United States.
Washington hopes to help by a speedier permitting process.

 
��Aging plants that must be reconditioned to get an extension of
their licenses or go through the costly and environmentally
controversial process of decommissioning and cleanup.

 
��A lack of nuclear expertise as engineers and other specialists
retire or go to more lucrative offers overseas. Half of the
industry's employees in the United States are older than 47,
according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

Even new designs and the streamlined licensing system bring
uncertainties and risk simply because they are new, nuclear
plants cost huge sums, and it has been decades since one has
been built in the United States.

 "There's lots of people somewhere in the process" of developing
new reactors," said Levine of APS. "But they're being very
cautious."

 So it may be the dawn of a new atomic age, but the payoff for
businesses is uncertain. What is more clear is that we will need
many different energy sources, and each carries unpleasant
trade-offs. None will be as cheap and efficient as the light
sweet crude that is becoming less abundant.

 The Sierra Club's Findley said, "The problem is that everybody
is dependent on fossil fuels. Everybody wants to find a silver
bullet. There is none."

Reach Talton at jon.talton@arizonarepublic.com. Read Talton's
blog at www.taltonblog.azcentral.com.

Copyright � 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 USATODAY.com: Tax dollars to fund study on restricting public data
 
  Updated 7/5/2006 11:27 PM ET     E-mail | Save | Print | 			   

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY 

The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to 
do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data 
available to the press and public through freedom-of-information 
requests. 

Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San
Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously
available information, such as site plans of power plants,
beyond the reach of public inquiries. 

Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will
use that research to produce a national "model statute" that
state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that
potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the
bad guys." 

"There's the public's right to know, but how much?" said
Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces. 

"There's a strong feeling that the law needs to balance that
with the need to protect the well-being of the nation. ...

There's too much stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be," he
said. 

The federal Freedom of Information Act, which became law 40
years ago this week, has long been a source of tension between
the government and the public and news media. 

Critics say the research plan overstates the need for secrecy
and is likely to give state and federal governments too much
discretion to withhold material. "Restricting information (for)
security and efficiency and comfort level, that's the good
story," says Paul McMasters, a specialist in public information
law at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. "The bad
story is that it can also be a great instrument of control. ...

To automatically believe that the less known the better is
really not rational." 

Congress added the grant to this year's Defense Department
budget. It is being administered through the Air Force Research
Laboratory, Addicott said. The laboratory in Rome, N.Y.,
specializes in information technology, according to its website. 

The Freedom of Information Act was signed July 4, 1966. All 50
states and the federal government have "sunshine laws" that
allow reporters and citizens access to many government meetings
and to government records through freedom-of-information
requests. 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:Signed documents by President Johnson
(.pdf files) 

In the past four years, Congress, the District of Columbia and
41 of the 50 states have moved to close some meetings and
restrict records for fear of making information available to
terrorists, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press in Arlington, Va. 

Under a 2002 law, for instance, information submitted to the
federal government by private industry that concerns "critical
infrastructure programs" is exempt from Freedom of Information
Act requests or use in lawsuits. 

Since 2004, Virginia has withheld terrorism response plans, as
well as engineering and architectural drawings of government
buildings that are deemed to be possible terrorist targets.

Since 2004, Ohio has required formal requests and fees to access
formerly open birth and death records. 

Addicott says the various state plans should "take a more
uniform approach" so that neighboring states and the federal
government are "on the same page." 

In 2003, he said, a simulated cyberattack on San Antonio's water
and government information systems showed that computer security
data that was protected under federal law could have been
accessed by terrorists under Texas legislation. 

Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press, says the research program is in keeping with a
recent federal trend to use "homeland security" as an excuse to
restrict unrelated material. 

"Decisions (on requests for public information) are being
handled in progressively less friendly ways," she said. 

Addicott said he knows of no cases in this country in which
public records or a public meeting were used for a terrorist
act. In 2002, a hacker in Australia breached the data control
system of a water treatment plant and caused 260,000 gallons of
sewage to be discharged. 

"We're leaning forward in the saddle (and) thinking about this
before it happens," he said. 


  Posted 7/5/2006 9:51 PM ET   

Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.       
*****************************************************************
 61 [NYTr] US Military in DU Denial
 
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:12:45 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: sshtunnel-receive

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Don Stacey - Jul 6, 2006

Pulsetc.com - Apr 13, 2006
http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2416

The U.S. Military is in DU Denial

posted by Susu Jeffrey

"My name is John Marshall. I was exposed to DU (depleted uranium). I am 
100 percent disabled and I am pissed-off. In fact, I was advised by a 
couple of my counselors not to do this [interview] because I'm so angry 
with the government-at the VA system, at the way I'm treated and other 
veterans are treated. It's very impersonal. They don't give you any 
time. They ask us to go fight their wars, do the dirty work and then 
they can't take care of you." 

Most people don't believe the U.S. has been poisoning its own troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, or they've heard about uranium "tipped" bombs-like 
fingernail polish painted on the outside of a shell casing. On the 
contrary, these are solid uranium core projectiles.

"I got a thank you (letter) from some lieutenant colonel. 'Thank you for 
serving our country. We express our deepest gratitude but we believe you 
were one of these men who were exposed to depleted uranium either 
through shrapnel or inhalation of dust.' 

"I'm 35, I take 17 medications, I've had cancer-lymphatic cancer, 
Hodgkin's disease-Lennert's lymphoma was the initial diagnosis-immune 
system."

At age 35 John Marshall should be beginning to peak in his career. As a 
handsome man, married with three children, Marshall exudes energy. He 
looks strong, earthy, limps a bit on the left, has a thick build with a 
lean neck and chin. The military was his career. Being exposed to DU has 
been called a death sentence. 

"Of course they [the VA] downplay everything. There's latency periods. 
The bottom line is, they don't know the long-term effects. Everybody's 
going to react different. Some are going to get sick. Some might be able 
to last a little bit longer. I've been sick since I've been back."

Friendly Fire

On Jan. 6, 1991, Corporal John Marshall flew to the Persian Gulf and 
waited for the equipment for his mechanized infantry group to arrive. "A 
Bradley is a tin casket" with a 25 mm cannon and "every piece of 
armament you can think of" but no outside shielding armor. Marshall 
didn't feel safe inside a Bradley. He preferred being a ground soldier, 
trusting his legs more than an aluminum transport on tracks. 

"I was a team leader on the ground. I had my own fire team. I didn't 
want to be a [Bradley] gunner because I didn't want to be responsible 
for the men's lives because if a gunner screws up, you got nine men 
dead. And I didn't want to take that burden. And that's where a lot of 
my guilt, my survivor guilt, comes from. 

"I was with the 2nd Armored Division, forward, it was brigade sized, and 
we were attached to the 7th Corps, 1st Infantry Division. The initial 
reports were that in the first 24 hours of the ground war 3,000 out of 
4,000 just in my brigade were supposed to die. That was scary going into 
Iraq. That's what they projected. Thank God things didn't work out that 
way. 

"When the ground campaign kicked off [February 24, 1991] we cleared 
numerous bunkers. We did lots of things that I don't really want to talk 
about too much. We went north into Iraq, then we did a fish-hook to cut 
off the supply lines and communication of the Republican Guard. They 
were retreating. It was a Kill and Destroy Mission, kill and destroy 
everything that was enemy. That's what we did.

"We had some resistance. Most of them were not Republican Guard. Most of 
them were civilian Iraqis. But on the night of the 26th we hit a dug-in 
position and everybody in the vehicle was pretty much banged up except 
for two of us." 

Marshall was asked to go up in the Bradley gun turret. "I could have 
done it. I should have done it. I had the capability. Partially it was a 
small percent of fear but I'd rather fight on the ground. We dismounted; 
we were throwing hand grenades down the hatch-a lot of times Iraqi tanks 
would play possum with us.

"When we hit that [resistance] the rest of the task force continued on. 
We got separated from them for the entire night. We were maneuvering for 
the entire night alone. We were getting out [of the Bradleys], we were 
engaging. So anyway we managed to get through the night and on the 
morning of the 27th we came across a large enemy bunker complex. We 
figured it's a company size, there's 120-or-so Iraqis. There's 18 men in 
two Bradleys and these guys are surrendering to us. 

"So we're taking them prisoner. The LT [lieutenant] finally gets radio 
contact with the commander and says we have prisoners." They were 
ordered to take the prisoners to a support unit to the south and then 
rendezvous with the rest of the task force. 

"I just checked on one of my soldiers who had a gash on his head and 
then the commander comes over the radio and says get the fuck out of 
there-there's supposed to be a counter attack by a large element.

"I started walking and all of a sudden we started taking heavy fire. Two 
sabot rounds hit our Bradley within 6 feet of me. It's a dart of 
depleted uranium. I'm breathing radioactive dust and the toxins from the 
Bradley. I got sparks flying all over me.

"That's what I'm talking about. If I'd gotten in that turret that night 
maybe I could have changed the situation. Maybe we wouldn't have 
been-and maybe people wouldn't have been-but, then I got behind this 
bunker. There's about 15 Iraqis inside there. And I tried to shoot them 
but my weapon jammed. So I cleared my weapon. M-16. It was a terrible 
weapon. It jammed all the time. 

"And those Iraqis, they were crying, they were defecating themselves, 
urinating themselves. They were so shell shocked, absolutely so 
traumatized by the situation. So I felt a bit of empathy. Anyways, that 
didn't work out. One of my soldiers is shooting at a truck, I'm pumping 
203-rounds, it's a grenade launcher, I managed to get my rifle 
operational. I didn't worry about these [Iraqi] guys. They were out of 
the fight. They just wanted to surrender.

"Things happened. There was an Iraqi running towards me and-I capped 
him. I used to see-if I kept my eyes open I could see him all the time."

Three days into the war John Marshall had shrapnel in his shoulder that 
might have been DU-contaminated, and dust in his lungs. Embedded 
reporters on American TV showed soldiers firing into the distance-rounds 
and rounds of blasts chasing the horizon. In February 1991 the dust 
storms were so fierce soldiers two feet away looked like shadows. 

In February 2006 a spike in DU over Britain was made public in the Oct. 
12, 1999, Aldermaston Report. And CNN reported the U.S. lung cancer rate 
jumped six-fold for the first two months of the year. DU dust doesn't 
stay put just as radiation hits from Chernobyl bounced around the world 
on air currents. It is estimated that lung cancer incubates 2 to 5 years 
after DU inhalation. Four and a-half years ago the Afghan bombing 
campaign began. Three years ago Iraq War 2 exploded. And if it's in the 
air, it's in the water.

As of March 2006, there is not a single veteran with confirmed DU health 
problems, according to VA testimony in the Minnesota Senate Agriculture, 
Veterans and Gaming Committee. Sen. Steve Murphy's (D-Red Wing) Veterans 
Health Screening Bill died when Rep. Kathy Tingelstad (R-Andover) 
refused to hear the bill in the House Governmental Operations and 
Veterans Affairs Committee. Veterans are given the Ames test which is 
actually not specific enough to ascertain DU contamination. All of us 
have uranium in our urine because uranium is ubiquitous in the 
environment. The real DU test costs $1,000. The wars cost more than $1 
billion a week. 

Power & Weapons 

Depleted uranium comes from enriching uranium for nuclear weapons or for 
nuclear reactor-grade fuel. Uranium for nuclear power or weapons is so 
refined that more than 99 percent of it is a "by-product"-depleted 
uranium. To some, exporting DU waste as weapons in the Third World 
represents a Machiavellian policy solution to the toxic waste management 
problem. If more nuclear power facilities are built, more, much more 
uranium will be refined with mountains of DU waste. Already there are 
tons and tons of depleted uranium, shipped around the United States and 
processed into solid bars. 

Depleted uranium (DU) is a heavy metal, more dense than lead. Processed 
DU bars come in various sizes and are cut to length. These solid bars 
become the bones, the core, the "penetrator," the innards, of 15 kinds 
of munitions, sized 20 to 120 millimeters, manufactured by Alliant 
TechSystems. 

Alliant TechSystems, ATK on the stock exchange, is headquartered in 
Edina, just off Highway 169. ATK made more than $3 billion last year. 
"We are the largest provider of small-caliber ammunition to the 
Department of Defense, supplying more than 95 percent of all the rounds 
used for combat and training," ATK's website boasts. 

The corporate headquarters is a posh suburban executive building with 
smoked windows. The pond between the freeway and Lincoln Drive is a 
settlement trap for contaminants from stormwater runoff, and a 
dewatering drain for development on low lands. Normally wetland 
vegetation can filter stormwater enough to attract waterbirds. 

Unfortunately the property managers at the ATK building mow, fertilize 
and water their lawn into turf perfection. They have ringed the pond 
with rocks to discourage geese-a lifeless yard but crows frequently 
perch on their roof. ATK management treats their lawn the same way they 
treat people-it's their world view. (In ancient northern Europe crow was 
the corpse eater, crow carried away dead warriors. But in southern 
Europe the Romans heard crow as a symbol of the future, crying 
"Tomorrow, tomorrow," "Cras, cras.")

War always starts out with hope and delivers death. If war worked it 
would have worked by now. To turn the crow warning into a future hope 
consider the crow's foot as a peace sign without the circle. The peace 
sign was created by Lord Bertrand Russell during Easter of 1958 for a 
nuclear disarmament march in England. The design relates to the 
international semaphore alphabet: N for nuclear, D for disarmament, in a 
circle indicating complete, worldwide total. Nuclear disarmament 
requires alternatives to nuclear power; nuclear power was sold to the 
American people as the "peaceful atom." We've always know "the peaceful 
atom is a bomb."

If DU particles are inhaled, alpha radiation causes cell damage, lymph 
cancers and lung cancer. Beta radiation attacks the eyes and skin. 
Chemically, DU acting as a heavy metal affects bone and kidneys. DU has 
a half life of 4 =BD billion years. America has a national debt of $8.4 
trillion. No matter how you count it, cancer and debt is on the rise in 
our country. 

When a DU munition is fired it burns through a target (or a missed 
target) and self-sharpens as it moves, leaving a trail of contaminated 
dust, like smoke, in its wake. It is a superbly efficient weapon. As a 
health risk it is guaranteed: disaster, heartbreak, physical agony, 
financial ruin, and emotional yo-yo on a time scale without end, except 
in retrospect. 

About 340 tons of DU munitions were fired during Iraq War 1. In the 
Balkans, notably Kosovo, approximately 11 tons of DU were delivered. The 
Christian Science Monitor reports estimates of 75 tons (official U.S. 
military figure) to 1,000 tons of DU munitions used in Iraq War 2 so 
far. Most of the bullets and shells lodge in the soil. 

The Department of Defense recommends the removal of heavily-contaminated 
soil and long-term monitoring because the soil leaches DU poisons into 
the water. Crops grown in the soil and water from local supplies spread 
DU toxins into the food chain. And humans, at the top of the food chain, 
ingest the poisons and pass along strengths and weaknesses to the next 
generation if they reproduce. 

There is an "observed higher prevalence of birth defects among infants 
conceived postwar to Gulf War veterans of both sexes," reported Araneta, 
Schlangen, Edmonds, et al, in their study "Prevalence of birth defects 
among infants of Gulf War veterans in Arkansas, Arizona, California, 
Georgia, Hawaii, and Iowa," 1989-1993. More study was needed, they 
concluded.

"The total number of all types of birth defects was not greater than 
expected, but whether the number of specific birth defects was greater 
than expected could not be determined," Penman, Tarver and Currier 
reported in "No evidence of increase in birth defects and health 
problems among children born to Persian Gulf War Veterans in 
Mississippi." The Center for Disease Control (CDC) states that "because 
of the small number of cases found by the study, the statistical power 
of the study was low." According to the CDC, the "normal" birth defect 
statistic is one out of every 33 births in the U.S.

While the experts duel with statistics, DU munitions continue to be 
fired. The old Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP), where DU 
bullets were made, contaminated the New Brighton water supply. They say 
it's cleaned up now and won't be our Love Canal. For years, peace 
activists have called for a study tracking the health of 
Honeywell/Alliant workers who made the DU munitions.

Of the 580,000 Iraq War 1 veterans, 56 percent have applied for 
disability treatment and benefits. Depleted uranium is the sin of the 
father visited upon the next generation, whether it's parental illness, 
death, or birth defects and genetic damage inherited by untold 
generations. Brothers, if you're going over, bank your sperm. Sisters, 
if you're going over-have your babies first. 

Iraq is a nuclear war. DU munitions are weapons of mass destruction 
(WMDs). Yes, there are WMDs in Iraq. 

How do you ask for forgiveness?

Marshall went through EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and 
Reprocessing) for the tape loop of the Iraqi running toward him. "I 
could just look at you and see him. Now I have to think about it to see 
him.

"Anyway, I continued firing and I got hit. I got hit in the back. I 
didn't feel it. All I felt was the hot blood running down my back. There 
was an Iraqi priest right next to me. He's crying, he's got the book of 
Koran and he offers me some water and I wasn't going to drink the water 
because I didn't know if it was contaminated. And I smoked at the time, 
and he offered me a cigarette, and I sure as hell smoked that. I'm 
surprised they didn't try to kill me 'cause I tried to kill them.

"So anyhow, things started to settle down and our own friendlies got to 
the other friendlies and told them you're shooting up friendlies." 

They eventually got evacuated. Marshall was sent to five different field 
hospitals and began his traverse through the VA system. Cpl. John 
Marshall got cancer, a 15-year cough, and a Purple Heart. "I lost my 
career and I lost my health. 

"I was very successful in my career," Marshall states. "I'm really 
having a tough time." 

Time

"I'm just tired. I just feel tired of fighting these bastards in the 
hospital. They don't believe in prevention. My tumor wasn't sent to 
pathology. The government waits. They wait for the veterans to die.

"I try to stay active." He likes to garden. "Each day is just a matter 
of survival." His goal is to live another two years so his family can 
collect benefits. "The way I feel, two years seems like forever to me." 
His hope is that the two little ones, the boys aged 12 and 8, don't get 
cancer.
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 62 Low-level radiation & health conference in Canada
 
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:47:13 -0700


<x-flowed>

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) encourages those interested 
in ionizing radiation and health issues to register now to attend:



Lessons Before & Since Chernobyl--21st Low Level Radiation & Health 
Conference 1985-2006

at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

August 25-28, 2006



Lessons before and since Chernobyl



The aim of this conference is to present and discuss the latest research 
results on the health effects of exposure to low and very low doses of 
radiation. This conference has been organized to provide an 
interprofessional forum, offering a unique mix of presentations from 
leading experts along with substantial time for open and roundtable 
discussion.

The conference aims to present state-of-the-art scientific research from 
world leaders in the field and to make the findings accessible to 
specialists and non-specialists who work with or are otherwise concerned 
about radiation exposure. Accurate knowledge concerning low level radiation 
exposures is of major importance for the future of medical imaging and 
environmental radiation protection. Topics that will be addressed include 
aspects of cellular impact, genomic instability, microbeam to study 
bystander effect and low dose radiation therapy for non-malignant 
conditions. Global perspectives regarding the ethical and political 
concerns of low dose radiation will also be presented.



Registration/ accommodation forms are now available at

<http://www.geocities.com/lorad_2006>http://www.geocities.com/lorad_2006



Please note that registration closes July 12th, after which late fees apply.

Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact 
<mailto:lowrad@mcmaster.ca>lowrad@mcmaster.ca





This conference is the next in a series designed to update people on the 
latest research into Low Level Radiation and Health. It has traditionally 
been held in Europe and this is the first time in North America.



Invited Speakers include Professor Colin Seymour, McMaster University; 
Professor Bill Morgan, University of MD Baltimore; Dr Marianne Sowa, 
Pacific Northwest Labs; Dr. Ron Mitchel, AECL Chalk River; Professor Steve 
Wing, University of North Carolina; Professor Fiona McNeill, McMaster 
University; Professor Deborah Oughton, Oslo University; Dr. Ian Fairlie, 
Independent Consultant; Dr. Keith Baverstock, University of Kuopio; Dr. Tom 
Hinton, University of Georgia; Prof. Carmel Mothersill, McMaster University 
and others.





Dont forget to sign NIRSPetition for a Sustainable Energy Future, at: 
<http://www.nirs.org/petition/index.php?r=ft>http://www.nirs.org/petition/index.php?r=ft 
and use the Invite your friends to signfeature to ask everyone you know to 
sign!











</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 63 NRC: NRC to Present Results of Licensee Performance Review at AREVA Commercial Fuel
Plant on July 13 in Lynchburg

News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street 
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-06-033                         July 
6, 2006 CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah 
(404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  

  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with AREVA NP,
Inc., management in Lynchburg, Va., at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday,
July 13, to discuss the results of a review of regulatory safety
performance at the companys commercial nuclear fuel fabrication
plant.
 
The meeting will be held on the first floor of the companys
corporate office at 3315 Old Forest Road in Lynchburg and will
be open to observation by interested members of the public and
the news media. The meeting will be between AREVA and the NRC,
and NRC officials will be available at the end of the business
portion, before the meeting is adjourned, to answer questions
from observers.
 
The NRC staff assessed performance at AREVA for a period from
May 2, 2004 until April 21, 2006, in the areas of operational
safety, radiological controls, facility support and licensing. 

Dr. William D. Travers, Administrator of the NRC Region II
office in Atlanta, said the plant operated safely during the
time of the NRC assessment. He said the NRC continually reviews
regulatory safety performance at AREVA and at all of the nations
other licensed nuclear facilities. He added that this meeting is
an opportunity for us to discuss safety performance with the
company and with interested members of the press and residents
living near the plant.
 
A copy of the NRC letter to the company regarding the review is
publicly available on the internet in the NRCs Agencywide
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) at
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ML061590518 for the meeting
announcement and ML061460448 for the performance report.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, July 06, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 64 CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Nuke transports prompt concerns

Asheville, NC   

Asheville group calls for measures to ensure safety

by Angie Newsome, ANEWSOME@CITIZEN-TIMES.COM            

published July 6, 2006 12:15 am 

Reader Feedback: Comment on this article|

ASHEVILLE � An Asheville-based coalition opposing the transport 
of radioactive materials through Asheville has released a report 
calling for, among other things, more funding to help emergency 
responders prepare for potential accidents in the area.

�We as a community have to do more than simply trust the federal 
government to protect us,� coalition member Anne Craig told a 
group of residents, officials and community leaders at the 
release last week of �Asheville: At the Nuclear Crossroads,� 
written by the Asheville coalition Common Sense at the Nuclear 
Crossroads. Advertisement �It is time that our community begin an 
informed discussion, and we hope that this report may serve that 
effort,� she said.

Craig said the report was prompted in part by questions about how 
much or what types of radioactive materials are shipped through 
the area.

�We may not live in the shadow of a nuclear plant, bomb factory
or nuclear dump,� said Mike Hopping, a report author. �But
nuclear raw materials, products and waste products do travel our
interstate highways on a regular basis and more often than most
of us are probably aware.�
Routes revealed
 		
Just how often, what types of materials are in shipment and
specific transportation routes cannot be confirmed, largely
because of security concerns. But among the report�s findings
are:

� Tri-State Motor Transport Co., based in Joplin, Mo., hauls two
to four loads of �legacy transuranic waste� � waste containing
man-made radioactive elements heavier than uranium � from the
Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C., to New Mexico, via Atlanta.

The company is one of the largest nationwide carriers of
hazardous materials for the U.S. Department of Defense and the
U.S. Department of Energy.

� If problems occur on Interstate 40, the new section of
Interstate 26 through Madison County is an approved alternative
route for Tri-State drivers. A truck using that route would
reconnect with I-40 via Interstate 240 in Asheville.

� Interstate 26 is the secondary route for nuclear weapons
passing through Western North Carolina. Shipments through
Madison County have been uncommon, according to the report,
though the report stated that emergency personnel have seen
trucks and escort vehicles in the area.

� Another trucking company, Hittman Transport Services, reported
that an average of 10 to 12 unescorted tractor-trailer loads of
low-level nuclear waste travel through Asheville per week.
Company information said Hittman, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Columbia, Md.-based Duratek Inc., is the largest transporter of
radioactive material in the United States.

�It�s been coming through here for years,� Jerry VeHaun,
director of Buncombe County Emergency Services, said Monday.

Local emergency officials are not informed, he said, of the
types, quantities or times the materials are passing through the
area. He agreed that the transport of the materials presents a
hazard but said the threat is not that grave when compared to
other chemicals, such as a tanker of gasoline, because
transportation containers are highly engineered to prevent
ruptures.

Buncombe County is equipped to deal with an accident, if one
occurs, he said, but other Western North Carolina counties may
need more assistance � especially those containing segments of
I-26 and I-40.

�It�s always good to have additional funds for additional
training,� VeHaun said. �I can�t argue with that.�

Contact Angie Newsome at 828-232-5856 or via e-mail at
anewsome@ashevill.gannett.com.   

*****************************************************************
 65 AFP: Australian PM rules out storing nuclear waste from overseas -

 Thu Jul 6, 6:20 AM ET 
		 	 
SYDNEY (AFP) - Prime Minister John Howard has ruled out storing 
radioactive waste from overseas in Australia, after a 
government-appointed taskforce said it would explore creating 
nuclear dumps. 

Howard discussed the sensitive issue with the United States this
year and has ordered an inquiry into nuclear energy in
Australia, which has the world's largest known reserves of
uranium but no nuclear power plants.
 
A subsequent taskforce said this week the inquiry would evaluate
a business case for whether Australia should take and store
radioactive waste from overseas.
 
The taskforce, headed by Ziggy Switkowski, a respected nuclear
physicist and former boss of telco giant Telstra, would also
examine whether Australia should adopt nuclear power, begin
enriching uranium for export and expand uranium mining.
 
But Howard ruled out taking waste from overseas saying on
Thursday: "I'm not going to have this country used as some kind
of repository for other peoples' nuclear problems ... waste
problems."
 
Nuclear power is a sensitive political issue in Australia and
the main opposition Labor Party opposes the introduction of
nuclear power plants.
 
Howard appeared to also rule out the idea immediately after
talks with US officials but anti-nuclear and other groups
remained skeptical.
 
Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 66 OCRWM: Draft Environmental Assessment: Yucca Mountain Repository                                
       
Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Infrastructure
Improvements for the Yucca Mountain Project, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (Department) has issued a draft
environmental assessment (EA) for 30 days of public comment
beginning July 6, 2006. The comment period closes August 4,
2006. 

This environmental assessment will support the Departments
proposed action to improve certain facilities, structures,
roads, and utilities (collectively called infrastructure) for
the Yucca Mountain Project. 

Read Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Infrastructure Improvements for the Yucca Mountain Project,
Nevada. [pdf]
 
Submit comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment. 
	

This page last modified on: July 05, 2006             

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
Contact
   	
*****************************************************************
 67 Whitehaven News: N-waste storage ‘price’ warning
 						
Published on 06/07/2006

COPELAND is warning central government that any moves towards a 
nuclear store for high and intermediate waste in West Cumbria 
would have to include a local partnership agreement.
 
In a draft policy report to Tuesday’s meeting of Copeland 
Council it is stated that the “council favours phased deep 
geological disposal of higher level wastes, which would be fully 
monitorable and retrievable.”
 
But later in the report they state: “The council believes that 
any process for siting long term radioactive waste facilities 
must rely on a partnership with willing host communities.
 
“For this process to be effective from the local community’s 
side it must include the right to withdraw from any proposed 
partnership if the local community has not been able to agree the 
full terms of the partnership agreement.”
 
*****************************************************************
 68 Knox News: State gets $13.7 million reimbursement

By Associated Press 

July 6, 2006

NASHVILLE � Tennessee will receive an extra $13.7 million in 
federal reimbursement funds for the state's homeland security 
projects, state officials said Thursday. 

The money will be applied to improving communications, 
information sharing and training programs, Gov. Phil Bredesen 
said in a release. 
			 			
The state will funnel 80 percent of the money into its 11 
Homeland Security District Councils to pay for city and county 
projects in each area. 

"These funds will spearhead the continued full integration of
local, state and federal agencies," Tennessee Emergency
Management Agency Director Jim Bassham said. "This plan has been
one of the governor's top priorities over the last four years
and will perform as a resource multiplier to achieve our
communications goals." 

The federal money comes from five separate grants: 

+ $4.78 million for protecting against � and responding to �
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive
attacks. 

+ $4.2 million for terrorism preparation in the greater Memphis
area � consisting of Shelby, Tipton, Fayette, Lauderdale
counties and DeSoto County, Miss., and Crittendon County, Ark. 

+ $3.48 million for improving communications between state and
local law enforcement. 

+ $929,000 to enhance mass casualty response programs in
Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga. 

+ $372,000 for citizens' response groups.

Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights reserved.                                                               
*****************************************************************
 69 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Dismisses N. Korea's 'Wild' Threats
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday July 6, 2006 1:31 PM
 	
AP Photo WHCD113 
By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration on Thursday dismissed
North Korea's threat to test-fire more missiles and pressed for
international efforts to get the secretive communist regime to
``cease and desist'' such actions. 

``We're certainly not going to overreact ... to these wild
statements out of Pyongyang and North Korea,'' said
Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns. ``We've seen them before.'' 
The North Korean Foreign Ministry, in a statement carried by the
state-run Korean Central News Agency, insisted that the
communist state had the right to missile tests and argued the
weapons were needed for defense. 

On Tuesday, the country launched several missiles, including a
long-range Taepodong-2 missile - the object of intense
international attention for more than a month - that failed 42
seconds after liftoff, suggesting a catastrophic failure of the
rocket's first, or booster, stage. 

That heartened U.S. officials, since an earlier version of the
missile - last tested in 1998 - failed later in its flight,
apparently due to a third-stage malfunction. A working version
of the intercontinental missile, with a top range of 5,000 to
7,500 miles, could potentially reach the United States with a
light payload. 

``One thing we have learned is that the rocket didn't stay up
for very long,'' President Bush said Wednesday. ``It tumbled
into the sea.'' 

The South Korean press reported Thursday that the North had
three or four short- or medium-range missiles on launch pads
ready for firing. 

Burns, asked on a round of morning television news shows about
North Korea's latest threat, said, ``I think the North Koreans
would like to pit the United States against themselves in a
one-on-one battle of wills. We're not going to fall for that.'' 

Instead, Burns said, the U.S. would work to muster international
pressure on North Korea to ``cease and desist'' such actions. 
``We are much stronger, frankly, from a diplomatic standpoint,
and much better off if we have a wide of countries working
together and sending the same message to the North Koreans,''
Burns told CNN. 

On Wednesday night, Bush spoke by phone to Japan and South
Korea's leaders and stressed the need for a unified response in
the United Nations and elsewhere to the North's missile tests,
the White House said in a statement. He also told the leaders
that he seeks a diplomatic solution through the six-party talks,
which had sought to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions
but were suspended last fall. 

Russia and China, which have bargained alongside the United
States to end North Korea's nuclear program, said only diplomacy
could halt the isolated regime's nuclear and rocket development
programs. 

Japan, within range of proven North Korean missiles, circulated
a Security Council resolution that would ban any country from
transferring funds, material and technology that could be used
in North Korea's missile and weapons of mass destruction
programs. 

China, the North's closest ally, and Russia, which has been
trying to re-establish Soviet-era ties with Pyongyang, favor a
weaker council statement with no threat of sanctions. Both
countries hold veto power on the council. 

North Korea, which has proclaimed itself a nuclear weapons
state, has said sanctions would amount to a declaration of war. 

The Bush administration declined to speculate Wednesday on the
motivation or objectives of a North Korean regime it describes
gingerly as ``opaque.'' 

Still, the United States assumes the launch was part of
Pyongyang's drive to accumulate both nuclear weapons and the
means to deliver them beyond the Korean Peninsula. 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that U.S.
interest in the launch goes beyond its possible reach to the
American continent, because of alliances with South Korea and
Japan. 

``The fact that it failed is a fact, but it does not change the
nature of the launch,'' Rumsfeld said. 

Bush said the failure does not diminish the need to push North
Korea to give up its weapons program, and the administration
repeatedly called on the North to return to stalled
international talks. 

The talks produced a breakthrough agreement last September that
would give North Korea economic rewards in exchange for
dismantling existing weapons and swearing off new ones. North
Korea walked away from the talks in December after the United
States imposed sanctions it says are unrelated to the nuclear
deal. 

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the lead U.S.
negotiator at the talks, said Pyongyang may wait a few days to
issue any explanation for the launch. That is what the regime
did in 1998, when it stunned the world by sending a missile over
northern Japan. The North had abided by a voluntary test
moratorium since then. 

``Their motivation is hard to fathom,'' Hill said in an
interview with The Associated Press. ``They may have thought
this would increase their bargaining power, but it does not.'' 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 70 SF New Mexican: Government releases impact statement for Los Alamos lab       

Thu Jul 6, 2006 6:00 pm                                                                                                        

By ASSOCIATED PRESS             
 		
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - The federal government expects more 
production of the triggers for nuclear weapons to be done at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory in the future.

The plan is included in the National Nuclear Security
Administration's draft version of a new environmental impact
statement for the laboratory.

The four-volume, 1,500-page-plus report is of interest to
regulators and community activists because it is one of the most
public projections of hazardous and environmentally sensitive
activities at the laboratory and indicates the government's
future plans.

The last statement released in 1999 was meant to cover a
five-year period.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the NNSA must
consider a "no-action" alternative, based on restricting
operations to a level prescribed by the 1999 report. The new
report also compares a preferred alternative and another
possibility.

The preferred would expand operations, including the lab's 
ability to quadruple production of plutonium pits _ the triggers 
of hydrogen bombs. Currently, the lab is authorized to produce up 
to 20 pits a year.

NNSA would like it to be allowed to produce up to 80 a year, the
number that might be needed to produce 50 pits than can be
certified use in the nation's weapons stockpile.

The manufacturing is done at the laboratory's Plutonium
Facility, but NNSA has proposed building a Modern Pit
Manufacturing Facility.

That project is on hold pending a larger plan for consolidations
within the nuclear weapons complex. No site has been selected,
so the LANL pit operations would be the nation's only definite
source of pits for now.

The impact statement shows that under the government's preferred
option, low-level radioactive waste would increase by as much as
20 times and chemical waste would triple. Construction and
demolition debris would more than triple.

The report's reduced operations alternative would see a 20
percent reduction in high explosives processing and testing,
shut down the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center and the lab's
Pajarito Site, and eliminate plutonium experiments at the Dual
Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility.

Copies of the draft document can be reviewed at the lab's
community relations office and libraries in Los Alamos, Santa
Fe, Espanola and the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

Comments are due Sept. 5.

The government plans public meetings on the report Aug. 8 at
Fuller Lodge in Los Alamos and Aug. 9 at Eagles Memorial
Sportsplex at Northern New Mexico College in Espanola and the
main building of Santa Fe Community College. The meetings start
at 6 p.m.

___

On the Net:

Los Alamos report: http://www.doeal.gov/LASO/nepa/update.htm		
 	   	 	 	 			
�2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 71 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment for 
 
                        FR Doc E6-10563 
[Federal Register: July 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 129)] 
[Notices] [Page 38391] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06jy06-57]                         
 
the Proposed Infrastructure Improvements for the Yucca Mountain 
Project, Nevada AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice 
of Availability.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability, and the 
opportunity for public review and comment, of a draft 
environmental assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-1566) that examines the 
impacts of a proposal by the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
repair, replace, or improve certain facilities, structures, 
roads, and utilities (collectively referred to as infrastructure) 
for the Yucca Mountain Project. The proposed action would enhance 
safety at the project and enable DOE to safely continue ongoing 
operations, scientific testing, and maintenance until such time 
as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides whether to authorize 
construction of a repository.
 
 
DATES: Comments should be submitted to DOE no later than August 
7, 2006. DOE will consider comments submitted after this date to 
the extent practicable.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments, or requests for copies of the draft EA, 
should be sent to Dr. Jane Summerson, EA Document Manager, United 
States Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, Las Vegas, NV 
89134. Requests for copies of the draft EA may also be made by 
calling 1-800- 225-6972. The draft EA and electronic comment 
forms are available at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov. Comments may 
also be faxed to 1-800-967-0739.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane Summerson, EA Document 
Manager, at the above address or at 1-800-225-6972.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action is to repair, 
replace, or improve certain infrastructure at Yucca Mountain over 
a two-year period to enhance safety at the project and to enable 
DOE to continue safely conducting operations, scientific testing, 
and routine maintenance until such time as the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) decides whether to authorize construction of a 
repository. For purposes of analysis in this EA, DOE assumes this 
period could be up to 10 years in duration. This EA does not, 
however, consider or include any actions beyond an NRC decision 
on construction authorization. The main elements of the proposed 
action are as follows: Construct up to 33 miles of new and 
replacement roads (with two options for an access road) Construct 
up to 20.6 miles of new 138 kV power lines (with two options for 
a main power line) Develop a Central Operations Area consisting 
of six support buildings to replace existing infrastructure that 
is nearing or, in some instances, has exceeded its expected 
design and operational life Site, repair, and construct other 
facilities and structures for the Yucca Mountain Project Under 
both the proposed action and the no-action alternative, ongoing 
operations, scientific testing, and routine maintenance would 
continue to be considered.
 
Some portions of the roads evaluated in this EA cross or run 
parallel to floodplains. Therefore, this EA includes a floodplain 
and wetlands assessment in compliance with DOE Floodplain and 
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022).
 
DOE will consider comments received (see DATES and ADDRESSES, 
above) in finalizing the EA. Based on the final EA, DOE will 
determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or 
issue a finding of no significant impact if appropriate for the 
proposed action.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2006.
 
Edward F. Sproat, III, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management.
 
[FR Doc. E6-10563 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 72 Knox News: Lab earns six awards for top inventions

ORNL researchers' work honored by R Magazine

By News Sentinel staff 

July 6, 2006

OAK RIDGE - Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory won or 
shared six R 100 Awards, which are presented annually for top 
inventions and development of innovative technologies, the lab 
announced Wednesday. 

R Magazine presents the awards annually. Since the program began 
in 1963, ORNL has won 128 of the awards - the most of any 
national lab and second overall to General Electric. 
			 			
In a statement distributed to the news media, ORNL
Director Jeff Wadsworth said, "ORNL's remarkable success in
winning these awards is a reflection of our innovative research
and outstanding staff." Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge manager,
said the awards demonstrate that the lab's work is "respected
and recognized by the scientific community." 

The Oak Ridge awards: 

+ Hybrid lighting system developed by Jeff Muhs, David Beshears,
Duncan Earl and Curt Maxey of ORNL, along with Sunlight Direct
of Oak Ridge. 

+ LandScan global population database developed by Eddie Bright,
Phil Coleman, Amy King, Budhendra Bhaduri and Ed Tinnel. 

+ Metal infusion surface treatment developed by C3
International, with assistance from the staff in ORNL's
Materials Science and Technology Division. 

+ NanoFermentation developed by Tommy Joe Phelps, Lonnie Love,
Adam Rondinone and Bob Lauf, a former ORNL staff member.
Postdoctoral researchers Yul Roh, Chuanlun Zhang and Ji-Won Moon
also participated on the project. 

+ Two new stainless steels, known as TMA 6301 and TMA 4701
developed by Govindarajan Muralidharan, Vinod Sikka, Phil
Maziasz, Neal Evans, Michael Santella and Christopher Stevens.
Duraloy Technologies and Nucor Sheet Mill Group also worked on
the project. 

+ A dehumidification device known as Trane CDQ developed by
Trane Co. in collaboration with Jim Sand, a former ORNL
researcher.
 					
� 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> 
    
*****************************************************************