***************************************************************** 12/12/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.293 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Nuclear Bedfellows: Israel Support Arabs vs Iran 2 washingtonpost.com: Russian Concerns About Iran Resolution Eased - 3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI N-program, sign of transparency 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI, Russia to boost economic ties 5 AFP: Israel and Germany call for tough line on Iran - 6 UPI: Russia priority nuclear partner for Iran 7 UPI: U.N. studies new Iran sanctions resolution 8 Guardian Unlimited: Draft Resolution on Iran Names Officials 9 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Asks Iran to Pay on Nuclear Plant 10 Korea Herald: U.S. envisions 'intense' talks at six-party conference 11 YONHAP NEWS: Bilateral issues should be set aside in nuclear talks 12 IHT: China appeals for flexibility, progress in North Korean nuclear 13 US: Inside Bay Area: Cold War buzzword returns to forefront 14 Korea Times: US Wants to Block All of N. Korea's Financial Deals 15 AFP: Rice wants North Korea denuclearized within 24 months - 16 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: N. Korea Talks Will Be Open-Ended 17 UPI: Analysis: Prospects dim for N.Korea talks 18 US: Missile defense system alters an outpost 19 New York Times: The Cost of an Overheated Planet - 20 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Domenici looks ahead to new issues, battles 21 The Hindu: No external interference will be allowed - Pranab 22 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert's stray comment fuels the nuclear debate 23 Guardian Unlimited: Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe 24 AFP: Olmert's nuclear slip stirs uproar in Israel 25 SF Chron: Small nuclear war could severely cool the planet 26 Ynetnews: Olmert's nuclear ambiguity gaffe - Opinion from Israel, 27 IHT: Olmert remark about Israeli nuclear program spurs calls for 28 AFP: Olmert's nuclear slip creates uproar in Israel 29 AFP: After nuclear slip, Olmert holds talks with German leader - 30 UPI: Analysis: Olmert's nuclear slip took over 31 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Says Israel Among Nuclear Nations NUCLEAR REACTORS 32 Guardian Unlimited: How Gulf states could start new nuclear race 33 Sydney Morning Herald: No new nuclear plants under Labor - Rudd 34 US: SLO Trib: Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor shut down after fire in 35 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockvill 36 US: washingtonpost.com: Energy Success Stories - 37 US: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting 38 Financial Express: We won’t allow scrutiny of nuclear facilities 39 AU ABC: Peer review panel says Switkowksi's nuclear timeframe is unr 40 US: MarketWatch: Progress Energy says new nuclear reactor would cost 41 UPI: Sustainable nuclear energy moves closer 42 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgarian Nuke Exceeds Annual Output Plan 43 US: St. Petersburg Times: Citrus: 'Nuclear' is no dirty word here NUCLEAR SECURITY 44 [NYTr] Nukes: Tony Blair Wants His Tridents 45 AU ABC: Israeli nuclear whistleblower demands freedom 46 Guardian Unlimited: Climate threat from nuclear bombs NUCLEAR SAFETY 47 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: "Absolute Disaster" for Russian Image 48 ENS: Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Environment 49 All Headline News: Depleted Uranium Missiles Found In Serbia - 50 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Who Possess Radioactive Mate 51 Los Angeles Times: Small nuclear conflict could affect globe, report 52 barrow in furness: Radiation found on beach NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 53 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett's uranium views 'not a problem' 54 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear waste site 'must be assessed' - 55 US: Los Angeles Times: Boeing says runoff rules too strict - 56 US: AU ABC: Honeymoon mine proponent offers assurances. PEACE 57 The Herald: US Trident tests cast doubt over UK design claims US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 ENS: Plan Issued for Monument Encircling Hanford Nuclear Site 59 DOE: Secretary Bodman Visits Clean Energy Museum in Tokyo 60 Hanford News: Hanford documentary to premiere in California 61 Examiner.com: Salazar holds up labor appointment over Rocky Flats wo 62 Facing South: ORNL Building 3019-A: the most contaminated building i ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Nuclear Bedfellows: Israel Support Arabs vs Iran Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:16:36 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Australian - Dec 12, 2006 http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20912216-2703,00.html Israel supports Arabs on N-power By Abraham Rabinovich, Jerusalem A DECLARATION by Arab Gulf states that they intend to pursue a nuclear energy program has drawn a surprising welcome from Israeli officials. Leaders of six Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, ordered a feasibility study of a joint atomic energy program at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the Gulf Co-operation Council in Riyadh. The oil-rich countries, all predominantly Sunni Arab states, made it clear their declaration was intended to prod the West into stopping Shia Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, lest the Sunni Arab world also embark on a nuclear arms race. Israel has always feared the Arab world obtaining nuclear arms but is now encouraging an unspoken alliance with Sunni states, which share an interest in curbing the growth of Iranian power. Israeli officials in Jerusalem said they viewed "positively" the pressure that Gulf states were beginning to direct at Iran, including the atomic announcement. "This move is directed against Iran," said an official, who requested anonymity. "You have a situation where these countries see Iran going full-steam ahead without any external interference. They want to send a clear message to major countries that more needs to be done." This assessment was echoed by Abdelaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Centre, in Dubai. "They are trying to say that if the Iranian program continues, you (the West) will oblige us to become nuclear-capable too." The Gulf Co-operation Council is made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Israeli officials say non-Gulf Sunni nations, such as Egypt and Jordan, share the council's concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Israel has felt itself increasingly exposed to the Iranian nuclear threat as Europe and even the US appear to step back from confrontation with Tehran, whose leaders have called for Israel's destruction. But Jerusalem has drawn some comfort from the convergence of interests with Sunni states that is emerging on the Iranian issue. News of the council's announcement came amid persistent reports in the Israeli media that the army was preparing for a major war with Syria, and perhaps Hezbollah, next year. At the weekend, two Israeli generals offered assessments that appeared to contradict each other. Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, the No2 in Israeli military intelligence, told the cabinet that Syrian President Bashar Assad had stepped up production of long-range missiles and ordered that anti-tank missiles be moved closer to the border in anticipation of war. "He is preparing the Syrian army for the possibility of a military conflict with Israel," General Baidatz said. "On the other hand, he is not ruling out the possibility of reaching a political settlement with Israel." But a member of the general staff, speaking anonymously, said there was no indication from either Hezbollah or Syria that they were preparing for imminent war. "All the talk of war in the (northern) summer of 2007 is irresponsible," he said. The comments came days after a report by a high-level US panel recommended that Israel relaunch peace talks with Syria, which have been frozen since 2000. The Baker-Hamilton report said Israel should return the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War, as part of a peace deal with Damascus that would halt Syrian support for radical Palestinian and Lebanese militants and end Syrian meddling in Lebanon. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 washingtonpost.com: Russian Concerns About Iran Resolution Eased - By Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 12, 2006; Page A22 UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 11 -- Senior Russian officials said on Monday that European negotiators have overcome many of their objections to a draft resolution barring trade in sensitive nuclear materials and ballistic missiles, and that an agreement may be in sight. But 's and 's envoys sought to eliminate, or at least water down, some of the resolution's toughest provisions. They include an asset freeze and a travel ban on 23 entities and people linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. "We are still uncertain that as a matter of principle this travel ban should be included" in the resolution, ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, told reporters after two closed-door meetings of the five permanent council members and . Churkin expressed concern that financial sanctions on people and entities linked to Iran's nuclear programs could hamper Iran's legal nuclear energy work. "We need to make sure it's clear those financial actions don't impede those activities," he said. Still, praised the revised draft presented on Friday by , and Germany, saying it echoed Moscow's preference for pursuing a diplomatic strategy that encourages Iran "to sit down at the negotiating table." He said it was carefully drafted to ban only those sensitive nuclear activities, including the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium, that the council was seeking to stop. "The new draft does not provide for blanket sanctions," Lavrov said, according to a report by Russian news agency . "It contains a concrete list of steps aimed at not allowing supplies of technology which causes concerns in the ," he said, referring to the -based U.N. nuclear watchdog. The new initiative comes nearly nine months after the Security Council first called on Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium, citing concerns that it might be diverted to a clandestine nuclear weapons program. has repeatedly ignored the 15-nation council's demands to suspend its enrichment activities, asserting that it is seeking to produce nuclear energy, not weapons. Russia opposed an earlier European resolution on Iran, saying it would have prevented Tehran from pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program. It also objected to a provision exempting a Russian deal to build an $800 million reactor at , in southern Iran. Russia maintains that Iran has the right, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to produce nuclear power at the Bushehr site, and that there is no reason to refer to it in the resolution. The Bush administration had pressed for a broader ban on imports of nuclear and ballistic materials, citing concerns that Iran would use Bushehr and other facilities as a cover for diverting equipment and materials for production of nuclear weapons. The current European draft would ban trade only in those materials that can be linked to enrichment and reprocessing of uranium and construction of a heavy-water nuclear power reactor, which produces plutonium. "We are focusing on what is really dangerous," said French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere. He added that the council would lift sanctions if Iran suspends its most controversial nuclear activities. The Washington Post: | ***************************************************************** 3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI N-program, sign of transparency 2006/12/12 Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh said on Monday that Iran's peaceful nuclear activities are indicative of transparency and compliance of the country with the International Atomic Energy Agency treaties and safeguards. Aqazadeh told his Russian counterpart Sergei Kiriyenko that there is a bright horizon for Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, especially implementation of relevant projects. He said that Russia is the first priority in Iran's nuclear cooperation with foreign states. Kiriyenko, for his part, said peaceful nuclear cooperation between Tehran and Moscow is of high significance. The two sides discussed Iran's nuclear case and Bushehr power plant project. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI, Russia to boost economic ties 2006/12/12 Islamic Republic of Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Head of Russia's Federal Atomic Agency Sergei Kirnienco Monday emphasized the need for creating new potentials for boosting economic ties. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the two countries' Joint Economic Cooperation Commission, the two countries' top political officials said that the objective could be achieved through full activating of that joint commission and establishment of expert surveillance groups. Considering the convening of the commission as a good opportunity for improvement of ties, Mottaki reiterated, "The representatives of various organs and ministries in Iran and Russia, relying on exchange of ideas, are doing their best to expand bilateral ties to an extent to match the two countries' prestige." He added, "Their efforts are aimed to take optimum advantage of this gathering as another step towards taking full advantage of the potentials in Iran and Russia to serve both nations' interests to greatest extent." Our country's Foreign Minister referred to the long history of Iran-Russia relations and both countries' ancient histories, adding, "That is while historic determination has also dictated ups and downs in course of those long lasting ties in certain eras." Mottaki emphasized, "The important point is that our two countries have never remained indifferent toward the developments in one another's territory, and any development in one has resulted in various developments in the other." He drew conclusion, "Therefore, maintaining a comprehensive relation, broad cooperation, and excellent ties for our two countries is an inescapable necessity." The Iranian top diplomat said, "Now, too, in this historic era, we witness the fruitful cooperation between the IRI and the Russian Federation, taking advantage of which would pave the path for continual cooperation in the future." Mottaki added, "This Commission intends to survey the level of the present economic cooperation between the two countries and to devise the executive and operational plan for our future ties." The Iranian FM emphasized, "Membership at regional and international economic groups should not be considered contradictory with two neighbor countries of Iran and Russia's fruitful cooperation." Mottaki added, "Among the issues that need to be surveyed at this gathering there is the trade balance between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, that in unbalanced." He said, "Quite naturally, the IRI must take advantage of its friendly neighbor, Russian Federation's, scientific and technological experience and know-how, but making up for the huge imbalance in our bilateral trade ties can be compensated by commissioning Iranian contractors to implement joint projects in Russian territory, or to do them jointly with Russian contractors." Kirnienco, too, on his part expressed delight over the results of the expert level joint commission, arguing, "The entire spectrum of issues in mind of both sides has been put to technical discussions and the results of technical talks is approved by us." He added, "On existence of broad unused potentials, Moscow's evaluation, too, is that they have not been employed sufficiently." Head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy focusing on priorities for joint cooperation, said, "The most significant field of our joint work is putting to use the Bushehr Nuclear Plant, over which we reached good agreements last September, and dynamic activities are observed for pursuing of that project." Kirnienco pointed out that the Russian leadership is determined to take advantage of the broad spectrum of unused potentials for boosting cooperation with Iran. He reiterated, "Many Russian firms are ready for making investments in Iran and that provided a good ground for presence at tender for construction of Tabas Power Plant." The Russian top nuclear official concluded his remarks arguing, the two countries' good ties should not be subjected to political processes and economic ties should proceed based on pre-planned schedules, regardless of all other developments." SM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Israel and Germany call for tough line on Iran - by Marius Schattner Tue Dec 12, 1:57 PM ET BERLIN (AFP) - Israel" /> Israeland Germany called for a strong international front on Iran" /> Iran's contested nuclear program as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned a Holocaust conference in Tehran. Both leaders urged the international community to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. But after a day in which the spotlight fell on Israel's weapons capabilities, Olmert reiterated the Jewish state's longstanding position that it will neither confirm nor deny having such an arsenal. In an apparent blunder, Olmert had appeared to state in an interview ahead of his European visit that the Jewish state possessed the nuclear bomb. "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. That is our policy and it has not changed," Olmert told a press conference with Merkel. Later, he told journalists travelling with him that in listing Israel alongside acknowledged nuclear powers France, the United States and Russia in the interview with German television "it was only to exclude any parallel being made between Israel and Iran." "I had absolutely no intention of giving the impression that our position on the nuclear issue was going to change," he said. Speaking in the city where the Holocaust was planned, Merkel and Olmert were united in their condemnation of the conference in Tehran at which "revisionist" historians have cast doubt on the extermination of six million Jews by Nazi Germany in World War II. Merkel said Germany rejected the conference "in the strongest terms." "Germany will never accept this and will use all possibilities at its disposal to oppose it." Olmert said the conference exposed the true nature of the Iranian government. "The statements of the Iranian leadership at the conference underline once again the unacceptable character of the Iranian policy and the danger to Western civilisation as a whole from such a state," he said. Iran must never be allowed to have "unconventional weapons," Olmert added, in a reference to Iran's controversial nuclear program. The six major powers dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue -- Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany -- have been wrangling for months over the terms of a UN Security Council resolution. Olmert said it was essential that any sanctions included in a resolution were sufficiently tough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, an ambition Tehran has repeatedly denied. "If the sanctions are done in such a way that they can prevent that, then they are the right means," Olmert said. "I hope that we will see a resolution from the UN Security Council in the next few days." "I think that a big international effort can make Iran change," Olmert added, although he warned the decisions taken must be "unequivocal." Merkel said Iran had turned its back on attempts to persuade it to stop enriching uranium and "unfortunately, the time has now come for sanctions." Olmert later said he welcomed Merkel's "clear and firm" line on the sanctions issue. Israel had criticized a visit by the German foreign minister to Damascus last week, but standing alongside Olmert, Merkel took Iran and Syria" /> Syriato task for sending "very negative signals" about their willingness to participate in efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and Iraq" /> Iraq. A report from the Iraq Study Group, a group of senior US politicians, recommended last week that Washington should involve Damascus and Tehran in negotiations to attempt to end the bloodshed. Earlier on Tuesday, Olmert laid a wreath at Berlin's Grunewald train station from which 50,000 Jews were herded onto trains heading for the Nazis' death camps during World War II. Olmert will go on to Rome on Wednesday to meet his Italian counterpart Romano Prodi and have an audience with Pope Benedict XVI" /> Pope Benedict XVI. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Russia priority nuclear partner for Iran United Press International - NewsTrack - 12/11/2006 10:16:00 PM -0500 TEHRAN, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- The head of Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, was in Tehran for discussions about the completion of Iran's first nuclear power plant. Kiriyenko met Monday with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Novosti reported. The Soviet official told Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, his meeting with Manouchehr was "successful," the report said. Kiriyenko said the core issue is cooperation between the two countries for "the peaceful use of nuclear energy." Russia is building Iran's fist nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Aghazadeh said Iran is determined to expand peaceful uses of the nuclear program. Iran has already started a second experimental sequence of 164 centrifuges at its pilot facility in Natanzin, and aims to launch 3,000 centrifuges at the location by March. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 UPI: U.N. studies new Iran sanctions resolution United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 12/11/2006 9:42:00 PM -0500 UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- U.N. Security Council members have discussed for the first time a new draft resolution aimed at getting Iran to halt nuclear proliferation. It was delivered to them late Friday by the European Union three of Britain, France and Germany. Council members Britain and France discussed it with colleagues on the 15-member panel behind closed doors Monday and were to resume talks Tuesday. Britain and France are two of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the council, along with China, Russia and the United States. Germany is not on the panel. Washington supports the initiative while China and Russia have been cool to it. The eight-page draft threatens a travel ban on certain Iranian officials and freezes the assets of those involved in Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. While sponsors of the resolution are hoping for a unanimous vote, they acknowledge there could be abstentions. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere of France told reporters he hopes for a successful vote by Christmas. The measure calls for immediate suspension of "proliferation sensitive nuclear activities," including enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, "research and development ... work on all heavy water related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water." It does, however, allow continued construction of Russia's $800 million light water reactor at Bushehr, without naming the project. Sponsors refer to the resolution's penalties as being part of a "double suspension," meaning if Tehran suspense its proliferation-related activity, the council will lift the sanctions. The sanctions are being proposed because of Iran's failure to comply with the Aug. 31 deadline the council set for suspending uranium enrichment. Tehran said it wouldn't because if is for peaceful purposes while the EU3 think it is for developing nuclear weapons. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Draft Resolution on Iran Names Officials From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday December 12, 2006 3:31 AM AP Photo XHS105 By JUSTIN BERGMAN Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A retooled draft resolution on Iran's nuclear program presented to the U.N. Security Council on Monday includes the names of top Iranian officials and organizations that would be targeted by proposed sanctions. U.N. ambassadors said negotiators wanted to move swiftly on the draft, which would punish Iran for refusing international demands to suspend uranium enrichment and urge it to continue negotiations over its nuclear program. They said they anticipate a Security Council vote before the end of the year. The organizations that would be targeted by sanctions include the country's atomic energy agency, as well as companies involved in Iran's centrifuge program, its pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the research reactor being built in the city of Arak. Individuals include a top official at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, senior officials involved with the Natanz and Arak facilities and a university rector. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the list of those to be targeted by sanctions was ``much-reduced'' and aimed at those directly involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Iran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed solely at producing nuclear energy, but the U.S. and its allies believe Tehran's enrichment activities are ultimately aimed at producing nuclear weapons. The draft resolution, which was circulated to Security Council members Friday, had been revised by France, Britain and Germany to try to satisfy Russia - an Iranian ally and a veto-wielding member of the Security Council. The new draft specifies in greater detail exactly what materials and technology would be prohibited from being supplied to Iran for possible use in its nuclear and missile programs. The Russians and Chinese had previously complained that proposed sanctions were too broad. The draft also removes references to a nuclear facility being built by the Russians at Bushehr, Iran - another demand by Russia. The facility, expected to go on line in late 2007, would be Iran's first atomic power plant. Russia's U.N. Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Monday he was pleased with the direction of the talks, though specific points still needed to be worked out. ``One important issue for us ... has been that we feel strongly that the Bushehr project has nothing to do with the subject matter of this resolution so now it's out of the draft and this is certainly an important development,'' he said. However, potential roadblocks remain in the text that could prevent Russia from supporting it. The new draft keeps a travel ban and asset freeze on companies, individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs, which Russia has said it opposes. U.N. diplomats said after the Security Council meeting that talks would continue Tuesday on modifications sought by Russia. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to speak to the media. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Asks Iran to Pay on Nuclear Plant From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday December 12, 2006 8:46 PM By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - The head of the Russian state company building a nuclear plant in Iran urged Tehran on Tuesday to keep up payments to complete construction as scheduled, news reports said. The statement from Atomstroiexport's chief, Sergei Shmatko, was the strongest signal yet of financial disputes over the Bushehr nuclear plant. Shmatko said on a trip to Tehran that his company would start delivering nuclear fuel for the plant in March 2007, prior to its launch in September, provided that the Iranians provide stable financing to fulfill the contract signed in 1995. He said preparations for the fuel deliveries would start in January. Shmatko said that Iran already had paid Russia $900 million to build the plant, but he added that his company had been forced to provide a $140 million loan to Tehran because the Iranians had dragged their feet on payment. ``We have confirmed that everything will proceed according to plan, but only if Iran provides $20-$25 million for the construction of Bushehr every month,'' Shmatko said, according to the RIA Novosti news agency. He praised Iran for providing $22 million last month for the plant's construction, adding that he and the Iranian officials had agreed on stable funding for the project during talks in Tehran. ``They have promised us that the Iranian side will maintain the pace,'' Shmatko said, according to RIA Novosti. Russia's Federal Nuclear Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko has said the startup of the Bushehr reactor would take place in September, and that the plant would come online in November. Russia and China, which have major commercial ties with Iran, have been pushing for dialogue instead of U.N. punishment of Iran for its nuclear activities. A draft U.N. Security Council resolution circulated Dec. 8 by France and Britain drops all mention of Bushehr in an apparent hope of winning Russia's support. An earlier European draft that Russia opposed would have exempted the Bushehr nuclear plant, but not the nuclear fuel needed for the reactor. The new draft would still keep a range of sanctions and still would limit technical assistance to Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as urging countries to prevent Iranian students from studying nuclear-related disciplines. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday the new draft was based on Russian amendments. The online Gazeta.ru said in a commentary Tuesday that Iran could be dragging its feet on paying Russia because of irritation over Moscow's joining the West in demanding that Tehran freezes its domestic uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, aimed solely at producing energy, but the United States and the Europeans believe Tehran's activities are ultimately aimed at producing weapons. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 10 Korea Herald: U.S. envisions 'intense' talks at six-party conference The U.S. State Department said Monday it expects negotiations to be "intense" when the six-party North Korean nuclear disarmament discussions resume in China next week. Spokesman Sean McCormack said Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill is expected to have consultations with colleagues during the weekend preceding the discussions. "I would expect the negotiations to be intense and I don't think anybody's going to be giving away anything at these discussions; certainly not the United States," said McCormack. He could not say whether a meeting is planned with the North Korean delegate to the discussions. China announced on Monday the Dec. 18 starting date for the talks. It was not clear how long the discussions will last. The six parties - the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia - have had lengthy exchanges to prepare for the next round. "All the various parties, I think, have a healthy expectation of what is expected and what they might expect to hear, in general terms, from all of the other members of the talks," McCormack said. The operating principle is that "good-faith actions will be met, in turn, by good faith from the other members of the talks," he added. The discussions will be based on a statement of principles agreed to by the parties in September 2005. North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy and economic assistance from the other parties. Hill, a U.S. assistant secretary of state, is set to leave on Friday for Beijing "He doesn't have any particular schedule at this point, but just wanted to give you fair warning there probably will be meetings in advance of the actual formal start of the round," said McCormack. Japan's foreign minister called Tuesday for North Korea to agree to take back U.N. nuclear inspectors when it resumes six-way disarmament talks. North Korea kicked out the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2002 as a crisis gained steam over U.S. allegations that the communist state had developed atomic bombs. Pyongyang tested a nuclear bomb on Oct. 9 this year. "I doubt there are any measures except for inspections by the IAEA to guarantee that (North Korea) has abandoned or suspended its nuclear facilities," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso told reporters. "Without it, we cannot believe a story North Korea would tell us, that it stopped its nuclear facilities," he said. He was responding to a question on whether North Korea agreeing to IAEA inspections would be Japan's minimum expectation from next week's talks. 2006.12.13 ***************************************************************** 11 YONHAP NEWS: Bilateral issues should be set aside in nuclear talks : S. Korean envoy 2006/12/12 17:54 KST SEOUL, Dec. 12 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's chief nuclear envoy said Tuesday that bilateral issues should be shunned at the soon-to-be-resumed six-way talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program, stressing the need to focus on its denuclearization. Chun Yung-woo also urged North Korea to commit to last year's Sept. 19 joint statement, in which Pyongyang vowed to abandon its nuclear program in return for security guarantees and economic aid. "We should avoid overloading the agenda of the six-party talks," Chun said in a speech during a luncheon with a group of U.S. scholars attending a Seoul forum. He pointed out that a financial dispute between Pyongyang and Washington lasting more than a year has proved to be one of the biggest obstacles to the disarmament talks. North Korea pulled out of the negotiations in November last year in protest against the U.S. blacklisting of a Macau-based bank, Banco Delta Asia (BDA), suspected of assisting Pyongyang's alleged counterfeiting, money laundering, and other illicit activities. When the six-nation talks reconvene in Beijing next Monday, North Korean negotiators are expected to reiterate their calls for the United States to lift the sanctions. The U.S. has said that the law enforcement issue is not directly related with the nuclear talks and will be discussed by a separate working group. "As the BDA has demonstrated, bringing thorny bilateral issues into the six-party talks can hold back the denuclearization process," Chun said. His remarks were also seen as pointing to Japan, which has sought to resolve the sensitive issue of North Korea's abduction of Japanese civilians in the past. Chun also said Pyongyang's dialogue partners in the six-nation talks need to redouble efforts to build up trust. "North Korea should stop playing games and demonstrate their genuine commitment to denuclearization by taking bold, concrete steps to implement their share of obligations under the (Sept. 19) joint statement," he said. Analysts said the North's stance will determine whether progress can be made in the new round of talks next week. But Chun expected North Korea to delay nuclear dismantlement, the ultimate goal of the three-year-old dialogue, until it can trust the U.S. commitment to a peaceful resolution. "At the same time, North Korea will be tempted to keep a back door open to future proliferation by maintaining their clandestine uranium enrichment program," he said. "We should give North Korea some confidence that their future lies in complete and irreversible nuclear dismantlement," he said. Chun said "North Korea stands at a critical juncture in their fate," and it should seize "this historic opportunity" to ride out its existential crisis. China, which hosts the talks, called for all the parties concerned to be flexible for the sake of progress. "We hope all sides can show flexibility and a pragmatic attitude to achieve a positive result in the talks," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said. He added that his country is ready to "maintain close contact with all parties concerned and play a constructive role toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and lasting peace in Northeast Asia." In Tokyo, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso stepped up pressure on North Korea by asking it to re-allow inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on its nuclear facilities. "Realistically speaking, I don't think there is any other way," to prove the North has abandoned its nuclear weapons programs, he added. "Without the proof, we cannot easily believe that they have abandoned the plan." lcd@yna.co.kr samkim@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 12 IHT: China appeals for flexibility, progress in North Korean nuclear talks - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: December 12, 2006 [ BEIJING, China: China hopes that nations taking part in renewed talks next week on North Korea's nuclear program will be flexible in order to make substantial progress, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday. Participants should "show flexibility and a pragmatic attitude and take concrete steps to achieve positive results" during the six-nation negotiations, ministry spokesman Qin Gang said. Beijing announced Monday that the talks will resume on Dec. 18, ending a 13-month boycott by Pyongyang in protest at U.S. financial sanctions. "We believe that the success of the talks depends on whether the results move toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, whether it goes in the direction of peace and stability in northeast Asia," Qin said at a regular briefing. He said there will be bilateral and multilateral meetings among the envoys of the six countries, but he did not give details. The talks will be attended by host China, the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Russia. Discussions will focus on how to implement a joint declaration of Sept. 19, 2005, in which the North agreed to abandon its nuclear development program in exchange for aid and security guarantees, Qin said. The resumption of the talks shows that the negotiators "are ready to explore how to implement their obligations and commitments" outlined in the declaration. It is hoped all parties will implement the joint statement in a "comprehensive and balanced way," Qin said. The Korea Times > Nation By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter A ranking U.S. official said in New York on Monday that the international community should ensure that all rogue states¡¯ financial activities are stopped, whether they are ``seemingly legitimate or illicit.¡¯¡¯ Stuart Levey, the U.S. Treasury Department¡¯s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said that financial institutions must implement effective programs, including targeted financial sanctions, to combat threats from terrorist groups and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction such as North Korea. His remarks came as the six-party talks on Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear programs set to resume in Beijing next week. During the talks, the North hopes to find a negotiated way out of financial restrictions imposed by the United States for its alleged illegal activities, such as counterfeiting and money laundering. Washington promised to set up a working group within the six-party framework to discuss sanctions. The North¡¯s accounts in Banco Delta Asia in Macau were frozen in September 2006, and sanctions have now almost severed Pyongyang¡¯s access to the global financial network. ``We must also go beyond simply designating individuals and entities that have been named by the United Nations and proactively identify terrorist supporters that threaten our societies, hold them publicly accountable, isolate them financially and commercially, and ensure that all of their activities, whether seemingly legitimate or illicit, are shut down,¡¯¡¯ he said. In a related development, the Macau bank recently said in a filing to the U.S. Treasury Department that it bought gold from the North, Bloomberg reported on Monday. The bank said in a letter dated Oct. 18 that it ``purchased a large share of the gold bullion produced by North Korea¡¯¡¯ before being listed by the United States as a ``primary money-laundering concern.¡¯¡¯ ``Money could have been laundered, but there is no specific evidence that the bank was aware that it was being used for this purpose, nor that it facilitated any criminal activities,'' the letter said. The bank said it revamped its management system after the U.S. action, froze North Korea-related accounts, hired an outside firm to establish procedures against money laundering and asked the Treasury Department to reconsider its ruling. North Korean assets worth about $24 million are held at the bank. A North Korean official in New York confirmed Pyongyang¡¯s participation in the six-party talks on Tuesday. ``The talks will be held next week, but it is the moment to watch how talks develop,¡¯¡¯ Yonhap News Agency quoted Kim Myong-gil, a minister for North Korea's mission to the United Nations in New York, as saying. He declined to elaborate, the wire service said. North Korea agreed in September 2005 to dismantle its nuclear programs in return for security guarantees and economic aid, but follow-up negotiations have not made any progress. im@koreatimes.co.kr12-12-2006 17:13 ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: Rice wants North Korea denuclearized within 24 months - by David Millikin Tue Dec 12, 12:22 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricesaid she wanted quick results in North Korean disarmament talks that resume next week, setting a two-year time frame to dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. "I'm delighted the talks are going to start again, but they have to start to show results pretty soon," Rice told AFP in an exclusive interview a week before the six-party negotiations begin in Beijing following a 13-month break. Rice said Washington was ready to offer North Korea" /> North Koreaeconomic aid, energy assistance and improved political relations if it follows through on a September 2005 "joint statement" in which it pledged to abandon the development of nuclear weapons. But she declined to provide details of specific incentives being put on the table by Washington ahead of the talks, which will also involve China, Japan, Russia and South Korea" /> South Korea. "I think that everyone is looking, in the next round or so, for the North Koreans to do something that demonstrates that they are in fact committed to denuclearization," she said. Rice said her goal was to have North Korea complete irreversible steps to dismantle its nuclear arms program before the end of President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's term in January 2009. "It's the only timetable I've got -- I'll be long gone in two years, of course that's my timetable," she said. Rice said it would take longer for North Korea to fully "break down" its nuclear infrastructure, which includes a plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon, fuel reprocessing facilities and a test site where the Stalinist regime exploded its first nuclear device on October 9. "But it shouldn't take very long to take some steps that would clearly be irreversible in terms of denuclearization," she said. The six-nation forum started in 2003 in an effort to stop the North acquiring nuclear weapons. North Korea signed on to the vaguely worded September 2005 joint statement to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for security guarantees, energy benefits and other aid. But another round of talks in November failed to make any progress, and North Korea pulled out of the negotiations shortly afterwards to protest US financial sanctions imposed against it for alleged money laundering and counterfeiting. It then conducted its first nuclear weapons test on October 9, triggering global condemnation -- including from closest ally China -- and unprecedented United Nations" /> United Nationssanctions. Under heavy pressure from China, North Korea agreed on October 31 to return to the talks. But in a sign of how difficult the negotiations are likely to be, it then took more than five weeks to set a starting date amid differences over what would be discussed in the forum. Rice's top envoy on the issue, Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, will arrive in Beijing on Saturday and could hold preliminary talks with his Chinese and North Korean counterparts ahead of Monday's formal meeting, a senior US official said. Among the issues expected to be addressed is a timetable for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyto begin visiting North Korean nuclear sites. North Korea also wants Washington to ease its financial sanctions as a show of good faith. Rice expressed the hope that the six-party negotiations would ultimately involve far more than simply disarming North Korea. "We've been very clear that we think that what's at stake is more than just the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula -- it's the whole future of the Korean peninsula as well as security relations with the region as a whole," she said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: N. Korea Talks Will Be Open-Ended From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday December 13, 2006 12:46 AM AP Photo DCNW107 By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The resumed six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program will end only with a firm commitment that Kim Jong Il's government is scrapping the program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday. Only in that context, she said, will the negotiators talk about economic and energy aid to North Korea and increased political contact that eventually could lead to full relations between the United States and the communist-led country. ``I don't think anyone would ask us that we set a firm deadline by which, if we cannot do this, then the talks end,'' Rice told reporters after meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. ``I do think that there is an expectation in the international community that these talks are not for the sake of talks.'' She said that, in talking with her colleagues at last month's meeting in North Vietnam of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, she got a ``very strong sense that these talks need to show results.'' The Chinese government announced on Monday that the suspended talks would be resumed Dec. 18 in Beijing. On Sept. 19, 2005, the six parties - North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States - signed a joint statement setting out the talks' goals and security guarantees and other incentives that could follow once North Korea was committed to denuclearization. Shortly after, the United States imposed financial sanctions against North Korean interests as punishment for counterfeiting U.S. currency and other alleged infractions. North Korea walked out and vowed not to return to the talks until the sanctions were lifted. The talks gained new urgency in the ensuing months after North Korea test-fired missiles and, on Oct. 9, exploded an underground nuclear device. Rice said that, particularly after the nuclear test, North Korea ``needs to demonstrate that it is in fact committed to denuclearization.'' She cited the 2005 agreement as saying that only then, ``in the context of denuclearization, we would be talking about economic assistance, about energy assistance, about increased political contact toward, over some period of time, normalization of relations.'' Downer, the Australian minister, agreed with Rice that the talks should not be for the sake of talking, which would be pointless, but he suggested the possibility of quick results. ``I'm sure the Americans would want talks to be finished by the evening of Dec. 24. Whether that will happen or not remains to be seen,'' Downer said, linking the talks to the Dec. 25 Christmas holiday. ``They've got to be talks that produce real outcomes. There are constructive ideas on the table, and they should be picked up and hopefully by Christmas - maybe a little later, but hopefully by that time - we will see some real progress on this issue, the denuclearization of North Korea,'' Downer. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 UPI: Analysis: Prospects dim for N.Korea talks United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 12/12/2006 10:40:00 AM -0500 By LEE JONG-HEON UPI Correspondent SEOUL, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- North Korea has agreed to return to the stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear program next week, ending its 13-month-long boycott of the multilateral negotiations over U.S. financial sanctions. But U.S. hope of an "early harvest" appears slim as North Korea is expected to use the meeting to boast its nuclear capabilities and demand more concessions from the U.S.-led allies. North Korea and the United States are scheduled in meet in Beijing on Dec. 18 to resume the six-way nuclear negotiations that also involve China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Next week's talks will be the first six-nation talks since North Korea conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9, sparking stringent U.N.-backed sanctions against the reclusive country. The meeting comes at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush, whose Republicans lost control of the Congress in midterm elections, is under increasing pressure to talk directly with North Korea to resolve the nuclear crisis. South Korean government officials expressed hope the upcoming talks would make concrete progress towards persuading North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons, saying there is no deadline for the negotiations. The open-ended round may break for Christmas and resume in January, they said. On Tuesday, Chun Yung-woo, Seoul's chief nuclear envoy, said he expected the North would be tempted to give up the nuclear drive if it is given strong incentives that would help revive the country's battered economy. "I believe it would be a good chance to force North Korea to abide by its non-nuclear promise if there are security guarantees and political and economic incentives that the North cannot ignore," Chun told a Seoul forum attended by a group of U.S. scholars. He said North Korea "stands at a critical juncture in their fate" and should seize "this historic opportunity" to end its economic troubles and diplomatic isolation. "North Korea should stop playing games and demonstrate their genuine commitment to denuclearization by taking bold, concrete steps to implement their share of obligations under the (Sept. 19) joint statement," he said. Under the Sept. 19 joint statement, the first formal document since the six-nation talks began in August 2003, the North agreed to abandon its existing nuclear weapons and all related programs as well as return to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty "at an early date." In return, the North will benefit from energy aid from South Korea, talks to normalize relations with the United States and Japan, negotiations on the provision of light-water reactors to the North "at an appropriate time" as well as the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean peninsula to replace the armistice which ended the three-year Korean War in 1953. But no further progress has since been made on implementing the joint statement and the six-way nuclear talks have been deadlocked as North Korea has boycotted the meeting since November last year after the United States slapped restrictions on a Macau-based bank accused of laundering money for North Korea. Under the U.S. measure, Banco Delta Asia has frozen $24 million of North Korea's holdings in some 50 accounts and cut off transactions with the communist country -- a move believed to stem Pyongyang's cash flow. The North has called for the United States to lift the measure on BDA in a show of trust before seeking progress in the nuclear talks, a demand rejected by Washington which said the financial issue is not relevant to the nuclear talks but a matter to be handled by law enforcement authorities. Chun pointed out the financial dispute has proven to be one of the biggest obstacles to the disarmament talks, saying such an issue should be shunned at the upcoming nuclear talks to focus negotiations on denuclearization. "As the BDA has demonstrated, bringing thorny bilateral issues into the six-party talks can hold back the denuclearization process," he said. Many analysts in Seoul say the North is unlikely to accept the U.S.-proposed list of actions that Pyongyang needs to conduct for an "early harvest," including stopping a graphite-moderated reactor, shutting down a nuclear test site, allowing the return of U.N. nuclear inspectors and reporting its list of nuclear-related programs and facilities. If the North carries out these measures, Washington could restart heavy oil supply and discuss economic aid, normalize bilateral ties and sign a peace treaty with Pyongyang, according to diplomatic sources. "But North Korea is unlikely to accept the U.S. proposal," said Hong Hyon-ik, a research fellow at Seoul's private Sejong Institute. "Rather, the nuclear-armed North is likely to demand bigger concessions from the United States," he predicted. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Missile defense system alters an outpost Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:24:03 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM Missile defense system alters an outpost FORT GREELY: About 1,700 troops, contractors and families will make it their destination. The Defense Satellite Communications System building at Fort Greely is part of a ground-based missile defense system being built there. There are 11 interceptor misiles in the ground now, with as many as 38 expected if base expansion goes as planned. By WILLIAM YARDLEY The New York Times Published: December 11, 2006 Last Modified: December 11, 2006 at 02:00 AM FORT GREELY -- Snow fences help keep drifts from piling up on the missile silos. Heat-sensing security devices that monitor the edges of this 800-acre installation are sometimes triggered by wayward moose. And the soldiers here, members of the three-year-old 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard, were just selected to help field test for the Army the third generation of the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System, seven layers of synthetic material meant to resist the brutal winds that rip past the snow-clad peaks of the Alaska Range. Four years after President Bush ordered a limited missile defense system to be built and nearly a quarter century after Ronald Reagan first proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, this sub-Arctic outpost, once a Cold War training site and still a cold-weather training site, is where progress on the long-embattled missile system is perhaps most evident, military officials say. Eleven interceptor missiles are installed in underground silos here, buried beneath the snow and a former forest of black spruce. This summer, when North Korea signaled that it planned to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile, Fort Greely, which has never fired a test missile, was put on alert status, ostensibly ready to respond if necessary. After the test either failed or was aborted, "there was a little bit of a letdown" at the base, said Lt. Col. Edward E. Hildreth, commander of the 49th, "because we were prepared." That assertion, echoed by other commanders at Fort Greely during a limited tour of the base last week, comes a little more than three months after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Fort Greely and expressed caution about the program's readiness. Critics have noted that some tests of the system elsewhere have failed and a recent successful one -- in California, shortly after Rumsfeld's visit to Fort Greely -- lacked decoys and other uncertainties that would make homing in on an enemy missile difficult. Fort Greely's missile defense system has not been declared fully operational. Even as questions persist about capability, the missile defense program is pushing forward at a cost of at least $9 billion a year. About a third of that goes to the kind of operation that is based at Fort Greely, called Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, which is intended to shoot down enemy missiles while they travel through space. Vandenberg Air Force Base in California also houses two interceptors, but military experts say Fort Greely is better situated to interrupt the likely flight path of a missile from Asia or the Middle East. Just a few years after being shut down, Fort Greely, 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, is now the destination of about 1,700 soldiers, defense contractors and their families. The base's Brownie troop is at 16 girls and growing -- last Monday night they made root beer floats -- just as the number of interceptors installed at the base is expected to expand to as many as 38. Now, in a region with barely four hours of daylight in December, there is a new espresso shop on base and an expanded PX that sells flat-screen televisions. Sgt. Jack W. Carlson, an intelligence analyst, said he was assigned to Fort Greely before the Pentagon officials created the 49th Missile Defense Battalion. "We didn't have a name," Carlson said. "We didn't have patches. We just called ourselves GMD," for Ground-Based Midcourse Defense. Carlson married another soldier and has bought a house in nearby Delta Junction, population 840. He said he heated his house mostly with wood salvaged from the spruce left after a wildfire, before the missiles were installed. Before Fort Greely, he had been stationed in the Virgin Islands. He learned of openings in the missile defense program through an online posting, he said. "I'd been on the beach all my life, and it was time to see the snow." Alaska has been crucial to U.S. military interests since long before it became a state in 1959. Adak, near the western tip of the Aleutian Islands, is scheduled to become the home port of the Sea-Based X-band Radar, a long-delayed system built on a converted oil rig that is critical to the ground-based system's ability to track enemy missiles. While the 49th is an Alaska National Guard unit, Hildreth reports to Col. Michael L. Yowell, commander of the 100th Missile Defense Brigade, based in Colorado. Hildreth said he is well aware of criticism that the missile defense is far from a perfected program. He said Fort Greely operates in a balance between operational mode and construction. "We build a little, test a little," he said. "It's fluid." A 12th interceptor will be installed this month. Last summer, however, when U.S. intelligence learned that North Korea might be preparing to launch an intercontinental missile, the bustle of contractors on the site stopped. Fort Greely went on alert. The system that had struggled through tests faced the possibility of firing a live missile. "It got quiet," said Col. Thomas M. Besch, director of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense for the Missile Defense Agency. "And all of a sudden no developmental activity occurred. You could feel in the atmosphere that people were on edge and ready. You were kind of waiting for something to happen, and it didn't." Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog) [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of moz-screenshot-1.jpg] ***************************************************************** 19 New York Times: The Cost of an Overheated Planet - By STEVE LOHRPublished: December 12, 2006 The iconic culprit in global warmingis the coal-fired power plant. It burns the dirtiest, most carbon-laden of fuels, and its smokestacks belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.

The Energy Challenge

Fossil Fuel Economics Articles in this series are examining the ways in which the world is, and is not, moving toward a more energy efficient, environmentally benign future. Previous Articles in the Series » Related Links Climate Change Science Project(pdf) "Alternatives to Kyoto: the Case for a Carbon Tax" by Richard N. Cooper of Harvard University(pdf) Report on Economics of Climate Change Sponsored by the British Government(pdf) Report From the National Commission on Energy Policy(pdf) Duke Energy's Views on Climate Change and Policy Web Site of Venture Firm Headed by Vinod Khosla, an Alternative Energy Investor Hungry for Power [Carbon’s Possible Future] Graphic Carbon’s Possible Future Enlarge This Image [ border=] Chris Keane for The New York Times James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy and chairman of a leading utility trade group, at an electrical substation in Charlotte, N.C. So it is something of a surprise that James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal-burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, has emerged as an unexpected advocate of federal regulation that would for the first time impose a cost for emitting carbon dioxide. But he has his reasons. “Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,” Mr. Rogers said. “And we need to start now because the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.” Global warming is not only an environmental hazard, but also a great challenge for economic policy. Without economic incentives, analysts say, the needed investments in industrial cleanup, innovative low-carbon technologies, fuel-efficient cars and other ways of reducing energy waste will not occur. Mr. Rogers’s stance is far from universal within the power industry, but it has surprising support, particularly from those, like him, who also produce electricity from carbon-free nuclear reactors. And despite the Bush administration’s adamant opposition to any limits on fossil fuel emissions, the idea is beginning to pick up momentum in the American political arena as well. Already, Californiahas adopted a policy aimed at reducing the state’s contribution to global warming by 25 percent in the next 14 years. In Washington, several influential lawmakers, including Senator John McCain, a leading Republican contender for president in 2008, have introduced legislation intended to limit the nation’s carbon dioxide output. But how would those goals be achieved? Global warming can be seen as a classic “market failure,” and many economists, environmental experts and policy makers agree that the single largest cause of that failure is that in most of the world, there is no price placed on spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yet it is increasingly clear that there is a considerable cost to carbon dioxide emissions, especially to future generations, as climate specialists warn of declines in farm output in poor tropical countries, fiercer hurricanesand coastal floods that could make many people refugees. Price List for Polluting “Setting a real price on carbon emissions is the single most important policy step to take,” said Robert N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. “Pricing is the way you get both the short-term gains through efficiency and the longer-term gains from investments in research and switching to cleaner fuels.” Some academics see an analogy between a global warming policy and the pursuit of national security in the cold war. In the late 1950s, American military spending reached as high as 10 percent of the gross domestic product and averaged about 4 percent, far higher than in any previous peacetime era. A Soviet nuclear attack was a danger but hardly a certainty, just as the predicted catastrophes from global warming are threats but not certainties. “The issues are similar in that you pay now so things are less risky in the future — it’s an insurance policy,” said Richard Cooper, a Harvard economist. “And in the cold war, we taxed ourselves fairly highly to mitigate that threat.” What makes such a view more than a conceptual argument is that executives like Mr. Rogers, who is also chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, a utility trade group whose members provide 60 percent of the nation’s electric power, are also pushing for a carbon dioxide-pricing policy to reduce the risk to their companies. They say that only with some sort of federal policy in place — which would probably take the form of a tax on carbon dioxide waste from any source, or a “cap and trade” regulatory system — will it become clear what carbon cleanup or fuel-switching moves their companies may have to make, and on what sort of timetable. Investors in alternative energy projects also emphasize the need to set policy priorities. “We need a policy framework for the long term,” said Vinod Khosla, a leading environment-oriented venture capitalist. “Fifteen years is the minimum horizon of stability that we need.” Beyond incentives for business, a national global warming policy should include increased federal spending on research on futuristic technologies to curb carbon emissions, advocates say. Combating global warming, they say, will require over-the-horizon breakthroughs involving safe nuclear energy, hydrogen power and advanced carbon sequestration — or technologies that have not yet been imagined. But even today, there are sizable opportunities, by insisting on more efficient energy use, that are not being seized, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. In a new report, the institute, a business-oriented research group that is part of McKinsey &Company consultants, estimated that the yearly growth in worldwide energy demand could be cut by more than half through 2020 — to an annual rate of 0.6 percent from a forecast 2.2 percent, using current technology alone. Available steps that would yield a more productive, and efficient, use of energy include compact fluorescent lighting, improved insulation on new buildings, reduced standby power requirements and an accelerated push for appliance-efficiency standards. All these moves, McKinsey said, would save money for consumers and businesses. "We were really surprised by these huge straightforward opportunities that are not being taken," said Diana Farrell, the McKinsey Global Institute's director. "In some senses, there is a big market failure." Energy efficiency can help slow the pace at which the risk from global warming risk increases, but it cannot reverse the trend alone. In the very long term, environmental experts say, the world's economy needs a technological transformation, from deriving 90 percent of its energy from fossil fuels today to being largely free of emissions from fossil fuels by 2100, through cleanup steps or alternative energy sources. Science and Uncertainty Given all the uncertainties, the scientists and economists who design and run simulations of global warming policy acknowledge that their work is at best a tool for thinking about climate change issues. Still, they tend to agree that over the next 50 years, the cost of slowing and eventually reversing carbon emissions growth will be 1 to 2 percent of global economic output. They assume the focus over those years will be mainly on efficiency and cleaning up electricity generation. In later years, their cost projections become more varied, ranging from 1 percent to as high as 16 percent of global output, depending on assumptions about how difficult it will be to wean the world's vehicle fleet from fossil fuels, and to make other technological leaps. "Going past 2050, the cleverness really has to kick in," said John M. Reilly, an economist at the M.I.T. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. A global warming policy would be shaped first by science and social values, before economics. A sensible goal, according to many environmental specialists, is to try to avert a doubling or more of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in this century. "This is not something that goes on inside a computer, but a grand political calculation," said Stephen H. Schneider, a climate expert at Stanford University. Yet even in realms of social policy, where uncertainty is high, there is an implicit calculation of costs and benefits. In the case of global warming, the cost of society's insurance policy may well be worth it, measured in the damage averted. But it will not be cheap. Take the experts' consensus estimate that curbing carbon dioxide emissions over the next 50 years will, on average, cost about 1 percent of global economic activity annually. It seems a modest figure. Yet in today's terms, 1 percent of the United States economy is more than $120 billion a year, or $400 a person. Put another way, $120 billion is about equal to the Bush administration's tax cuts in 2001; it is also roughly the amount spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year. "There's no easy way around the fact that if global warming is a serious risk, there will be serious costs," said W. David Montgomery, an economist at Charles River Associates, a consulting group. A price on carbon dioxide emissions, most economists agree, would be the most efficient way to combat global warming. And the price, they say, should start small to give industries time to adapt, then ratchet up over the years to encourage long-term investments in energy saving, carbon cleanup and new technology. The two methods of pricing carbon are to charge a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the air, or to place a cap on total emissions and then let polluters trade permits to emit a ton of carbon dioxide. Economists like William D. Nordhaus of Yale and Mr. Cooper of Harvard advocate a tax as the clearest price signal to the energy marketplace, and less susceptible to political tampering and market manipulation than a cap-and-trade system. It could also be used to raise revenue to offset other taxes. In a recent paper, Mr. Cooper suggested an initial tax around $14 a ton of carbon dioxide emitted, which he calculated would translate roughly into a 100 percent tax on coal and add 12 cents to each gallon of gasoline. Such a tax would raise as much as $80 billion a year in the United States. "There's nothing sacred about the number," he said, "but you need to get a significant price into the system to create the incentive for people to go out and look for solutions." A Quota or a Tax? Economically, a cap-and-trade system has the same goal as a tax, putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions, but goes about it differently. A limit would be placed on overall emissions, with polluters allocated permits. Then, companies able to go below their emission targets would be allowed to sell their unused "permits to pollute" to companies that could not. A cap-and-trade system also has some political advantages. It can deflect the anger over higher costs and enable governments to use their allocations to essentially buy political support, since permits are the equivalent of cash. Big polluters, who will have to invest most to clean up, could be granted extra allowances in the early years of the program to subsidize their investments. In the United States, caps and trading have a record of success in combating acid rain, which is caused by sulfur dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants. "People said it was a crazy idea, too complicated and too regulatory," said Richard L. Schmalensee, an M.I.T. economist who was an economic adviser to the first President Bush when the sulfur emissions program was designed. "But the lesson learned was that a cap-and-trade system can work." The global warming legislative proposals before Congress - including one sponsored by Senator McCain and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, and another by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico - envision cap-and-trade systems. But the challenge of controlling carbon emissions is far greater than sulfur. Carbon dioxide is a pervasive byproduct of the economy, and the polluters are many and varied. Once emitted, carbon dioxide is vexingly long-lived in the environment. The early struggles of the European Union's carbon emission trading system, set up last year, point to the administrative and political difficulties. The European governments, responding to lobbying by domestic businesses, handed out permits that exceeded the emissions that most companies were already putting into the air. When that became clear in April, the market price of carbon dioxide emissions fell by half. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who will soon take the chair of the Senate environment committee, has pledged to push Congress to impose a price on carbon dioxide emissions, as the Europeans have done. Yet without coordinated international action, even if the United States - the largest source of carbon emissions - reined them in, this would have only limited effect on global warming. China is on track to surpass the United States as the leading emitter of carbon dioxide by 2009, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. "Unless China and India are brought in, it won't matter much what the developed world does," said Scott Barrett, a professor of environmental economics at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. But developing nations like China and India, energy specialists say, would certainly avoid joining any international effort on global warming without an emphatic move by the United States. "Every year we delay, we contribute to another year of delay in China, India and elsewhere," said Jason S. Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy experts. "The ecological and economic imperative is to start now." Copyright 2006The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 20 Albuquerque Tribune: Domenici looks ahead to new issues, battles James W. Brosnan Tuesday, December 12, 2006 WASHINGTON — Barring the unforeseen, Sen. Pete Domenici will never chair the Senate Energy Committee again, but the Albuquerque Republican is already preparing to resume some old battles in the new Democrat-controlled Senate. Early next year, Domenici and Sen. Ted Kennedy expect to unveil a new legislative approach to mental health to ensure it is given the same health insurance coverage as physical ailments. "We're going to surprise people with a new approach to getting this done," said Domenici, who had a daughter who was diagnosed with a mental illness. After a year that saw Congress complete action on only two of the 13 appropriations bills, Domenici told The Tribune he also is talking to other senators about reforming the oft-delayed and pork-ridden congressional spending process. "It's the only thing that will address the malignancy in the appropriations process," Domenici said. And the 74-year-old Domenici is still planning a re-election campaign in 2008 despite all hoping to the contrary by younger politicians in New Mexico. "I'm working as hard as I can on everything I've got. I don't know what else I can do (to convince them)," said Domenici. His four-year tenure as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee ended Saturday with the adjournment of Congress and passage of a catch-all tax bill that expands drilling areas for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico to within 125 miles of Florida's western shore and by 8.3 million acres. It was a difficult bill that took negotiations not only with Florida but lawmakers from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas who wanted a cut of the off-shore royalties as well as House Republicans who wanted to push for drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts as well. In the end, the bill was the same as what Domenici crafted in the Senate. Had Republicans held onto control of the Senate in the Nov. 7 election, Domenici would have been limited by Republican caucus rules to serving only another two years as committee chairman. Ironically, the rules allow Domenici to be the lead minority member on the committee as long as the Democrats hold power. Other Energy Committee bills passed in the lame-duck session included measures to protect the 102,000 acres of the Valle Vidal in New Mexico from oil and gas drilling, a national drought preparedness program, and a loan guarantee program for rural communities to expand their water systems. But it was the 2005 energy bill that Domenici regards as the hallmark of his work. "Looking at the history of the committee the passing of the Energy Policy Act was the major, major achievement," Domenici said. The measure authorized tax breaks and new government programs for investments in new transmission lines, wind and solar power, nuclear power and coal, oil, ethanol and natural gas production. Domenici said the bill passed only because he decided to work in a bipartisan fashion with Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, and other Democrats on the committee, a model that Domenici intends to follow now that Bingaman is chairman. The energy bill has its critics, including House Democratic leaders who want to repeal some of the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Domenici said most of those breaks originated in the House and they should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Environmental groups handed Domenici his biggest defeat when they successfully backed filibusters to block Domenici's push for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. "We're certainly glad the committee changed hands," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. She said Domenici has put too much of an emphasis on the "failed energy policies of the past," including more drilling and exploration. "The contrary is true," Domenici responded. "We have spent an awful lot of time ignoring opportunities to acquire new production of both gas and oil and alternatives." He said ANWR is an example of how filibusters are now routinely used on even "minor" issues. Domenici also was unable to lock down Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's repository for nuclear waste. The new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, is in a powerful position to block Yucca's use. Domenici said he will continue to work with the Bush administration on safe alternatives to disposing of nuclear waste. HAVE YOUR SAY ***************************************************************** 21 The Hindu: No external interference will be allowed - Pranab Wednesday, December 13, 2006 : 0330 Hrs New Delhi, Dec. 13 (PTI): Faced with attack from Left allies and Opposition BJP over the new US law on nuclear deal, the Government yesterday told Parliament that it contains certain "extraneous and prescriptive" provisions but said concerns over these are expected to be addressed in a separate agreement with Washington. Making a suo motu statement in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee asserted that no external "interference" will be allowed in the country's strategic programme which will remain insulated from outside "scrutiny". He virtually ignored BJP's demand that the US law in its present form be rejected as he made it obvious that negotiations on the 123 agreement, which will make the Indo-US deal operational, will continue. "We will not allow external scrutiny of or interference with the strategic programme," he said, adding "we fully expect" the July 18, 2005 and March two joint statements to be "reflected" in the 123 agreement. He said the Bush Administration has categorically assured India that the legislation passed by the Congress "explicitly" authorised civil nuclear cooperation with India "fully consistent" with the July 18, 2005 agreement and the March two, 2006 Separation Plan. The July 18 deal reached in Washington between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush seeks to end over three-decade long nuclear isolation of India targeted by technology-denial regimes. Under the Separation Plan, India has offered to put 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards. Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert's stray comment fuels the nuclear debate Martin Hodgson Tuesday December 12, 2006 The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, stumbled into controversy last night after apparently admitting that his country possesses a nuclear arsenal. Although widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny the existence of a nuclear weapons programme. But arriving in Berlin for talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Mr Olmert seemed yesterday to undercut the longstanding policy of "strategic ambiguity". He is on a three-day trip to Germany and Italy, to lobby for stronger action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Asked by a television interviewer if Israel's alleged nuclear activities weakened his argument against Iran's atomic plans, Mr Olmert said: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level - when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons - as America, France, Israel, Russia?". Israeli officials were quick to deny that the comments marked any policy change. Mr Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said he did not mean to say that Israel had or aspired to acquire nuclear weapons. The CIA first concluded that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons in 1968, but few details emerged until 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Israel's nuclear weapons facility, gave the Sunday Times detailed descriptions that led defence analysts to rank the country as the sixth largest nuclear power. Although Tehran says its nuclear programme is designed solely to generate electricity, Israel has warned that Iran is intent on developing atomic weapons. Mr Olmert told Germany's Spiegel magazine at the weekend that he ruled "nothing out", when asked about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Tehran. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe Luke Harding in Berlin and Duncan Campbell Wednesday December 13, 2006 The Guardian Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was yesterday trying to fend off accusations of ineptitude and calls for his resignation after he accidentally acknowledged for the first time that Israel had nuclear weapons. After decades in which Israel has stuck to a doctrine of nuclear ambiguity, Mr Olmert let slip during an interview in Germany that Israel did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. He told Germany's Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?" Article continues Mr Olmert's admission comes less than a week after the incoming US secretary of defence, Robert Gates, speculating at a Senate confirmation hearing on Iran's possible motives for trying to build nuclear arms, suggested that Israel had the bomb. Speaking in Berlin after a meeting yesterday with Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, Mr Olmert attempted to backtrack. He insisted that Israel's doggedly held position of nuclear weapons ambiguity had not changed. "Israel has said many times - and I also said this to German television in an interview - that we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East," Mr Olmert insisted. He added: "That was our position, that is our position - nothing has changed." But his remarks did nothing to assuage criticism in Israel. Opposition leaders accused him of "irresponsible" bungling and said he should resign. "This causes great harm to Israel. We are in the midst of a huge [diplomatic] onslaught against Iran's attempts to make a nuclear bomb," former foreign minister Silvan Shalom, a member of the rightwing Likud party, said on Army Radio. He added: "We always face the same question which our enemies ask: 'Why is Israel allowed to [have a bomb] and not Iran?'" Yossi Beilin, of the leftwing Meretz party, which is also in opposition, questioned Mr Olmert's fitness to lead. "The prime minister's amazing statement regarding nuclear capability indicates a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility," the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted him as saying. Mr Olmert's domestic approval ratings have plummeted since this summer's war against Lebanon's Hizbullah guerrillas. Aides to the prime minister tried frantically to limit the damage. His spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, who is accompanying Mr Olmert on his visit to Germany and Italy, said it did not mean Israel possessed or wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. "No, he wasn't saying anything like that." Israel has long declined to confirm or deny having the bomb as part of a "strategic ambiguity" policy that it says fends off numerically superior Arab enemies. But Arabs and Iran see a double standard in US policy in the region. By not declaring itself to be nuclear-armed, Israel gets round a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. It can thus enjoy more than $2bn (£1.02bn) a year in military and other aid from Washington. Israel's main atomic reactor, officially for civilian use, became operational in the early 1960s. The CIA first concluded that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons in 1968, but few details emerged until 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the nuclear facility, gave the Sunday Times detailed descriptions that led defence analysts to rank the country as the sixth largest nuclear power. Mr Vanunu, who was released in 2004 after spending 18 years in prison, welcomed the prime minister's admission. "Obviously, I don't welcome the atomic bomb but this openness could lead at last to some realpolitik - and maybe to some real peace." Mr Vanunu said he believed the admission was not accidental. "My idea is that it was said intentionally. For 20 years they tried to deny me and my story but the policy of cheating and lying didn't succeed. There is now a new defence secretary in the United States and there are also changes taking place in the Arab world, so I think that may have led to the change." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: Olmert's nuclear slip stirs uproar in Israel December 12, 10:09 PM JERUSALEM (AFP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has sparked an uproar after an apparent slip of the tongue in which he for the first time listed Israel as a nuclear power, but few expected the blunder to alter the Jewish state's "policy of nuclear ambiguity." Israel, widely considered the Middle East's sole nuclear power, has for decades refused to admit or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. But on Monday, Olmert appeared to break the taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin. "We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Olmert said, speaking in English, on the N24 Sat1 station. "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" he asked. Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin was quick to deny that Olmert had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region." But the blunder -- which came less than a week after Israeli officials rounded on the incoming US defense secretary Robert Gates for the same slip-up during his Senate confirmation hearings -- sparked outrage, with lawmakers from across the political spectrum calling on the premier to resign. "The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain prime minister," said leftist MP Yossi Beilin. Right-wing opposition Likud MP Yuval Steinitz called on Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century." Meanwhile observers warned that Olmert's statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons. Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the remarks. "Olmert's remark is nothing new, but it is a good thing that Israel decided to make it public," he told AFP. "The world should now not only talk about Iran but also about Israel as a nuclear threat that has to be dealt in order to make a nuclear free Middle East and bring peace." But in scrambling to contain the damage, Israeli officials said Olmert's slip would not change the decades-old policy of keeping mum of whether the country has atomic weapons. "I support the policy of ambiguity and I don't see Olmert's statement as a declaration that Israel has nuclear weapons," Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told army radio. "I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God's sake and for the sake of Israel's security, stop it," he said. Said a senior government official: "This is a real slip of the tongue which was not planned. It is embarrassing for Israel particularly when it is dealing with such a sensitive issue. But this does not change a thing. Our policy stays the same." The remarks "don't change a thing because Israel's policy of ambiguity has stopped being ambiguous because all world leaders assume Israel has an atomic bomb," Yossi Melman, the Israeli Haaretz daily correspondent who specialises on nuclear issues, told AFP. "Now more than ever Israel should say nothing that could give more excuses for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons," he said. Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity dates back to the early 1960s, to an agreement struck with the United States and France. Under this policy, the Jewish state would not carry out any nuclear tests and stay mum on the issue in order to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 SF Chron: Small nuclear war could severely cool the planet [San Francisco Chronicle] Tuesday, December 12, 2006 A regional nuclear war between Third World nations could trigger planetwide cooling that would likely ravage agriculture and kill millions of people, scientists reported Monday. For many years, Western military scientists and strategists have assumed that the damage from small-scale regional nuclear wars would be limited to continents on which they occurred. Now, in a revamping of the "nuclear winter" debate of the 1980s, new and far more sophisticated computer models show that even these little nuclear wars could create global devastation. Scientists, reporting their findings at the American Geophysical Conference in San Francisco, said vast urban firestorms ignited by war would send thick, dark clouds into the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun's rays and cooling much of the planet, with severe climatic and agricultural results. The soot might remain in the upper atmosphere for up to a decade. "All hell would break loose," said Prof. Richard Turco of UCLA's department of atmospheric and ocean sciences. In some places, the planet could cool more than it did during the so-called Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when glaciers advanced over much of northern Europe, said Alan Robock of Rutgers University, speaking Monday at a news conference at the Moscone Center, where the conference is being held this week. "It would be very difficult for agriculture," he said. The scientists' research is a new twist on the nuclear winter hypothesis, which attracted attention in the early 1980s. Back then, planetary scientist Carl Sagan and others warned that a much larger nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union would lead to extensive atmospheric cooling and agricultural failure on a much greater scale and kill far more people. The hypothesis sparked widespread scientific and political controversy. It faded from public attention toward the end of the Cold War, after which many U.S. strategists concluded that major nuclear wars that threatened all civilization were improbable. But that judgment was premature, because of the recent emergence of small- and medium-sized nations that either have or are trying to develop nuclear weapons, the scientists warned. They said that worldwide, a regional nuclear war could kill tens of millions of people, partly because even a small number of nuclear blasts could generate enough smoke to trigger a global climate change. The nuclear explosions and smoke could also damage the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, they said. That layer shields Earth's surface from cancer-causing radiation from the sun. Initially, about 20 percent of the soot would be washed out of the atmosphere by rainfall, said Turco, who was one of the pioneers of the original nuclear winter hypothesis. However, much of the rest of the soot would rise skyward and warm as it was baked by the sun. That warming would make the soot more buoyant and force it even higher into the sky until it penetrated the stratosphere -- just above the tops of thunderclouds -- where high-speed winds would quickly spread the soot throughout the atmosphere, Turco and his colleagues said. The climatic effects of the regional nuclear wars were computer-modeled by Turco and colleagues including another veteran nuclear winter theorist, Owen Brian Toon, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado; his student colleague, Charles Bardeen; Robock; scientist Georgi Stenchikov, also of Rutgers; and Luke Oman of Johns Hopkins University. Alluding to the spread of nuclear weapons to medium-sized nations such as North Korea, Turco said: "The only way to solve this problem is through diplomacy. Force won't do it. We need to be looking forward to complete disarmament of nuclear weapons." E-mail Keay Davidson at . Page A - 15 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 26 Ynetnews: Olmert's nuclear ambiguity gaffe - Opinion from Israel, Was PM's nuclear remark deliberate or a slip of the tongue? Ronen Bergman Published: 12.13.06, 00:14 I wonder what would have happened had the transcript of the interview with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert been presented to Yechiel Horev, head of MALMAB, the information security arm of the Ministry of Defense – without Horev knowing the identity of the interviewee, only that he was a "senior Israeli official." According to a long-standing cabinet decision, Horev is in charge of safeguarding Israel's nuclear ambiguity policy. Behind closed doors Horev tends to compare this ambiguity policy to a glass of water with water-level markings. "My role", explains Horev, as he would draw lines on the glass in his hand, "is to make sure the water doesn’t spill over the top. Until the Mordechai Vanunu case (the Israeli nuclear whistleblower) the water level came up to here," he would say. "After the Vanunu case, the water almost spilled over. Only a miracle prevented the end of our nuclear ambiguity policy. Any further leakage or statement would create a spillover." Olmert Speaks Iran wants nuclear weapons like Israel / AP and Ynet (VIDEO) Ahead of his first visit to Germany as prime minister, Olmert forced to deal with embarrassing slip of the tongue in interview with German TV, saying Iran aspires to possess nuclear weapons like US, France, Israel and Russia. He also calls on Germany to cut its economic ties with Iran The root of the nuclear ambiguity policy lies in the covert understandings reached by Israel and the US at the end of the 1960s. According to these understandings, Israel will not reveal details pertaining to its nuclear capability, if such a capability exists. Over the years, the ambiguity policy became a sacred principle in Israel's security perception. Maintaining nuclear ambiguity was aimed at achieving three primary objectives: Firstly, not to reveal anything that would embarrass the Americans. Secondly, not to create an arms race in the Middle East. The third objective was not to include Israel in the list of nations unable to export raw materials and sensitive technology due to their nuclear capability. Two gaffes in one week Israel has devoted significant resources to preventing leaks and severely punishing anyone who risks the ambiguity policy. The Vanunu affair is an excellent case in point. However, over the years, Israel's ambiguity policy has become a virtual matter. On the face of it, this is absurd: Any child nowadays can search the Google search engine for foreign postings that ostensibly reveal Israel's most sacred secret. This virtual ambiguity that has been created can only be dissipated by an unequivocal statement by a bona fide Israeli official who would clarify Israel's nuclear stance. In the past, South Africa ended its nuclear ambiguity at a press conference held by President de Klerk, who announced that his country has 12 nuclear bombs. Pakistan and India revealed their capability by conducting nuclear experiments. Two gaffes were ostensibly made this week placing a big question mark over Israel's nuclear ambiguity policy. First, US Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates said Israel has nuclear arms; then, Olmert referred to the issue on Monday. Deliberate remarks or mere coincidence? Could this be an intentional effort to dissipate Israel's ambiguity policy or an incredible coincidence? It's hard to say. Perhaps Olmert wanted to hint at Israel's capability within the belligerent statements he has been scattering lately with the aim of warning Western states that if they don't take care of Iran, Israel would do so. Alternately, perhaps it's just another gaffe in a series of blunders that have beset the prime minister since the outbreak of the second Lebanon War. Either way, it raises the question of whether Olmert's statement does indeed put an end to Israel's nuclear ambiguity policy. The answer is apparently negative. As long as the US doesn’t demand that Israel agree to international monitoring, as it does of other nations such as Iran and North Korea, Horev's water level may reach boiling point, but it will not spill over. [as15-c] Copyright © Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 IHT: Olmert remark about Israeli nuclear program spurs calls for resignation, sanctions - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: December 12, 2006 [ JERUSALEM: Israel's prime minister spent Tuesday trying to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, after a remark in an interview was interpreted as confirming Israel has nuclear weapons — widely assumed to be true, but never officially admitted by Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was beginning a visit to Germany when an interview he gave to a German TV station before he left Jerusalem started making waves. One reading of his words would indicate that he included Israel on the list of nations with nuclear weapons. Another reading, the one Olmert and his aides preferred, did not. But the ambiguity was enough to trigger calls for his resignation from his domestic opponents, sanctions from an Arab official and sarcastic praise from a leading Israeli defense analyst for coming clean on an issue about which no one really has any doubts any more. Ambiguity also describes Israel's official policy. It declares Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, and officials are not prepared to elaborate — in the face of evidence that Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and may be the world's six-largest nuclear power. In the interview, Olmert was asked about Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel. He replied that Israel has never threatened to annihilate anyone. Then he got himself into trouble. "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map," Olmert said. "Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" One newspaper wondered whether the list of countries raised the possibility that "nuclear weapons" could apply to Iran, not the list including Israel — but the grammatical nuance was lost on the rest of the Israeli media and political world, which grabbed the remark, made in English, and raced off into the arena of sweeping conclusions. Opposition lawmaker Yossi Beilin, head of the dovish Meretz party, criticized what he termed Olmert's "carelessness." Together with Olmert's perceived failures of leadership during the Lebanon war, Beilin said, "it might be an indication that he isn't fit to serve as prime minister." Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom of the hardline Likud, another opposition party, said the comment could hurt Israel's attempt to get the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Shalom said Olmert "gave tools" to Israel's enemies, allowing them to say, "Why are you dealing only with Iran while Israel is confirming that it has the same kind of weapons?" A senior Arab official echoed that, calling for punishing Israel. Abdul Rahman al-Attiyah, secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, said, "The United States should not apply double standards since it calls for sanctions on countries that have nuclear programs that we have not ruled out are framework of nuclear weapons." Speaking in Germany, Olmert denied he had "outed" Israel's nuclear program. "Israel has said many times, and I also said this to German television in an interview, that we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East," Olmert said after meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "That was our position, that is our position — nothing has changed." Defense analyst Amir Oren, writing in the Haaretz daily, gave Olmert backhand praise. "Thanks to him, there is no longer any need to rely on real or bogus 'foreign sources' when referring to Israel's nuclear potential," a longtime requirement from Israel's military censor. Oren criticized Olmert for losing control of his tongue and forgetting that "he is the prime minister, not just some commentator or politician." Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower who gave Israeli nuclear secrets to the British paper The Sunday Times in 1986 and served an 18-year sentence for his disclosures, said he hoped Olmert's comment wasn't a mistake, but rather "the beginning of a policy change" that would see Israel openly acknowledge its nuclear weapons. But Shlomo Brom, an expert on strategic affairs at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, said Olmert was simply misunderstood. "This is much ado about nothing," Brom said. Earlier in the week Brom said these days no one believes Israel's ambiguous denials, anyway. All rights reserved [IHT] ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: Olmert's nuclear slip creates uproar in Israel by Ron Bousso Tue Dec 12, 2:29 PM ET JERUSALEM (AFP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sparked an uproar after an apparent slip of the tongue in which he for the first time listed Israel" /> as a nuclear power, but few expected the blunder to alter the Jewish state's "policy of nuclear ambiguity." Israel, widely considered the Middle East's sole nuclear power, has for decades refused to admit or deny whether it has the atomic bomb. But on Monday, Olmert appeared to break the taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin. "We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Olmert told the N24 Sat1 station, speaking in English. "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" he asked. Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin was quick to deny that Olmert had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region." The Israeli premier stuck to the same line on Tuesday, telling a news conference after a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. That is our policy and it has not changed. There is no need to explain it any further." But the blunder -- which came less than a week after Israeli officials rounded on the incoming US defense secretary Robert Gates for the same slip-up during his Senate confirmation hearings -- sparked outrage, with lawmakers from across the political spectrum calling on the premier to resign. "The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain prime minister," said leftist MP Yossi Beilin. Right-wing opposition Likud MP Yuval Steinitz called on Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century." Meanwhile observers warned that Olmert's statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran" /> from pursuing its nuclear program, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons. Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel's nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the premier's remarks. "Olmert's remark is nothing new, but it is a good thing that Israel decided to make it public," he told AFP. "The world should now not only talk about Iran but also about Israel as a nuclear threat that has to be dealt with in order to make a nuclear-free Middle East and bring peace." But in scrambling to contain the damage, Israeli officials said Olmert's slip would not change the decades-old policy of keeping mum on whether the country has atomic weapons. "I support the policy of ambiguity and I don't see Olmert's statement as a declaration that Israel has nuclear weapons," Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told army radio. "I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God's sake and for the sake of Israel's security, stop it," he said. Said a senior government official: "This is a real slip of the tongue which was not planned. It is embarrassing for Israel, particularly when it is dealing with such a sensitive issue. But this does not change a thing. Our policy stays the same." Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity dates back to the early 1960s, to an agreement struck with the United States and France. Under this policy, the Jewish state would not carry out any nuclear tests and stay silent on the issue in order to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The head of the Gulf Cooperation Council demanded the application of the UN charter's Chapter Seven on Israel after Olmert's Monday statement. "We call for application against Israel of Chapter VII, that is to say, the imposition of sanctions," Secretary General Abderrahman al-Attiya said in Kuwait. He urged the United States not to apply a policy of "double standards" and to "work for the application (against Israel) of the resolutions of international legitimacy and of Chapter VII." Chapter VII deals with action the UN Security Council might take regarding threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: After nuclear slip, Olmert holds talks with German leader - by Marius Schattner Tue Dec 12, 8:30 AM ET BERLIN (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was holding talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel after he sparked an uproar by appearing to admit that Israel" /> Israelhas nuclear weapons. The discussions on Tuesday were expected to focus on the Israeli-Arab conflict and Iran" /> Iran's contested nuclear programme. On the first full day of his trip to Germany, Olmert laid a wreath at a Berlin train station from which 50,000 Jews were herded onto trains heading for the Nazis' death camps during World War II. In a sombre speech at the Grunewald station, Olmert said "those who do not recognise the threats weighing on them are doomed". The Israeli prime minister's visit, which will also take in Italy, got off to a controversial start when Olmert appeared to admit for the first time that Israel was a nuclear power. Israel is widely considered to be the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, but has for decades adopted a "policy of nuclear ambiguity", refusing to admit or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. But in an interview with German television station N24 ahead of his visit, Olmert said: "We never threatened any nation with annihilation. "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" he asked. Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin denied that the prime minister had admitted that Israel has nuclear weapons and few observers expected the slip of the tongue to alter the Jewish state's ambiguous approach to the issue. Merkel and Olmert laid the ground for Tuesday's talks by holding three hours of informal discussions after he arrived on Monday. Sources in Olmert's delegation said the chancellor reaffirmed Germany's support for the demands made by the Middle East Quartet to the Hamas-led Palestinian government. The Quartet -- composed of the European Union" /> European Union, United States, Russia and the United Nations" /> United Nations-- has demanded that Hamas renounce violence, recognise Israel and agree to abide by past peace deals, before direct aid to the Palestinian government can be resumed. Olmert is also expected to ask Germany and Italy to back economic sanctions against Iran if the Islamic republic pursues its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes but which the West fears is a cover for the development of atomic weapons. Israel considers Iran its arch-foe because of repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. Olmert has described a conference taking place in Iran where a host of Western "revisionists" are casting doubt on the Holocaust as "sickening". Merkel reiterated ahead of the meeting that Germany believed that Iran's refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium left the international community with little choice but to refer the issue to the UN soon. "We believe that due to the refusal of Iran, a situation has developed in which the next step will have to be at the UN Security Council," she told foreign journalists on Tuesday. Olmert will go on to Rome on Wednesday to meet his Italian counterpart Romano Prodi and will also have an audience with Pope Benedict XVI" /> Pope Benedict XVI. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 UPI: Analysis: Olmert's nuclear slip took over United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 12/12/2006 1:18:00 PM -0500 By STEFAN NICOLA UPI Germany Correspondent BERLIN, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- The meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and German Chancellor Angela Merkel Tuesday in Berlin was overshadowed by what was interpreted as an Olmert concession that Israel has nuclear weapons. Answering a question on Iran in an interview Monday evening with German news channel N24, Olmert included Israel in a list of some of the world's nuclear powers. "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map," Olmert said. "Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" Olmert, however, earlier in the interview said that Israel "has always said it won't be first to bring nuclear power to the Middle East. This is our position and it hasn't changed." After being pierced by journalists' questions on the issue, he repeated that statement three times Tuesday in a joint news conference with Merkel, claiming his statement was taken out of context. "I was very clear on this," he said, adding that the discussion about a comment was "too long and exaggerated." But at home, an already weak Olmert has sparked considerable outrage for his slip, with Likud politicians calling on him to resign, and others saying he had undermined Israel's foreign policy of the past 50 years. Germany's deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, Tuesday in a radio interview called Olmert's comment "remarkable." While security experts have long listed Israel as a nuclear power, observers are worried that any direct hint of Israeli nuclear weapons possession by an Israeli government official is used to justify an Arab nuclear arms race and could undermine the West's nuclear negotiations with Iran. After both leaders had for roughly an hour discussed the Middle East and possible peace initiatives between Israel and Palestine, Merkel harshly denounced the Holocaust denial conference currently staged in Iran, and said Germany would do all it could to oppose such meetings. The conference highlights how "dangerous Israel's situation is and the threat that Israel has to live with," she said. However, a military option to stop Iran's nuclear ambition was "not on the table." Merkel also praised Olmert's recent efforts to revive peace talks with Palestinians, and said she would use Germany's European Union presidency in the first half of 2007 to "accompany, activate and push forward" the Israeli-Arab peace process with the help of the Quartet on the Middle East consisting of the United States, United Nations, EU and Russia. A group of German experts has recently criticized Merkel for policies that are too Israel-friendly. "A smooching course with Olmert won't help," Udo Steinbach, head of the German Institute for Middle East Studies, told the Hannover Neue Presse newspaper, adding that Israel had to be pressed to make concessions in the conflict with the Palestinians. Steinbach is one of 25 intellectuals who last month published a manifesto in a German newspaper criticizing Germany's special relationship with Israel, which is based on the Holocaust. The manifesto said Germany was not only responsible for Israel but also for the current situation of the Palestinian people. While the German-Jewish relationship must be characterized by a "special restraint and special sensitiveness," friends had to be able to warn Israel of "mistakes, wrong decisions and wrong attitudes," the manifesto said, criticizing the Israeli use of cluster bombs in its air raids over Lebanon. German officials have repeatedly distanced themselves from the paper, and in front of the press, hardly a differing view between Olmert and Merkel was visible. Observers say Merkel, however, behind closed doors urged Israel to engage in talks with Syria to help stabilize the Middle East. "Syria is simply there as a partner in the region ... It is a country in the region and it is important that we tell Syria what expectations we have of it," Merkel Tuesday told the foreign press corps in Berlin. In the later news conference with Olmert, she defended German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier's trip to Damascus -- the first one by a top German official in two years -- which Israeli officials had criticized. "It was worth the attempt to find out whether there is room for movement of Syria's positions," Merkel said. However, the visit had sparked "no really positive signs," she added, visibly frustrated by the situation in Damascus. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Says Israel Among Nuclear Nations From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday December 12, 2006 2:16 AM JERUSALEM (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed Israel among the nations that have nuclear weapons in an interview aired on Monday but his office said the remark was misinterpreted. Israel has a long-standing policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny whether it has them. But Olmert's remarks came days after incoming U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in testimony to a Senate committee that Israel was a member of the club of nuclear-armed nations. The U.S. and Israel suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. In an interview with a German TV station aired Monday before Olmert arrived in the country, he was asked about Iran's threat to destroy Israel. Olmert responded that Israel has never threatened to annihilate anyone and added: ``Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when you are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?'' Olmert's office said the quote was taken out of context, noting that in other parts of the interview, Olmert several times refused to confirm that Israel has nuclear weapons. Olmert spoke in English, which is not his first language. Israel's policy has always been to declare that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, without confirming or denying it has them. Foreign experts have concluded that Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and is the sixth-largest nuclear weapons power in the world. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 32 Guardian Unlimited: How Gulf states could start new nuclear race Comment is free | Simon Tisdall Tuesday December 12, 2006 A weekend decision by the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council to launch an innocent-sounding joint nuclear energy development project is the clearest signal yet that Iran's nuclear programmes, whether sinister or not, could hasten the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction across the Middle East. But the activities of acknowledged nuclear weapons states such as the US, Russia and Britain, and deepening frustrations among key non-nuclear, non-aligned players such as Indonesia and Argentina, are also stoking worries that the UN's cornerstone non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is not long for this life. The Gulf countries - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE - made clear that, like Iran, they want nuclear know-how for solely "peace purposes". And it is not the first time the idea of an Arab bomb has come up. Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have already declared an intention to develop civilian nuclear energy. The council's statement comes amid rising tension between Shia Iran and the Sunni-led Gulf states over political turmoil in Lebanon and anarchy in Iraq. But its timing will be seen as an unsubtle warning to the Bush administration to ignore the Iraq Study Group's advice on softening US policy towards Iran. The Gulf's message may also be directed at Russia, which is still wrangling with Britain and France over the terms of a UN sanctions resolution on Iran. Diplomats say the resolution may finally pass this week, after first being mooted in July. But Moscow has weakened it. Even as a first step, it hardly amounts to the ringing, united anti-proliferation stand that the US and EU sought. The resolution's main thrust will be to ban the sale or transfer to Tehran of nuclear and missile-related technology. Straight-faced Iranian diplomats say that is no problem since Iran is not building nuclear weapons and already has plenty of missiles. All the same, it is poised to retaliate. "If there are UN sanctions, there will be trade sanctions on Britain, France and Germany. Our response will be swift and proportionate," an Iranian official said. Russia's own NPT adherence is also in serious question. Defence minister Sergei Ivanov, a possible successor to Vladimir Putin, last week proudly announced the commissioning of a new, mobile version of the Topol-M nuclear-tipped missile. Capable of vaporising targets 10,000km away, the Topol-M had previously been confined to fixed ground silos. It was specifically designed to penetrate new US "Star Wars" missile defences, Mr Ivanov said. It complements another new Russian "deterrent" - the sea-based Bulava missile. But the US and Britain are hardly in a position to wax sanctimonious over Moscow's behaviour. President Bush's plan to provide India with nuclear fuel, reactors and technology was approved by Congress at the weekend. Under the new law, India's secret, destabilising 1990s development of nuclear weapons and its ongoing refusal to sign the NPT will be officially forgiven in return for a strategic (meaning anti-Chinese) partnership with Washington - and preferential trade opportunities for US businesses. Far from gradually disarming as required by the NPT, the US is also developing new "low yield" nuclear weaponry that could, in theory, be more readily used on battlefields. Thanks to these and other factors, like Britain's Trident replacement plan and bomb-happy North Korea's so far unchecked defiance of international law and opinion, fears grow that countries such as Brazil and South Africa that voluntarily eschewed nuclear arms may feel obliged to reconsider. American unilateralism makes for odd bedfellows. According to Jean du Preez of California's Monterey Institute, writing in Arms Control Today magazine, Washington recently joined North Korea at the UN general assembly "in voting against a rather innocuous resolution put forward by Japan on a 'renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons'". It also blocked a range of other disarmament measures. Such double standards risked rendering the NPT irrelevant, he suggested. "The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in deep trouble." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG. ***************************************************************** 33 Sydney Morning Herald: No new nuclear plants under Labor - Rudd www.smh.com.au December 12, 2006 - 1:09PM No nuclear power stations will be built in Australia under a federal Labor government, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says. Mr Rudd, who is visiting the north Queensland city of Townsville with environment spokesman Peter Garrett, said Labor was "100 per cent" opposed to nuclear power. "If you want to run the risk of having a nuclear power plant next door vote Liberal," Mr Rudd told ABC Radio. "We are totally, 100 per cent opposed to nuclear energy in this country. "Under us there will be no nuclear plants." Mr Garrett said the party would look to combat global warming issues by adopting existing energy sources such as clean coal, gas, solar power and wind. Mr Garrett, a noted environmental campaigner, said he would toe the party line at Labor's national conference in April should its policy of no new uranium mines change. Mr Rudd said he was open to the prospect of more uranium mines. © 2006 AAP Brought to you by [aap] Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 34 SLO Trib: Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor shut down after fire in ocean water pump San Luis Obispo Tribune | 12/12/2006 David Sneed The Tribune One of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s two reactors was shut down at 1:40 p.m. today after an electrical fault in an ocean cooling water pump caused an explosion and a fire. The fire was extinguished by 2:30 p.m. No one was injured in the accident, and there was no radiological leak, said plant spokeswoman Sharon Gavin. The fire occurred in Unit 2 of the plant. It was the same unit that was shut down Sunday after a faulty sensor on a different type of water pump indicated the pump was not running properly. Ocean cooling water pumps circulate sea water through the plant to condense the steam that passed through the plant’s electrical generator. The other reactor at the plant is running at full power. Pacific Gas & Electric has declared an unusual event, which is the lowest level of emergency requiring notification of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockville, Maryland, Dec. 12-14 News Release - 2006-15 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-150 December 12, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will meet Dec. 12-14 in Rockville, Md., to be briefed, among other items, on a methodology used for guiding decisions on remediating contaminated sites and proposed revisions to parts of NUREG-0800 related to liquid waste management systems. The committee will also meet with the Commission to discuss recent and planned activities. The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste management. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, and the session on Tuesday will run from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; the session on Wednesday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Thursdays session will run from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The committee will meet with the Commission from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Thursday in the Commissioners Conference Room. Anyone requiring the use of video teleconferencing to observe the meeting should contact Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066 to ensure availability. A complete agenda is available on the NRCs Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2006/. Individuals interested in making statements or those seeking more information should contact Antonio Dias at 301-415-6805. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. Last revised Tuesday, December 12, 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 washingtonpost.com: Energy Success Stories - Tuesday, December 12, 2006; Page A26 The Dec. 3 editorial "Wasted Energy" raised important points about the challenges our country faces in reducing energy consumption. While it is true that increased participation from everyone -- consumers, energy companies, regulators and government -- is vital to this effort, it also is true that meaningful progress has been achieved by energy providers, their customers and regulators. For example, services that use advanced technologies and energy-efficient products are rapidly making their way into the marketplace. Future success will hinge on our ability to expand on these products and services and to create new business models and regulatory mechanisms that will help make energy efficiency a viable, sustainable business for utilities and other energy providers. At the same time, we must recognize that the long-term solution to our energy challenge includes not only efficiency but also the responsible use of a balanced mix of energy sources -- clean coal, nuclear power, natural gas and renewable fuels. THOMAS R. KUHN President Edison Electric Institute Washington ; Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 06-9653 [Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)] [Notices] [Page 74566-74567] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12de06-127] Date: Weeks of December 11, 18, 25, 2006, January 1, 8, 15, 2007. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to Be Considered: Week of December 11, 2006 Monday, December 11, 2006 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Status of Decommissioning Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Keith McConnell, 301-415-7295). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Programs (Public Meeting) (Contact: Barbara Williams, 301-415-7388). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Hydro Resources, Inc. (Crownpoint, NM) Intervenors' Petition for Review of LBP-06-19 (Final Partial Initial Decision--NEPA Issues) (Tentative). b. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-20 (Sept. 22, 2006), reconsid'n denied (Oct. 30, 2006) (Tentative). 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of December 18, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 18, 2006. Week of December 25, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 25, 2006. Week of January 1, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 1, 2007. Week of January 8, 2007--Tentative Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart (Public Meeting) (Contact: Catherine Haney, 301 415-1453). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:30 p.m. Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301 415-1322). This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . Week of January 15, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 15, 2007. * * * * * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * Additional Information: Affirmation of Hydro Resources, Inc. (Crownpoint, NM) Intervenors' Petition for Review of LBP-06-19 (Final Partial Initial Decision--NEPA Issues) tentatively scheduled on Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 9:25 a.m. has been rescheduled tentatively on Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 9:25 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2) previously scheduled on Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. has been cancelled. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is [[Page 74567]] available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: December 7, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-9653 Filed 12-8-06; 10:10 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 Financial Express: We won’t allow scrutiny of nuclear facilities Posted online: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 0000 hours IST NEW DELHI, DEC 12: Though conceding that the recent US law on the civil nuclear deal had “certain extraneous and prescriptive” provisions, the UPA government on Tuesday sought to dispel fears of the belligerent Left parties and BJP by pointing out that the legislation was only an “enabling provision” and the separate bilateral 123 agreement with Washington, to be negotiated in coming weeks, was what made the deal operational. External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee in his suo moto statement in Parliament emphasised that the Bush administration has assured that the legislation explicitly authorises Washington to hold talks on civil nuclear cooperation with New Delhi in a manner fully consistent with the July 18 and March 2 joint statements. Virtually dismissing the BJP's demand for rejecting the US legislation, Mukherjee said that the July 18 Statement and the March 2 Separation Plan would be reflected in the text of the 123 agreement. He further stressed that India's strategic nuclear programme “remained outside the purview” of these discussions. “We have always maintained that the conduct of foreign policy determined solely by our national interests is our sovereign right. We will not allow external scrutiny or interference with the strategic programme,” he said. The external affairs minister said it was “significant” that the enactment of waivers from certain provisions of the US Atomic Energy Act allowed Washington to cooperate with New Delhi in civil nuclear energy. While New Delhi would be negotiating with Washington the bilateral 123 Agreement, Mukherjee said parallelly India would be engaging the International Atomic Energy Agency with the intention of negotiating and concluding an India-specific Safeguards Agreement and an additional protocol. “At a broader level, we have already been discussing with member States of the Nuclear Energy Suppliers' Group (NSG) the need for an adjustment of their guidelines to permit transfers to India. We have briefed them collectively on various issues of mutual interest and look forward to their taking a decision on the adjustment of NSG guidelines at an appropriate time,” he said. He said while every stage is important, “The test of this process is for India to secure full civil nuclear cooperation with the international community while protecting our strategic programme and maintaining the integrity of our three-stage nuclear programme. We are also committed to creating a climate where our scientists and technologists can participate in and contribute to international initiative in various fields,” he said. © 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world. ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: Peer review panel says Switkowksi's nuclear timeframe is unrealistic The World Today - Tuesday, 12 December , 2006 12:29:00 Reporter: Sabra Lane ELEANOR HALL: An independent scientific panel set up to review the Federal Government's nuclear taskforce report has severely undermined the report's case for a nuclear industry in Australia. The Federal Government's draft report, released by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last month, suggested that the first nuclear plant could be built in Australia within 10 years. But the peer review panel says that timeframe is "unrealistic". And Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, who chaired the review committee, says the Switkowski report has underestimated the challenges of setting up a domestic nuclear industry. Sabra Lane reports. SABRA LANE: When former nuclear physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski released his report into a domestic nuclear power industry last month, he told PM's Mark Colvin the industry could flourish within 10 years. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Our terms of reference asked us to update the fact base, the database associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and present a report that would inform the community and help in the debate around what is the right energy strategy into the future for Australia and what role, if any, nuclear might play. SABRA LANE: But the fact base in Dr Switkowski's report is unrealistic, according to a specially convened independent panel, set up by the Government to review the Switkowski report. Dr Jim Peacock, Australia's Chief Scientist, chaired a panel of eminent scientists which peer reviewed the Dr Switkowski draft report. He says, overall, it's been pretty well-written. The taskforce concluded that 25 nuclear reactors could produce a third of Australia's electricity by 2050. Dr Switkowski even suggested the first plant could be up and running in 10 years. The review panel, however, thinks that's not realistic. Dr Jim Peacock. JIM PEACOCK: We calculated that, and did it as carefully as we were able to, I mean it's all educated guesswork, if you like, we felt that the 10 years was probably an underestimate, and we felt 15 years was more likely to be the case, even if, you know, we started on some of the things that needed to be done in the near future. SABRA LANE: Your review panel also found that the taskforce underestimated the challenges confronting Australia, should it choose to expand the industry. What has it underestimated? JIM PEACOCK: Well, I think we were, we probably used that wordage, if that's what we did, in relation to those various issues I just mentioned. But in particular, we were mindful of the lack of trained people in Australia at the moment and the numbers needed for people to run, to develop, build and run such power stations. And we really don't have the right sort of training courses in our universities or other institutions now, and even if we choose the option, which we probably should, while we're developing such courses, of sending people away to other places in the world where that training could be taken right away, we still think it's quite a challenge and it will involve much larger numbers than was mentioned in the draft report. SABRA LANE: Is the task, is the report misleading? JIM PEACOCK: No, I don't think it's misleading. I mean, it … what … the timing and the number of trained people, they're very important points, and they're things that both the taskforce and ourselves, I guess, would indicate Australia needs to address and begin to act on right away. Now, it's still educated guesswork as to exactly how long the various phases would take. SABRA LANE: But crucially, Dr Peacock says if Australia's to introduce nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions to stop climate change, it must also weigh up the risks of a domestic nuclear power industry. JIM PEACOCK: If we are to introduce nuclear power into the portfolio of power generation options that we will have in future Australia, there's the possible legacy of any accidents that might occur. But we indicated that that has to be considered very carefully and as far as possible non-emotionally, and those two punitive or potential legacies weighed up one against the other. SABRA LANE: The nuclear taskforce will hand in its final report at the end of the month. Dr Peacock's spoken with Dr Switkowski about it. JIM PEACOCK: We spoke directly to Dr Switkowski and his taskforce, and I think they were most appreciative of the comments. They seemed to take them very well. And, as I said, I don't know, you know, what of our suggestions they've been able to put into the final version. ELEANOR HALL: Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, ending that report by Sabra Lane. ***************************************************************** 40 MarketWatch: Progress Energy says new nuclear reactor would cost up to $3.5 bln - By Christine Buurma Last Update: 5:05 PM ET Dec 12, 2006 NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- If Progress Energy Inc. (PGN) proceeds with plans to build a new nuclear power plant in Florida, it would expect to spend $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion on the plant's first unit, with the second unit costing slightly less, a company executive said Tuesday. Among the "next generation" of nuclear power plants under development, Progress Energy's proposed facility would be the first to be built on an undeveloped site. Each of the plant's two units would generate between 1,100 MW and 1,600 MW of electricity, Progress Energy Florida Chief Executive Jeff Lyash said Tuesday. Progress would finance the project with a mixture of equity and debt. The company would be open to selling stakes in the plant to local municipalities or electric cooperatives, Lyash said. The company plans to select a vendor for the plant's reactor within the next few weeks, he said. Although Progress has not yet decided whether it will actually build the plant, it could submit a combined operating and construction license for the project to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, Lyash said. He added that the company hadn't yet decided whether the plant would include a single reactor, or two reactors. "This is an important step in ensuring that nuclear power remains a viable option as we meet the growing energy needs of our customers," he said. Florida saw an influx of 400,000 new residents in 2005 and ranks third in U.S. energy consumption, Lyash noted. Progress plans to build the plant in Levy County in northwestern Florida. The site is ideal for a nuclear plant because it is located inland from the Gulf of Mexico and above the flood plain for a Category 5 hurricane, Lyash said. Local residents, who include workers at Progress' Crystal River 3 nuclear plant in neighboring Citrus County, are expected to support the project, he said. Several U.S. energy companies, including Entergy Corp. (ETR) and Dominion Resources Inc. (D), have announced plans to build new nuclear generation amid rising electricity demand and high natural gas prices. As of September, the NRC had received notices of companies' intentions to file 19 combined operating licenses for new plants, for a total of 28 new reactors. The plants would be the first to be built in the U.S. since 1986. Progress is optimistic that development of new nuclear generation will not be delayed by political wrangling over a proposed storage facility for the nation's nuclear waste, Lyash said. The nation's designated nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert was supposed to open in 1998, but ran into regulatory problems and has yet to be approved by the NRC. "Our company's firm belief is that the U.S. government has an obligation to finish the waste storage and repository facility that was embarked upon decades ago and paid for by the nuclear power industry and our customers," Lyash said. Progress Energy Florida said in October 2005 that it was considering building a new nuclear plant in Florida. The utility serves about 1.6 million electric customers in the state. -Contact: 201-938-5400 [End of Story] Dow Jones IndexesSM from Dow Jones &Company, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 UPI: Sustainable nuclear energy moves closer United Press International - NewsTrack - 12/12/2006 12:37:00 PM -0500 DELFT, Netherlands, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- A Dutch scientist predicts a new generation of nuclear reactors will create energy while producing virtually no long-lasting nuclear waste. Wilfred van Rooijen of the Delft University of Technology received his doctorate based on research conducted at the Reactor Institute Delft. He focused on the nuclear fuel cycle and safety features of Gas-cooled Fast Reactors, or GFR -- one of the so-called fourth generation nuclear reactor designs. Fourth generation GFRs are economical in their use of nuclear fuel and are capable of rendering a great deal of their own nuclear waste harmless. They use helium as a coolant at high temperatures and create a closed nuclear fuel cycle, in which only natural uranium is used as a raw material and in which the resulting waste consists of only nuclear fission products. Von Rooijen's research showed it is possible to obtain a closed nuclear fuel cycle with a GFR and revealed the GFR could use the waste materials of other light water reactors, thus serving as an "incinerator" of nuclear waste. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgarian Nuke Exceeds Annual Output Plan Sofia News Agency - www.novinite.com Sofia Morning News Business: 12 December 2006, Tuesday. Bulgaria's only operating nuclear power plant at Kozloduy announced completion of its output plan, three weeks before the end of year. Tuesday afternoon the planned production capacity of 18,158,264,200 kWh was reached, the nuke's press office said. It means that until the rest of the period, end-December, with four fully operable units Kozloduy will produce another 1.2 billion kWh, which will round the annual output to 19.5 billion kWh. The EU has insisted its members shut down all their Soviet-design VVER 230 reactors for safety reasons, since they lack a containment structure for preventing radioactive leaks. Bulgaria agreed to mothball two of the six VVER reactors at Kozloduy in the northwest of the country in 2002. It will shut down a further two later this year in return for the EU agreeing in principle to let Sofia join the EU 25 next January. The European Union has to pay EUR 210 M to compensate the closedown. It was agreed that Kozloduy's reactors five and six, which are of a more modern design, would remain in service. Kozloduy currently supplies around 42% of Bulgaria's electricity. It has also helped ensure the country is the main energy exporter in the Balkans. However, with closedown enforced in less than a month, Bulgaria will cease exporting and Kozloduy will work to meet domestic supplies alone, experts said. novinite.com All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy ISO 9001:2000 Certified Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) ***************************************************************** 43 St. Petersburg Times: Citrus: 'Nuclear' is no dirty word here Citrus and Levy officials hope a decision as early as today draws a nuclear plant. By BARBARA BEHRENDT and ELENA LESLEY Published December 12, 2006 CRYSTAL RIVER - As area residents wait to hear where Progress Energy will build its new nuclear plant, officials in Levy and Citrus remain confident that their counties will be chosen. An official announcement could come as soon as today. Many officials in each county hope their area will be the victor. With a power plant comes property tax revenue, jobs and increased commercial traffic. From what Progress Energy representatives have been saying, both counties have a shot. Citrus already houses a nuclear plant and has the water and regulatory land buffer necessary for a second. In Levy, "you'd have cows and people and trailers right next to it," Citrus County Commission Chairman Dennis Damato said. He said houses cannot be built within 5 miles of nuclear plants. Despite Citrus' infrastructure perks, top Progress Energy officials have been spending a lot of time north of the county line recently. Last week, they met individually with each Levy County commissioner and attended a public luncheon in Inglis. At least one of those commissioners, Chairwoman Nancy Bell, walked away from her meeting fairly sure that the plant would be built in Levy County. "They haven't told us an exact location," Bell said Monday. "They did say they do really love Levy County as a site." In contrast to many local officials, the 27-year resident said she has mixed feelings about a nuclear plant in Levy County. Bell said she still has to do extensive research to answer constituent questions about placement of a plant in the rural community. "I am a true '60s person," she said. "When I heard the word "nuclear," I picked up a sign and marched." Fellow Levy Commissioner Tony Parker said he felt nowhere near as sure that Levy was the only site still in contention when he met with utility officials late last week. "I felt like they were definitely interested in Levy County, or they wouldn't have met with us," Parker said. "But I felt like they were just trying to continue the open relationship with us." Even if a site in Levy is chosen, Parker pointed out that there are still many permits and processes that the utility would have to go through to build a plant there. All of those details make Damato just as sure that Citrus will get the new plant. Though he did not get an invitation for a one-on-one talk with the utility's top brass, he thinks the fact that Citrus already has a nuclear plant at the Progress Energy site north of Crystal River is a big plus. The Citrus community has already supported the construction of another plant. It has ample water for the cooling needed in the nuclear plant. In addition, the existing site has enough acreage already owned by the utility and access to the gulf and to a rail system. "Personally, I think we're in good shape," Damato said. "Levy County doesn't have the infrastructure." Damato said he heard talk of a Levy County property near Lake Rousseau as a possible site and that there had been discussion of a land swap. But he did not think enough property was available there, and he wondered how Lake Rousseau could be an adequate source of cooling water. William Bachschmidt's "Queen B Ranch" in Levy is one of the sites rumored for a nearby nuclear plant, but he declined to comment Monday. He said he has not talked to Progress Energy officials. Levy County coordinator Fred Moody said a 160-acre or possibly bigger site by that ranch has been talked about as a possible plant site. It is just north of Lake Rousseau. Years ago, residents fought the development of a hydroelectric plant in that same area. Inglis Town Commissioner Betty Berger, a crusader against that hydroelectric plant, said rumors of a Levy County site worry her. There are too many residents in the area, she said, and local bodies of water can't accommodate that kind of demand. "It would be a no-win situation," she said. Damato said Citrus is much more prepared to house another large power-generating facility. Citrus has already designated a whole corner of the county as a site for power plants buffered by a mine and other industrially zoned property. "I just don't see it in Levy County. The county is just not ready for it," Damato said. "It's like Citrus County was 45 years ago." Bell, the Levy chairwoman, said she understands that the addition of a nuclear plant would have a huge impact on the county, which has 38,000 people. Good planning will be needed so the community doesn't lose its small-town flavor. "Levy County in 10 years won't be the same county it is today," she said. "Hopefully, I pray, it will be a better one." Barbara Behrendt can be reached at 564-3621 or behrendt@sptimes.com. [Last modified December 12, 2006, 07:46:00] © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact ***************************************************************** 44 [NYTr] Nukes: Tony Blair Wants His Tridents Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:06:36 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Juventud Rebelde - Dec 11, 2006 http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/international/2006-12-11/tony-blair-wants-his-tridents/ Tony Blair Wants His Tridents The British government wants to renew the nuclear missile system for fifty more years. The plan has contradictions, and many people think that the money could have a better use By Luis Luque Alvarez New York, Rio de Janeiro, Sidney and Havana, are all four coastal cities. Let's imagine then that, thanks to global warming and the melting of the polar ices, the sea level rises and floods them. Of course, there are other consequences: more than a billion people would run out of fresh water, forests would disappear, and with them, numerous species that maintain the biological equilibrium. There is going to be a chaos, an apocalypse caused by men. If it were fiction, it could be the theme for a good novel. But according to the report of Sir Nicholas Stern, ex economist of the World Bank, these are the real effects that we can expect from an increase of only five degrees Celsius in the world's temperature. The mentioned study was entrusted to the British Minister of Finance, Gordon Brown and Sir Nicolas presented its results to the British Prime Minister Tony Blair in October. This is curious, because the British government itself has to make a decision that among its consequences will affect efforts to stop climatic change. The decision is related to nuclear missiles: the Trident, on which lies the British strategy of nuclear deterrent. The question, which must be analyzed in Parliament at the beginning of 2007, is whether to use the resources to prolong the lifetime of these terrible means of extermination, or to use those multi-million amounts of money on more praiseworthy causes, such as the protection of the environment. Last Monday, Tridents won their first round. "Only" 160 warheads... The British Prime Minister defined any possibility of giving up Britain's independent nuclear deterrent as "unwise and dangerous." According to his presentation of a white paper on this matter, this is "Britain's final guarantee." The White Paper states that even though the Cold War was over, there are today three different sources of tension for this European country: "The re-emergence of a strategic nuclear threat; the emergence of new nuclear powers that could threaten Britain's vital interests; and the deliberate equipping of terrorist groups with nuclear weapons by a sponsor state." Despite the inaccuracy of these concerns, Blair gave many details while explaining his plan: #15-20 billion will be used on new Trident-carrying submarines. The building of the new submarines will take nearly 17 years and they will be used until 2050. Regarding the missiles, he said that the United Kingdom will work with the United States to prolong the useful lifetime --did I said "useful"--of the missiles until 2042, and then they would work together on the building new weapons. Oh, of course, even though Blair is talking about the "independence" of the British nuclear program, the Tridents are made in the United States. They are produced by the arms consortium Lockheed Martin, can penetrate 7,400 kilometers and the destructive power of each warhead equals eight atomic bombs like the ones dropped on Hiroshima. How much do Tridents cost? More than #16 millions (29 million dollars) "each." According to the BBC's data, the United Kingdom integrated the Tridents into its defense system in 1994, replacing Polaris missiles. According to the British strategy, Tridents are carried by four nuclear submarines. If needed, London can take more than 70 of these missiles out of a store of strategic weapons in Georgia, US, where they also receive periodic maintenance. Another detail: each Trident can carry twelve warheads, though this number has been reduced to between three and eight. The warheads are produced in the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire, west of London. Now that everybody knows "the little toy", it is worth mentioning that Blair's plan has two "concessions": Instead of four, the number of nuclear submarines will be reduce to three; and from 200 warheads, there will be only 160. Then, will they `only' have 160 warheads? Great! It is just 1,280 Hiroshimas! I guess the rest of the world must be immensely grateful... Is there really someone to be shot at? The holding of nuclear weapons is a great contradiction. The launching of only two nuclear missiles between two countries in war, would be a catastrophe for both of such magnitude that would either convince them of never using those devices, or will induce them to follow up till the last consequences, assuring total mutual destruction, without any winners or losers. Is that the "final guarantee" Blair is so proud of? British bombs devastating foreign cities vs. bombs reducing London to ashes, altering the planet temperature to insufferable levels? Is there nothing better to give by a government "convinced" that "facing the climatic change is an imperative, not an option, a problem of today, not tomorrow I insist: Is there a "tomorrow" if just one nuclear missile is activated? Fortunately, a great number of people in Great Britain have drawn that conclusion quite easily. In August, a research by the survey company ICM for the British non-governmental organization Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), showed that 59 percent of the citizens, five percent more than in September, 2005; opposes the renewal of the Trident system It seems that there are too many arguments talking about the futility of holding weapons of massive destruction. The reasons go from the fear of accidents with irreversible effects, to the impossibility of using them against terrorists, who armed with less sophisticated devices, can dramatically hit the heart of New York, London and Madrid. This was reported by the CND and a group of members of the British parliament in an Alternative White Paper delivered to 10 Downing Street (residence of the Prime Minister) last month. Opponents to the Blair plan highlighted that terrorists cannot be a precise target for nuclear weapons, and recalled Blair's words on October 1, 2005, when the Prime Minister said that "nuclear deterrence was not a defence against terrorism." They also noted that the renewal of British nuclear weapons will increase the danger of nuclear proliferation and will initiate a new arms race, and that the cost of that operation could be better employed on the improvement of public services including health care, basic pensions and education. That estimate of #25bn equals 60,000 new nurses and 60,000 teachers of junior high for the next ten years. Taking into account the costs of maintaining the Tridents during the next three decades of use, the figure will rise to #76 billions, which according to the signatories of the alternative proposal, could be used in fighting climatic change! But to this end, says The Guardian newspaper, the United Kingdom only assigns #1 billion every year. So that the giant sails of the electric generators that rise like Quixote's windmills around the British coasts, and provide clean renewable energy to tens of thousands of homes, seem a minute folkloric thing which would result in the contrary, enhancing a nuclear race from which, in the end, only cockroaches could survive. On the table we have Sir Nicholas Stern's report, and also the White Paper, proposed by Blair. Let's see finally which one is worthier for politicians. Everybody to Aldermaston! The CND has called all citizens, who love peace, to block the access to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, this Monday December 11th. Ippy, an activist of the abovementioned campaign, told Juventud Rebelde that this action has two major objectives: "Specifically, to prevent the building of a new entrance to the site, where new facilities for weapons are being prepared (including a system to simulate nuclear tests); and in general, to protest against the British atomic weapons policy." Copyright 2006 Juventud Rebelde * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 45 AU ABC: Israeli nuclear whistleblower demands freedom AM - Wednesday, 13 December , 2006 08:14:00 Reporter: David Hardaker PETER CAVE: The man who 20 years ago told the world about Israel's nuclear capacity is today demanding Israel restore his full freedom. Israel's most famous whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, made his demand after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to confirm for the first time that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Mr Vanunu risks being thrown into prison to speak to our Middle East Correspondent, David Hardaker, for this report. MORDECHAI VANUNU: The life here since my release is much better than in prison, but it's still a prison. DAVID HARDAKER: Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 years in an Israeli jail, 11 of them in solitary confinement. He was released two-and-a-half years ago, but he's hardly free. He's not allowed to speak to diplomats, or to foreigners. And as much as he now hates his country, he's not allowed to leave it. MORDECHAI VANUNU: It's become a new prison. It's not real freedom. For me real freedom will be when I can leave Israel and go see the world and travel freely. DAVID HARDAKER: Mordechai Vanunu made world headlines 20 years ago when he gave a London newspaper photographs and details of Israel's secret nuclear facility at Dimona. Vanunu had first travelled to Australia, where his photographs were developed, and where he met the British reporter who published his explosive story. For Israel, he was the ultimate traitor. They sent agents to capture him in Rome. He was drugged, then dragged back and thrown into prison. Now, with Israel's Prime Minister apparently confirming the country's nuclear capacity, Mr Vanunu feels vindicated. MORDECHAI VANUNU: First of all, it means that what I did 20 years ago was right, and second, I hope they will let me now go enjoy freedom after 20 years of suffering and eighteen years in prison. DAVID HARDAKER: Do you still fear that you might face arrest for an interview like this? MORDECHAI VANUNU: Yes, absolutely. This interview can absolutely can give them the reason to arrest me and question me. DAVID HARDAKER: Just on 24 hours ago, Israel's Prime Minister appeared to break a decades-long policy of ambiguity about Israel's nuclear weapons. EHUD OLMERT: Israel is a democracy. Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything … DAVID HARDAKER: Speaking in Germany, he placed Israel in the same bracket as other nuclear powers. EHUD OLMERT: Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia? DAVID HARDAKER: His office has denied that this was an official acknowledgment. They say Mr Olmert was simply bracketing Israel with other democracies, but there's been a fierce political response. Former Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom. SILVAN SHALOM: I think this statement was not appropriate. I think that it gives some tools to our enemies to say why you are dealing only with Iran, while Israel is confirming that it has the same kind of weapon? DAVID HARDAKER: Others have gone further, demanding that Ehud Olmert resign. Israel's Nuclear Research Centre has been capable of creating nuclear-grade weapons material since the early 1960s, but it's never been subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As much as the Prime Minister's office has tried to downplay what he said, Mordechai Vanunu believes the truth is now out. MORDECHAI VANUNU: It is very, very clear now that Israel have the bomb. DAVID HARDAKER: Israel, though, is not ready to let Mordechai Vanunu have his freedom yet. He's been prosecuted for interviews he's given to foreign journalists since leaving prison. And Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev has told the ABC the state's attitude to Mr Vanunu hasn't changed. This is David Hardaker in Jerusalem for AM. ***************************************************************** 46 Guardian Unlimited: Climate threat from nuclear bombs Alok Jha in San Francisco Tuesday December 12, 2006 Guardian Unlimited Nuclear weapons pose the single biggest threat to the Earth's environment, scientists have warned. In a new study of the potential global impacts of nuclear blasts, an American team found even a small-scale war would quickly devastate the world's climate and ecosystems, causing damage that would last for more than a decade. Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco yesterday, Richard Turco of UCLA said detonating between 50 and 100 bombs - just 0.03% of the world's arsenal - would throw enough soot into the atmosphere to create climactic anomalies unprecedented in human history. He said the effects would be "much greater than what we're talking about with global warming and anything that's happened in history with regards volcanic eruptions". According to the research, tens of millions of people would die, global temperatures would crash and most of the world would be unable to grow crops for more than five years after a conflict. In addition, the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, would be depleted by 40% over many inhabited areas and up to 70% at the poles. Alan Robock, the co-author of the study, told Guardian Unlimited: "Nuclear weapons are the greatest environmental danger to the planet from humans, not global warming or ozone depletion." There are around 30,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, 95% of which are held by the US and Russia. In addition, there is enough unrefined nuclear material to make a further 100,000 weapons. Human costs It was Prof Turco who coined the phrase "nuclear winter" in the 1980s to describe the potential apocalyptic global consequence of all-out nuclear war. In this study he and Prof Robock led research teams to create models of the impacts from nuclear blasts. They examined an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs (15 kilotons each) between two countries, a conflict they argued was well within the ability of many emerging nuclear states. The results showed that the most densely packed countries would fare worst in the aftermath of a nuclear war. India and Pakistan could face 12m and 9m immediate deaths respectively, while an attack on the UK would cause almost 3m immediate deaths. A single nuclear blast in a major urban area would kill more than 125,000 people in the UK, injuring a further 100,000. "Most of the human population is moving into very concentrated cities. At the same time, nuclear proliferation is accelerating again: we have Pakistan and India, Iran and North Korea," said Profe Turco. While human losses would be constrained by geography, the environmental impacts of the bombs would spread worldwide. Black smoke In the 100 warhead scenario, more than 5m tonnes of sooty black smoke would spew from the resulting firestorms. This smoke would float to the upper atmosphere, get heated by the sun and end up being carried around the world. The particles would absorb sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface, which would result in a rapid cooling of the Earth by an average of 1.25C. "This would be colder than the little ice age, the largest climate change in human history," said Prof Robock. The model also showed that the smoke would stay in the upper atmosphere far longer than anyone had previously thought. Older models had assumed that the smoke would linger for around a year, as has been observed with the dust from volcanic eruptions. However, using improved atmospheric data the new study showed that the climate would still be suffering a decade on from the initial conflict. "Far removed from the conflict, there would be large impacts on agriculture - there would be less precipitation and less sunlight; it would be a huge shock to agriculture everywhere," said Prof Robock. There is a precedent for this sort of climactic change: major volcanic eruptions in the past have thrown global ecosystems into temporary turmoil. The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was the biggest such event on record. The resulting cloud of ash spread around the world and caused crops to fail the following year in North America and Europe, resulting in the worst famine of the century. Shock to the system The scientists said a sudden change to the Earth's ecosystem because of nuclear blasts would be worse than any of the effects predicted by global warming due to greenhouse gases. "Global warming is a problem and we certainly should address it but in 20 years, the temperature might go up by a few tenths of a degree and it will be gradual," said Prof Robock. "We'll be able to adapt from some of it. But the climate change from even the small nuclear war we postulated would be instantaneous and such a shock to the system" He said that the results should act as a warning to the international community. "Proliferation is very dangerous - even using a couple of weapons is so much worse than anyone can imagine. I think the world should be much more concerned about proliferation than we are." Prof Turco said that the end of the cold war had taken people's minds focus off the potential dangers of nuclear war. "Look at 9/11 - there were 3,000 fatalities in that attack and that's considered a watershed in terms of terror that can be inflicted on a country. But in fact that's really a minor event to what's possible," he said. "I can't imagine what would happen if there was a detonation in London: people would head to the countryside, there would be fallout everywhere, the country would shut down." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: "Absolute Disaster" for Russian Image * 1.0 DATE_IN_PAST_24_48 Date: is 24 to 48 hours before Received: date X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Channel 4 News - Snowmail (UK) - Dec 11, 2006 http://www.channel4.com Exclusive: 'Untold damage' to Russian PR I started the day with a fascinating interview of Mr Putin's chief G8 economic adviser, Igor Shuvalov. It's exclusive and it's the first time anybody inside the Kremlin has agreed to answer questions on the Litvinenko polonium 210 business. He is quite candid that this has been an absolute disaster for Russia in PR terms and indeed part of his mission here seems to be reboot their public relations profile. It's also emerged that the British ambassador for quite separate reasons, speaking out about a need for a civic society in Russia, has been badly handled of late - chased through traffic, youths pummelling the roof of the car, placards banging against the windows. Finally the Foreign Office have broken cover and issued a statement accepting that this is going on. Besides the fact that it breaks the treaty of Vienna which protects diplomatic staff it's extraordinary that UK - Russian relations have deteriorated to this level because the gangs that are doing it are said to be closely tied to the Russian leader himself. Watch the interview now: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=4110&intcmp=news_snowmail__interview * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 48 ENS: Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Environment Environment News Service (ENS) SAN FRANCISCO, California, December 11, 2006 (ENS) - Even a small-scale regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for at least a decade, produce as many fatalities as all of World War II, and impact nearly everyone on Earth, according to two new studies presented today at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The two studies represent the first quantitative assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between small or emerging nuclear powers, said Professor Owen "Brian" Toon with the University of Colorado-Boulder. "Nations like Pakistan, India and North Korea, which have the potential of detonating 50 relatively small nuclear weapons, are as dangerous as the Soviet Union used to be. I think the world’s politicians need to pay closer attention to the path we all are headed down," said Toon, chair of CU-Boulder’s Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department. North Korea carried out a nuclear weapons test in October, breaking a de-facto global moratorium on nuclear explosives testing that had been in place for nearly a decade. Toon says even the smallest nuclear powers today likely have 50 or more Hiroshima-sized weapons. The world's first atom bomb used in war was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 during World War II, killing an estimated 140,000 people. Roughly 62 million people died in World War II. "The current buildup of nuclear weapons in a growing number of states points to scenarios in the next few decades that are even more extreme than those considered in this analysis," he said. While a confrontation among emerging nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, the environmental impacts likely would be worldwide, the studies found. [crater] The crater created by India's underground nuclear test on May 11, 1998 at Pokhran in Rajasthan. (Photo courtesy Government of India) "Considering the relatively small number and yields of the weapons, the potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term," said Toon. The results represent the first comprehensive analysis of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between smaller nuclear states. Pakistan test-fired the newest version of its short-range nuclear capable missile December 8, according to a military statement. The test, the third in three weeks, was part of training exercises by the Pakistan army's Strategic Force Command. The Pakistani test came one day after the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that would allow U.S. shipments of nuclear fuel for power generation to India, Pakistan's nuclear armed neighbor. Toon said the current combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability and urban demographics "forms perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of man." Currently, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium, uranium or a combination of both to construct substantial nuclear arsenals, the researchers said. Using computer tools originally developed to assess volcano-induced climate change, the researchers generated simulations depicting potential climatic conditions that a small-scale nuclear war could bring about. The estimates are based on current nuclear weapons inventories and population densities in large urban regions and took into account scenarios of smoke emissions that urban firestorms could produce, Toon said. The scientists modeled the effects on each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons to attack the most populated urban areas of an enemy nation. "While there is a perception that a nuclear build-down by the world’s major powers in recent decades has somehow resolved the global nuclear threat, a more accurate portrayal is that we are at a perilous crossroads," said Toon. Toon led the studies, working with University of California-Los Angeles Professor Richard Turco, and Rutgers professors Alan Robock and Georgiy Stenchikov. [ballistic missile] Pakistan's Shaheen-II surface-to-surface ballistic missile was test-fired on March 9, 2004. (Photo courtesy Government of Pakistan) Fatality estimates for such a regional conflict ranged from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country, said Toon, chief author of one of the two studies titled "Atmospheric Effects and Societal Consequences of Regional Scale Nuclear Conflicts and Acts of Individual Terrorism." "Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large," said Turco, a co-author on both papers who formerly headed a research team that included Toon and Carl Sagan and which developed the original concept of "nuclear winter." The second paper, titled "Climatic Consequences of Regional Nuclear Conflicts," looks at the effects of the smoke produced in a regional war between two opposing nations in the subtropics, said lead author Robock. A cooling of several degrees, for example, would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions, Robock said. "Like earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from target areas or countries involved in the conflict." The scientists compared the effects of regional nuclear war with the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia, the largest eruption in the past 500 years, which triggered what has become known as the "The Year Without a Summer." The Year Without a Summer in 1816 included killing frosts and crop losses in New England as well as crop failures, food shortages and famines in Europe from wet and cold weather. But Tambora's disruption lasted for only one year, while the new simulations show a limited nuclear conflict would be much more severe, according to the authors. In a nuclear exchange involving 100 15-kiloton weapons, just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the world’s nuclear arsenal, they said the resulting smoke would cause large amounts of carbon particles to remain in the stratosphere for up to 10 years, triggering unprecedented climate change. The two studies were first published November 22 in the online journal "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions." Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 All Headline News: Depleted Uranium Missiles Found In Serbia - December 12, 2006 6:09 a.m. EST Komfie Manalo - All Headline News Correspondent Belgrade, Serbia (AHN) - Representatives from the directorate for the protection of the environment in Serbia has said that a total of 161 depleted uranium missiles have been recovered in the southern part of the country in the past weeks. The states Beta news agency said the missiles were found in Reljan near Preservo after the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. It was said that during the 78-day air strikes in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, NATO war planes dropped 31,000 missiles and bombs believed to contain depleted uranium, a kind of radioactive toxic material that has been linked to Gulf War syndrome and spiraling levels of cancer and birth defects in Iraq. NATO has admitted 112 sites in Kosovo where it used depleted uranium. But it has not given Belgrade a complete list for the rest of Serbia. Belgrade ordered a clean up operation in Reljan on October 1 and some 6.5 out of 12 hectares of contaminated grounds have been searched and cleared. A total of 2.4 cubic meters of contaminated soil has also been collected and removed. Serbia has spent an estimated $450,000 for the clean up operation in the Reljan site. Copyright © All Headline News - All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Who Possess Radioactive Material FR Doc E6-21044 [Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)] [Notices] [Page 74567-74571] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12de06-128] In Quantities of Concern and All Other Persons Who Obtain Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Imposing Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) I The Licensees, identified in Attachment 1 \1\ to this Order, hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an Agreement State, authorizing them to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern. The NRC intends to issue security Orders to these licensees in the near future. Orders will be issued to both NRC and Agreement State materials licensees who may transport radioactive material quantities of concern. The Orders will require compliance with specific Additional Security Measures to enhance the security for transport of certain radioactive material quantities of concern. The NRC will issue Orders to both NRC and Agreement State licensees under its authority to protect the common defense and security, which has not been relinquished to the Agreement States. The Commission has determined that these documents will contain Safeguards Information (SGI), will not be released to the public, and must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements, as set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order and in Order EA-06-290, so that affected Licensees can receive these documents. This Order also imposes requirements for the protection of SGI in the hands of any person,\2\ whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains sensitive information and will not be released to the public. \2\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department, except that the Department shall be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the Department specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- II The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, grants the Commission explicit authority to ``* * * issue such orders, as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information * * *'' This authority extends to information concerning transfer of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. Licensees and all persons who produce, receive, or acquire SGI must ensure proper handling and protection of SGI to avoid unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the specific requirements for the protection of SGI contained in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order. The Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat violations of the requirements contained in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order applicable to the handling and unauthorized disclosure of SGI as serious breaches of adequate protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security of the United States. Access to SGI is limited to those persons who have established a need-to-know the information, are considered to be trustworthy and reliable, and meet the requirements of Order EA-06-290. A need-to-know means a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting SGI that a proposed recipient's access to SGI is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. Licensees and all other persons who obtain SGI must ensure that they develop, maintain and implement strict policies and procedures for the proper handling of SGI to prevent unauthorized disclosure, in accordance with the requirements in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order. All licensees must ensure that all contractors whose employees may have access to SGI either adhere to the licensee's policies and procedures on SGI or develop, maintain and implement their own acceptable policies and procedures. The licensees remain responsible for the conduct of their contractors. The policies and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable requirements contained in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order must address, at a minimum, the following: the general performance requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI shall ensure that SGI is protected against unauthorized disclosure; protection of SGI at fixed sites, in use and in storage, and while in transit; correspondence containing SGI; access to SGI; preparation, marking, reproduction and destruction of documents; external transmission of documents; use of automatic data processing systems; removal of the SGI category; the need-to-know the information; and background checks to determine access to the information. In order to provide assurance that the licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information, all licensees who hold licenses issued by the NRC or an Agreement State authorizing them to possess and who may transport items containing radioactive material quantities of concern shall implement the requirements identified in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order. The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order for handling of SGI in conjunction with current NRC license requirements or previous NRC Orders. Additional measures set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Order should be incorporated into the licensee's current program for SGI. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 147, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 30, 10 CFR Part 32, 10 CFR Part 35, and 10 CFR Part 70, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all licensees identified in attachment 1 to this order and all other persons who produce, receive, or acquire the additional security measures identified above (whether draft or final) or any related SGI shall comply with the requirements of attachments 2 and 3 to this order. The Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental [[Page 74568]] Management Programs, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the licensee. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 1st day of December 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. Attachments: 1. List of Applicable Materials Licensees. 2. Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M). 3. Trustworthy and Reliability Requirements for Individuals Handling Safeguards Information. Attachment 1: List of Applicable Materials Licensees Redacted Attachment 2: Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M) Modified Handling Requirements for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (SGI-M) General Requirement Information and material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines are safeguards information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. In order to distinguish information needing modified protection requirements from the safeguards information for reactors and fuel cycle facilities that require a higher level of protection, the term ``Safeguards Information-Modified Handling'' (SGI-M) is being used as the distinguishing marking for certain materials licensees. Each person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M shall ensure that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet this requirement, licensees and persons shall establish and maintain an information protection system that includes the measures specified below. Information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet these requirements. Persons Subject to These Requirements Any person, whether or not a licensee of the NRC, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M is subject to the requirements (and sanctions) of this document. Firms and their employees that supply services or equipment to materials licensees would fall under this requirement if they possess facility SGI-M. A licensee must inform contractors and suppliers of the existence of these requirements and the need for proper protection. (See more under Conditions for Access.) State or local police units who have access to SGI-M are also subject to these requirements. However, these organizations are deemed to have adequate information protection systems. The conditions for transfer of information to a third party, i.e., need-to-know, would still apply to the police organization as would sanctions for unlawful disclosure. Again, it would be prudent for licensees who have arrangements with local police to advise them of the existence of these requirements. Criminal and Civil Sanctions The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, explicitly provides that any person, ``whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who violates any regulations adopted under this section shall be subject to the civil monetary penalties of section 234 of this Act.'' Furthermore, willful violation of any regulation or order governing safeguards information is a felony subject to criminal penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment, or both. See sections 147b. and 223 of the Act. Conditions for Access Access to SGI-M beyond the initial recipients of the order will be governed by the background check requirements imposed by the order. Access to SGI-M by licensee employees, agents, or contractors must include both an appropriate need-to-know determination by the licensee, as well as a determination concerning the trustworthiness of individuals having access to the information. Employees of an organization affiliated with the licensee's company, e.g., a parent company, may be considered as [[Page 74569]] employees of the licensee for access purposes. Need-to-Know Need-to-know is defined as a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting SGI-M that a proposed recipient's access to SGI-M is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. The recipient should be made aware that the information is SGI-M and those having access to it are subject to these requirements as well as criminal and civil sanctions for mishandling the information. Occupational Groups Dissemination of SGI-M is limited to individuals who have an established need-to-know and who are members of certain occupational groups. These occupational groups are: A. An employee, agent, or contractor of an applicant, a licensee, the Commission, or the United States Government; B. A member of a duly authorized committee of the Congress; C. The Governor of a State or his designated representative; D. A representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement who has been certified by the NRC; E. A member of a state or local law enforcement authority that is responsible for responding to requests for assistance during safeguards emergencies; or F. A person to whom disclosure is ordered pursuant to Section 2.709(f) of Part 2 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. G. State Radiation Control Program Directors (and State Homeland Security Directors) or their designees. In a generic sense, the individuals described above in (A) through (G) are considered to be trustworthy by virtue of their employment status. For non-governmental individuals in group (A) above, a determination of reliability and trustworthiness is required. Discretion must be exercised in granting access to these individuals. If there is any indication that the recipient would be unwilling or unable to provide proper protection for the SGI-M, they are not authorized to receive SGI-M. Information Considered for Safeguards Information Designation Information deemed SGI-M is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of theft, diversion, or sabotage of materials or facilities subject to NRC jurisdiction. SGI-M identifies safeguards information which is subject to these requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to protect quantities of nuclear material significant to the health and safety of the public or common defense and security. The overall measure for consideration of SGI-M is the usefulness of the information (security or otherwise) to an adversary in planning or attempting a malevolent act. The specificity of the information increases the likelihood that it will be useful to an adversary. Protection While in Use While in use, SGI-M shall be under the control of an authorized individual. This requirement is satisfied if the SGI-M is attended by an authorized individual even though the information is in fact not constantly being used. SGI-M, therefore, within alarm stations, continuously manned guard posts or ready rooms need not be locked in file drawers or storage containers. Under certain conditions the general control exercised over security zones or areas would be considered to meet this requirement. The primary consideration is limiting access to those who have a need- to-know. Some examples would be: Alarm stations, guard posts and guard ready rooms; Engineering or drafting areas if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible; Plant maintenance areas if access is restricted and information is not clearly visible; Administrative offices (e.g., central records or purchasing) if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible; Protection While in Storage While unattended, SGI-M shall be stored in a locked file drawer or container. Knowledge of lock combinations or access to keys protecting SGI-M shall be limited to a minimum number of personnel for operating purposes who have a ``need-to-know'' and are otherwise authorized access to SGI-M in accordance with these requirements. Access to lock combinations or keys shall be strictly controlled so as to prevent disclosure to an unauthorized individual. Transportation of Documents and Other Matter Documents containing SGI-M when transmitted outside an authorized place of use or storage shall be enclosed in two sealed envelopes or wrappers. The inner envelope or wrapper shall contain the name and address of the intended recipient, and be marked both sides, top and bottom with the words ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling.'' The outer envelope or wrapper must be addressed to the intended recipient, must contain the address of the sender, and must not bear any markings or indication that the document contains SGI-M. SGI-M may be transported by any commercial delivery company that provides nation-wide overnight service with computer tracking features, U.S. first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by any individual authorized access pursuant to these requirements. Within a facility, SGI-M may be transmitted using a single opague envelope. It may also be transmitted within a facility without single or double wrapping, provided adequate measures are taken to protect the material against unauthorized disclosure. Individuals transporting SGI- M should retain the documents in their personal possession at all times or ensure that the information is appropriately wrapped and also secured to preclude compromise by an unauthorized individual. Preparation and Marking of Documents While the NRC is the sole authority for determining what specific information may be designated as ``SGI-M,'' originators of documents are responsible for determining whether those documents contain such information. Each document or other matter that contains SGI-M shall be marked ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' in a conspicuous manner on the top and bottom of the first page to indicate the presence of protected information. The first page of the document must also contain (i) the name, title, and organization of the individual authorized to make a SGI-M determination, and who has determined that the document contains SGI-M, (ii) the date the document was originated or the determination made, (iii) an indication that the document contains SGI-M, and (iv) an indication that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Each additional page shall be marked in a conspicuous fashion at the top and bottom with letters denoting ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling.'' In additional to the ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' markings at the top and bottom of each [[Page 74570]] page, transmittal letters or memoranda which do not in themselves contain SGI-M shall be marked to indicate that attachments or enclosures contain SGI-M but that the transmittal does not (e.g., ``When separated from SGI-M enclosure(s), this document is decontrolled''). In addition to the information required on the face of the document, each item of correspondence that contains SGI-M shall, by marking or other means, clearly indicate which portions (e.g., paragraphs, pages, or appendices) contain SGI-M and which do not. Portion marking is not required for physical security and safeguards contingency plans. All documents or other matter containing SGI-M in use or storage shall be marked in accordance with these requirements. A specific exception is provided for documents in the possession of contractors and agents of licensees that were produced more than one year prior to the effective date of the order. Such documents need not be marked unless they are removed from file drawers or containers. The same exception applies to old documents stored away from the facility in central files or corporation headquarters. Since information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet NRC requirements, documents in the possession of these agencies need not be marked as set forth in this document. Removal From SGI-M Category Documents containing SGI-M shall be removed from the SGI-M category (decontrolled) only after the NRC determines that the information no longer meets the criteria of SGI-M. Licensees have the authority to make determinations that specific documents which they created no longer contain SGI-M information and may be decontrolled. Consideration must be exercised to ensure that any document decontrolled shall not disclose SGI-M in some other form or be combined with other unprotected information to disclose SGI-M. The authority to determine that a document may be decontrolled may be exercised only by, or with the permission of, the individual (or office) who made the original determination. The document shall indicate the name and organization of the individual removing the document from the SGI-M category and the date of the removal. Other persons who have the document in their possession should be notified of the decontrolling of the document. Reproduction of Matter Containing SGI-M SGI-M may be reproduced to the minimum extent necessary consistent with need without permission of the originator. Newer digital copiers which scan and retain images of documents represent a potential security concern. If the copier is retaining SGI-M information in memory, the copier cannot be connected to a network. It should also be placed in a location that is cleared and controlled for the authorized processing of SGI-M information. Different copiers have different capabilities, including some which come with features that allow the memory to be erased. Each copier would have to be examined from a physical security perspective. Use of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Systems SGI-M may be processed or produced on an ADP system provided that the system is assigned to the licensee's or contractor's facility and requires the use of an entry code/password for access to stored information. Licensees are encouraged to process this information in a computing environment that has adequate computer security controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to the information. An ADP system is defined here as a data processing system having the capability of long term storage of SGI-M. Word processors such as typewriters are not subject to the requirements as long as they do not transmit information off-site. (Note: if SGI-M is produced on a typewriter, the ribbon must be removed and stored in the same manner as other SGI-M information or media.) The basic objective of these restrictions is to prevent access and retrieval of stored SGI-M by unauthorized individuals, particularly from remote terminals. Specific files containing SGI-M will be password protected to preclude access by an unauthorized individual. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains a listing of all validated encryption systems at . SGI-M files may be transmitted over a network if the file is encrypted. In such cases, the licensee will select a commercially available encryption system that NIST has validated as conforming to Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). SGI-M files shall be properly labeled as ``Safeguards Information--Modified Handling'' and saved to removable media and stored in a locked file drawer or cabinet. Telecommunications SGI-M may not be transmitted by unprotected telecommunications circuits except under emergency or extraordinary conditions. For the purpose of this requirement, emergency or extraordinary conditions are defined as any circumstances that require immediate communications in order to report, summon assistance for, or respond to a security event (or an event that has potential security significance). This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype, facsimile circuits, and to radio. Routine telephone or radio transmission between site security personnel, or between the site and local police, should be limited to message formats or codes that do not disclose facility security features or response procedures. Similarly, call-ins during transport should not disclose information useful to a potential adversary. Infrequent or non-repetitive telephone conversations regarding a physical security plan or program are permitted provided that the discussion is general in nature. Individuals should use care when discussing SGI-M at meetings or in the presence of others to insure that the conversation is not overheard by persons not authorized access. Transcripts, tapes or minutes of meetings or hearings that contain SGI-M shall be marked and protected in accordance with these requirements. Destruction Documents containing SGI-M should be destroyed when no longer needed. They may be destroyed by tearing into small pieces, burning, shredding or any other method that precludes reconstruction by means available to the public at large. Piece sizes one half inch or smaller composed of several pages or documents and thoroughly mixed would be considered completely destroyed. Attachment 3: Trustworthy and Reliability Requirements for Individuals Handling Safeguards Information Trustworthiness and Reliability Requirements for Individuals Handling Safeguards Information In order to ensure the safe handling, use, and control of information designated as Safeguards Information, each licensee shall control and limit access to the information to only those individuals who have established the need-to-know the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and reliable. Licensees shall document the basis for concluding that there is [[Page 74571]] reasonable assurance that individuals granted access to Safeguards Information are trustworthy and reliable, and do not constitute an unreasonable risk for malevolent use of the information. The Licensee shall comply with the requirements of this attachment: 1. The trustworthiness and reliability of an individual shall be determined based on a background investigation: (a) The background investigation shall address at least the past three (3) years, and, at a minimum, include verification of employment, education, and personal references. The licensee shall also, to the extent possible, obtain independent information to corroborate that provided by the employee (i.e., seeking references not supplied by the individual). (b) If an individual's employment has been less than the required three (3) year period, educational references may be used in lieu of employment history. The licensee's background investigation requirements may be satisfied for an individual that has an active Federal security clearance. 2. The licensee shall retain documentation regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of individual employees for three years after the individual's employment ends. [FR Doc. E6-21044 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 51 Los Angeles Times: Small nuclear conflict could affect globe, report says - 9:41 PM PST, December 12, 2006 By John Johnson Jr., Times Staff Writer SAN FRANCISCO  Even a small nuclear conflict could have catastrophic environmental and societal consequences, extending the death toll far beyond the number of people killed directly by bombs, according to the first comprehensive climatic analysis of a regional nuclear war. A few dozen modest Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons exchanged between India and Pakistan, for example, could produce a globe-encircling pall of smoke, causing temperatures to fall worldwide and disrupting food production for millions, according to the analysis presented Monday at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. While a small nuclear exchange might not trigger a life-ending "nuclear winter," it could cause as much death as was once predicted for a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, said Owen B. Toon, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Colorado. "These results are quite surprising," Toon said at a media briefing. Regional nuclear conflicts "can endanger entire populations" the way it was once thought only worldwide conflict could. Toon and coauthor Richard Turco, a professor of atmospheric sciences at UCLA, were part of the team of scientists that developed the original concept of nuclear winter in the 1980s. The analysis was presented in two papers that dealt with the climatic, atmospheric and social consequences of a regional exchange. The studies were published in the online journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. Since the 1980s, when the U.S. and Soviet Union began drawing down their nuclear stockpiles, the number of weapons around the world has declined by a factor of three, Toon said. There are now about 10,000 nuclear weapons, and that is expected to drop to 4,000 by 2012. But the number of nations with the potential to possess nuclear arms has gone up dramatically. Toon said 40 countries now have the fissile material to build nuclear weapons. Japan, with its large nuclear power industry, could make 20,000 weapons. Many of the countries that could build nuclear weapons are also unstable, or at some stage of discontent with their neighbors. In conducting their research, the scientists looked at other global cataclysms, such as the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The eruption triggered what has come to be known as the Year Without a Summer, which caused killing frosts and crop losses in New England as well as crop failures and famine in Europe. The authors said even a limited nuclear conflict would be much worse, killing as many as 17 million in China alone. The most significant atmospheric impact from a nuclear exchange would be the accumulation of smoke and soot in the atmosphere, said team member Georgiy Stenchikov, a professor of environmental science at Rutgers University. Stenchikov estimated that 5 million tons of soot could be thrown into the air by the explosion of about 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons. The smoke and soot would ascend into the stratosphere and stay there for up to 10 years, causing temperatures to fall several degrees, the researchers said. In areas far removed from the site of the explosions, growing seasons could be reduced by 10 days to a month, said Alan Robock, an environmental sciences professor at Rutgers who worked on the analysis. One factor increasing the danger in densely populated areas is the proliferation of plastics, which in a firestorm would increase the soot released into the atmosphere. The production of plastics in the developed world has doubled in just the last two decades, Turco said. Instead of feeling content that the U.S. and Russia are drawing down their nuclear arsenal, people should realize that they "are at a perilous crossroads," Toon said. "Nuclear proliferation and political instability form the greatest danger to human society since the dawn of mankind." john.johnson@latimes.com ***************************************************************** 52 barrow in furness: Radiation found on beach Published on 12/12/2006 NEW monitoring equipment has found a number of contaminated items on Sellafield beach. The equipment was being tried for the first time and during a week long test of the new equipment, which ended on Friday December 1, nine items of minor contamination were removed. While they are still being analysed, British Nuclear Group states that they would not have caused any significant adverse health effects to members of the public using the beach. BNG is reviewing its beach monitoring in response to the recovery of the items. The Environment Agency has been notified of the discovery. The enhanced monitoring equipment has been brought in to comply with new Environment Agency regulations. ***************************************************************** 53 Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett's uranium views 'not a problem' www.smh.com.au December 12, 2006 - 10:19AM Labor leader Kevin Rudd says Peter Garrett's differing views on uranium mining are not a problem for him or the party. Mr Garrett, the new opposition environment spokesman, wants to maintain the existing Labor policy of not allowing any new uranium mines to open. But Mr Rudd has made it clear he wants to scrap that policy at next year's national Labor conference. Mr Garrett says he will argue for no change at the conference, but vows he will stand by the majority view. "I've been on the record for as long as I remember as saying that our existing so-called three mines or no new mines policy is a hangover from the past," Mr Rudd told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "Peter, historically, has had a different view. But the great thing about our party is that we have a national conference of the ALP, these things get thrashed out next March-April, and that's when the policy will be determined. "But I've made absolutely clear the policy direction I'll be taking to that conference. "And Peter, I wouldn't expect him for one moment to change the views which he's held about uranium mining for most of his life." Mr Rudd said taking opposing views to the national conference was part of the party's democracy. "That's as it should be. I think what the Australian people like to see is a bit of a diversity of views and a debate," he said. "We'll we have a debate and once it's resolved that's the new policy. And I'm perfectly relaxed about Peter's historical position on this." © 2006 AAP Brought to you by [aap] When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 54 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear waste site 'must be assessed' - www.smh.com.au December 12, 2006 - 4:49PM Scientific assessments should be carried out before the federal government decides on the site of Australia's nuclear waste dump, Opposition Deputy Leader Julia Gillard says. Ms Gillard has sidestepped questions about the mining of uranium or the building of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. Instead, she said the Labor Party would vote on the issues when it meets for its national conference in April next year. "The substantial issue for the Northern Territory is actually John Howard's nuclear waste dump," she told reporters in Darwin as part of the new leaders' 10-day "listening tour" of Australia. "I think a federal government should not treat the territory in the shabby way the Howard government has treated the Northern Territory. "We do need a waste dump for medical waste ... but we believe where that dump should go should be generated by scientific assessments, it should not be generated by the Howard government standing over the territory." But Ms Gillard refused to rule out a dump altogether, saying Labor's national conference in April "will determine these issues". A private contractor is currently examining three mooted commonwealth-owned sites in the territory - Harts Range and Mt Everard, near Alice Springs, and Fishers Ridge near Katherine. Muckaty Station has also been flagged with a full report on the possible sites due by March 2007. The NT government, pastoralists and Aboriginal elders have slammed the federal government's plans to impose a nuclear waste dump on the Top End desert communities, and Ms Gillard agreed with their assessment. "We would have a proper scientific assessment about where the dump should go, we wouldn't bully the territory into taking the waste dump simply because it is a territory," she said. © 2006 AAP Brought to you by [aap] When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. uAAP 2006-12-12 Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 55 Los Angeles Times: Boeing says runoff rules too strict - 9:40 PM PST, December 12, 2006 The company will ask the state to ease limits on pollution at its former Simi Hills lab. Critics say it could be an effort to thwart a federal probe. By Amanda Covarrubias, Times Staff Writer Boeing Co. on Wednesday will seek to ease limits on runoff pollution at its former nuclear research and rocket testing lab in the Simi Hills amid a criminal investigation into whether the company violated clean-water standards there. Boeing wants the State Water Resources Control Board to amend a permit that allows the company to discharge industrial wastewater and surface storm water from the laboratory. As part of that request, the company said it had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury that was looking at whether it violated the federal Clean Water Act in the discharge of industrial wastewater and surface storm water from the hilltop laboratory. The water contamination has been a controversial issue for years, with neighbors contending that the field lab allowed water tainted with chemicals used at the rocket lab to run into the local watershed and, ultimately, to the Pacific Ocean. Critics say the rocket testing and nuclear research conducted at the laboratory for more than four decades has caused employees and nearby residents to contract cancer and other illnesses from the toxic material in the air and water at the 2,850-acre hilltop laboratory. Field lab officials have disputed many of those allegations. Boeing spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said Monday that the company wanted more time to comply with state standards. "Immediate compliance is not possible," Jameson said. "We're asking for more time to set up a timetable, so we can be in compliance." But nuclear watchdog Daniel Hirsch, a longtime critic of the field lab, worries that easing the pollution limits might scuttle the federal government's efforts. He and others fear that changing Boeing's permit rules now could be used as a defense by the company against any federal charges, if they are filed. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), who represents the area, has asked the state water board to deny the request. "I think this continues their [Boeing's] pattern of failing to comply with even the meagerest orders of cleanup," she said. "Essentially, they want to overturn the regional water board and give Boeing more time and looser standards under which to clean up a portion of the problem they caused in regards to water. It's completely irresponsible." The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board imposed increasingly stringent discharge limits on Boeing in 2004 and again in January and March of this year. Assemblywoman Julie Brownley (D-Woodland Hills), who represents the area, agreed that Boeing should not be granted a revised permit. "The sole reason for Boeing's appeal of the order appears to be their own desire to reduce the level of monitoring that is required of them while they remain under investigation for their current level of compliance," Brownley wrote to the state water board. "There is no basis that serves the public interest to issue an order that Boeing do less." She also agreed that the timing of the request was questionable. "Any action to revise, weaken or otherwise change the permit that the Regional Board issued, following lengthy public hearings and extensive public comment, will surely be cited by Boeing as a part of their defense to any legal action," she wrote. Jameson, the Boeing spokeswoman, strongly denied that there was any connection between the federal investigation and its request for a modification to the state runoff permit. According to Boeing's filing with the state, the U.S. attorney's office contacted the company in November 2005, seeking documents pertaining to its permit compliance from 2001 to 2005. Boeing declined to comment further on the investigation, as did the U.S. attorney's office. It is not the first time that the field lab has been the subject of a criminal investigation. In the 1990s, two workers were killed in an explosion at the lab, and its owner at the time initially denied involvement in the illegal disposal of hazardous materials. After an FBI raid on the plant, the U.S. attorney indicted the company, which pleaded guilty to multiple environmental felonies. A study released in October found that radioactive emissions from a 1959 nuclear accident at the lab may have been much greater than previously suspected and could have resulted in hundreds of cancers in surrounding communities. Chemical contamination from rocket engine testing at the site continues to threaten soil and groundwater in the area around the field lab, the study also found. The advisory panel was created by local legislators in the early 1990s to oversee some of the studies. Boeing rejected the findings, saying that the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information. amanda.covarrubias@latimes.com ***************************************************************** 56 AU ABC: Honeymoon mine proponent offers assurances. 13/12/2006. ABC News Online The company behind the Honeymoon uranium mine project in South Australia is embarking on a community awareness campaign in the district. The Honeymoon mine, 80 kilometres west of Broken Hill, in far western New South Wales, has met strong opposition from environmental groups and anti-nuclear campaigners. But the vice-president of Canadian-based exploration company Uranium One, Greg Cochran, says the site meets rigorous safety and environmental requirements. He says he has been meeting local graziers to assure them about the operation's potential impact. "What we've seen is the general public coming to us and asking really good questions, wanting to find out about what we're doing," he said. Uranium One is working on infrastructure and on-site accommodation and mining is set to start in the first quarter of 2008. ***************************************************************** 57 The Herald: US Trident tests cast doubt over UK design claims Web Issue 26973 December 12 2006 IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent December 12 2006 Almost half of the tests carried out on nuclear warheads by US laboratories between 1999 and 2001 involved verifying Britain's "independent" nuclear deterrent. A US Freedom of Information (FoI) inquiry shows five of 13 simulations and experiments at the strategic Sandia laboratories in New Mexico were done in support of the UK's Trident missile system. The tests involved shock, vibration and blast evaluations of the warheads fitted to the D5 missiles carried by the Vanguard submarines based at Faslane on the Clyde. Despite government insistence that the UK warheads are British-designed and built, the US tests used the W76 American warhead. The Federation of American Scientists, an arms control lobby group, is now questioning how independent Britain's nuclear arsenal really is. An FAS spokesman said: "Rumours have persisted for years that the British Trident warhead is just a modified version of the US W76. The US has about 3200 of these in its stockpile. "This FoI document links the British warhead design directly with the nukes carried on US ballistic missile boats, despite the claim by the British government only last week in its white paper on the future of nuclear deterrence that its own warheads were designed and manufactured in the UK. "The document obtained under FoI legislation shows that US Department of Energy work on five of 13 W76 experiments involved the UK Trident system. "The British warheads appear to be so similar to their US equivalents that they make up an integral part of the US engineering, design and evaluation schedule." The UK leases 50 Trident D5 missiles from a US naval depot in King's Bay, Georgia. Each Royal Navy Vanguard submarine carries 16 missiles tipped with up to three warheads apiece. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is recruiting hundreds of scientists for the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment near Reading. The government is also investing £2.2bn to upgrade laser laboratories and other facilities at the top-security site. The MoD insists the warheads assembled there are British-designed, although some key components are American-made. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without is prohibited. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 58 ENS: Plan Issued for Monument Encircling Hanford Nuclear Site Environment News Service (ENS) AmeriScan: December 11, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC, December 11, 2006 (ENS) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, Friday released for public comment a draft land management plan and environmental impact statement for the Hanford Reach National Monument. The final plan will establish management direction for the monument for the next 15 years. The monument was created from buffer lands no longer necessary for the mission of the Department of Energy, DOE, Hanford Site in southeastern Washington. These buffer lands form a horseshoe around lands still needed by the DOE for the site that contains some 60 percent of the nation's highly radioactive waste. The 586 square mile Hanford Site is located along the Columbia River. A plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and many processing facilities, Hanford played a pivotal role in the nation's defense for more than 40 years, beginning in the 1940s. Today, under the direction of the DOE, Hanford is the site of the world's largest environmental cleanup project. Physical challenges at the Hanford Site include more than 50 million gallons of high-level radioactive liquid waste in 177 underground storage tanks, 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel, 12 tons of plutonium in various forms, about 25 million cubic feet of buried or stored solid waste, and about 270 billion gallons of groundwater contaminated above drinking water standards, spread out over about 80 square miles, more than 1,700 waste sites, and about 500 contaminated facilities. As a buffer for the Hanford Site, the lands within the monument have remained undeveloped - a remnant of the vast shrub-steppe that once covered the interior Columbia Basin. President Bill Clinton's proclamation June 9, 2000, established the 195,000 acre national monument superimposed over the outskirts of the Hanford Site, managed by the FWS and DOE. Migrating salmon, birds and hundreds of other native plant and animal species, some found nowhere else in the world, are on monument lands. The monument includes 46.5 miles of the last free flowing, non-tidal stretch of the Columbia River, the 51 mile Hanford Reach. The draft plan describes and analyzes six alternatives for the monument. The Service has selected Alternative E as its preferred alternative, combining an emphasis on public use with protection of open space. The draft document can be found online at: The FWS is holding four public open houses where FWS staff will be available to answer specific questions about the plan. + January 30, 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, in the Mattawa Elementary School gym, 400 North Boundary Road. + January 31, 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at the Sunnyside Community Center, 1521 South 1st Street. + February 5, 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, at the Hampton Inn in Richland, 486 Bradley Boulevard. + February 8, 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at the Red Lion Hotel in Pasco, 2525 North 20th Avenue. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: Secretary Bodman Visits Clean Energy Museum in Tokyo December 12, 2006 Highlights Cooperation in Advancing Energy Efficient Technology and Increasing Use of Clean Energy Sources TOKYO, JAPAN  U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today toured the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Museum on his first stop in a three nation trip to Asia to advance global energy security in the Asia-Pacific region. In Tokyo Secretary Bodman met with U.S business leaders and senior Japanese officials to discuss U.S.-Japanese joint efforts in advancing science and technology, energy security, and nonproliferation. As two of the worlds most robust economies, the U.S. and Japan share common goals in increasing our economic and energy security, Secretary Bodman said. I look forward to advancing our ongoing partnerships in clean energy research, science and technology, and nonproliferation and discussing ways to meet the growing demand for energy in our countries through active participation in global energy markets. During his visit to the TEPCO Museum, Secretary Bodman toured exhibits on nuclear energy, hydroelectric production, and energy efficient technologies used in homes and businesses in Japan. TEPCO supplies Tokyo and its vicinity with electricity from thermal electric, nuclear, and hydroelectric production sources. Secretary Bodman also met with U.S. business leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce to discuss the development and deployment of clean energy technologies and investment opportunity in Japan and the Asia-Pacific. Secretary Bodman held bilateral energy talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Aso, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Akira Amari, and Senior Vice-Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Toshiaki Endo. Secretary Bodman and his Japanese counterparts discussed the U.S. and Japans growing relationship through international energy organizations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Secretary Bodman also discussed the importance of advancing the Energy Security Action Plan, a U.S. sponsored initiative at the APEC Leaders Meeting in 2004 that promotes petroleum stockpiling, liquefied natural gas trade, hydrogen/fuel cell research and development. To advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, Secretary Bodman and his Japanese counterparts highlighted the importance of continued cooperation through ongoing partnerships including the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP); International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy; Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum; International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; and Generation IV International Forum. Secretary Bodman emphasized the nations common interest in extending cooperation in regional and nonproliferation efforts. Japan is a key U.S. ally in multilateral nonproliferation forums like the International Atomic Energy Agency. Japan is the first stop in Secretary Bodmans six day, three nation swing to Asia to build on energy cooperation with the Asia-Pacific nations. Tomorrow, Secretary Bodman will travel to Seoul, Korea before arriving in Beijing, China on Thursday for the inaugural meeting of the U.S.China Strategic Economic Dialogue and the Five-Party Energy Ministerial with China, Japan, Korea and India. A strategic focus of the trip is to find common ground on improving global energy security through increasing the supply of diverse energy resources and employing more energy efficient measures in the Asia-Pacific region. Media contact(s): Anne Womack Kolton, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 60 Hanford News: Hanford documentary to premiere in California This story was published Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 By the Herald staff Arid Lands, a documentary about the land and people near the Hanford nuclear reservation, will have its premiere showing in California in January. First-time filmmakers Grant Aaker and Josh Wallaert spent several months in the Mid-Columbia in 2005 to film the documentary about "one of the strangest outposts of the American West," according to the description in publicity material. The film has been entered into the Wild &Scenic Environmental Film Festival in Nevada City, Calif. The filmmakers do not have a showing scheduled in the Tri-Cities, but hope to bring it here late next year. For more information, go to www.sidelongfilms.com. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Examiner.com: Salazar holds up labor appointment over Rocky Flats workers' case - By JENNIFER TALHELM, The Associated Press Dec 12, 2006 3:22 PM (6 hrs ago) Current rank: # 443 of 10,179 articles WASHINGTON - Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar says he will block President Bush's candidate for assistant labor secretary until the administration stops its "foot dragging" and acts on a request to compensate sick former workers from Rocky Flats. Workers from the former Rocky Flats nuclear weaponsplant outside Denver, who developed illnesses after being exposed to radiation, filed a petition more than a year ago asking for help under a government program that compensates nuclear workers who suffer radiation-related illnesses. Salazar, a Democrat, said Tuesday that government agencies have yet to act on the sick workers' case and that House hearings have shown the delays may be part of an intentional effort to suppress the program's costs. Attempting to push the Rocky Flats workers' case forward, Salazar placed a "hold" on the nomination of Leon Sequeira to be assistant secretary for policy at the Labor Departmentbefore Congressadjourned earlier this month. He will reissue the hold next year. The hold stalls the Senate from acting on Sequeira's nomination. "I am furious with the foot-dragging, the obstruction and the neglect that have characterized the administration's approach toward American citizens who took real risks for our country during the Cold War, who are suffering now, and who need and deserve help," Salazar said in comments in the Congressional Record. Labor Department officials have said they are not trying to limit or delay payments to workers, although documents examined by House investigators and leaked to the media have shown the administration has considered ways to contain costs under the program. A White Housespokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. Salazar said he wants the administration to ensure that the board considering whether workers qualify for the compensation program is adjusted to be more open to workers' claims. He said he will not lift the hold until the administration gives "firm commitments" that officials will work to approve the Rocky Flats petition. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 Facing South: ORNL Building 3019-A: the most contaminated building in the world? PO Box 531 Durham,NC 27702 Telephone: (919) 419-8311 Fax: (919) 419-8315 Search Tuesday, December 12, 2006 The US Department of Energy has a huge stockpile of weapons-grade uranium at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee that they need to do something with. Somewhere along the way, a plan to extract medical radioisotopes got scrapped, and the disposal bill jumped from $128 million when the contract was awarded in 2003 to nearly $380 million now. Here is a about it, with this kicker:After the down-blending work is completed, Building 3019-A will be decommissioned. That, too, could be a hazardous adventure. The building once housed operations that chemically processed fuel from the nearby Graphite Reactor. In 1959, a chemical explosion "distributed plutonium contamination throughout the interior and exterior of the building." Although a cleanup project was done at the time, radioactive particles remained behind, and workers painted the walls to prevent the spread of contamination. In addition to the radioactive hazards, Building 3019-A has uncoated lead shielding, lead paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos and other hazards. There also is an "underground ventilated bunker" that contains about 4,000 gallons of thorium nitrate solution that's contaminated with U-233.Stuff like this makes you wonder why states like Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Carolina want to compete for hosting . posted by R. Neal at 1:38 Who Are These Folks? CHRIS KROMM blogs three days a week for Facing South. He is Executive Director of the and publisher of the Institutes award-winning magazine, . R. NEAL blogs two days a week for Facing South. Based in Knoxville, TN, R. Neal formerly ran the popular blog South Knox Bubba. He is now coordinator of . SUE STURGIS blogs three days a week for Facing South. The editorial coordinator of the Institute's , she is a freelance reporter who lives and works in Raleigh, NC. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************