***************************************************************** 12/31/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.308 ***************************************************************** 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 IRNA: MP: UNSC resolution has no effect on Iran's economic growth - 2 IRNA: Alarmist assessments of Iran's nuclear program lack key compon 3 IRNA: Ayat. Rafsanjani blasts anti-Iran UNSC resolution 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: UNSC anti-IRI resolution illegal - MP 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Zarif rejects concerns over N-issue 6 IRNA: Ayat. Rafsanjani: No ambiguity in Iran's peaceful nuclear prog 7 AFP: Iran ex-president warns West on sanctions 8 Korea Herald: White Paper defines N.K. as 'grave threat' 9 Korea Herald: [OUTLOOK FOR 2007]Long road ahead for N.K. nuke talks 10 Korea Herald: A tough year expected for S. Korea-U.S. alliance 11 YONHAP NEWS: N. Korea claims U.S. made 2,200 spy fights over its ter 12 YONHAP NEWS: Top diplomats from S. Korea, U.S. to meet next Friday 13 YONHAP NEWS: Defense white paper says N. Korean nuclear test a 'seri 14 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: New assessment calls North Korea a ˇ®serious 15 washingtonpost.com: North Korea's Pass - 16 Korea Times: Nuclear Power Office to Move to Kyongju 17 Korea Times: It's Fusion Time: Korea Gets Piece of Action 18 AFP: South Korea, US to hold talks on North's nuclear - 19 US: washingtonpost.com: That Blasted Year - 20 Xinhua: China issues white paper on national defense 21 Antiwar.com: Preserve, Protect and Defend - 22 Japan Times: Trouble with rearming Japan | 23 Guardian Unlimited: Rafsanjani: U.N. Sanctions Will Backfire NUCLEAR REACTORS 24 US: Haim: Nuclear Power: Failed Technology or Candidate for a Comeba 25 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuke power economics do not add up - Labor - 26 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: The follow up file: Still using that nu 27 US: Earth Times: NRC fines Southern Nuclear for fuel rods 28 AU ABC: NSW rejects PM's call to overturn nuclear ban 29 US: Herald News: Tritium troubles schools 30 edmonton sun: Commentary - EDITORIAL: Glowing future? 31 TND: Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation Action Plan | 32 Belfast Telegraph: Strong opposition to Australian plans for nuclear 33 AFP: World's two oldest nuclear power stations to close in Britain - 34 IHT: Bulgaria closes 2 nuclear reactors ahead of EU entry - Europe - 35 Indian Express: N-deal to spark spinoffs 36 AFP: Mitsubishi, GE to tie up on wind, nuclear power - report 37 US: MyWestTexas.com - Expansion: Energy Industry in 2006 38 US: UPI: Analysis: U.S. nuke energy expands in 2007 39 News & Star: Shaping future for atom plant 40 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power 'cheaper than coal' 41 Guardian Unlimited: Oldest nuclear power stations close NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 42 US: ABC4.com: Monticello cancer link decision delayed - 43 US: Deseret News: Cancer-mill study delayed NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 44 Pahrump Valley Times: Signal pact approved 45 Pahrump Valley Times: Commission prepares for '07 46 US: Courier Post: Stop radioactive dump plan 47 US: San Bernardino County Sun: State may be amiss about perchlorate PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 48 Tennessean: Oak Ridge scientists to resume reactor research in March 49 KnoxNews: Research at reactor set to resume in March ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRNA: MP: UNSC resolution has no effect on Iran's economic growth - Monday January 01, 2007 Kish Island, Persian Gulf, Dec 29, IRNA Iran-Majlis-Resolution Rapporteur of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Majlis (parliament) Kazem Jalali said here Friday UN Security Council resolution against Iran's peaceful nuclear program has no effect on the country's economic growth. Speaking in the Kish Island Friday prayers ceremony, Jalali said Iran has observed all international regulations concerning its peaceful nuclear program. The majlis deputy said Iran is aware of its right to use peaceful nuclear energy adding by 4.8 percent enrichment of uranium Iran concentrates its nuclear ability for industrial and peaceful uses. Jalali stressed that with appropriate planning and employing young experts, Iran has gained access to a complicated and the most efficient advanced technology to be used in its industry. He said Iran is now one of the world producers of heavy water adding the West knows if Iran becomes a nuclear power, it will promote its status in the region and the world. Majlis deputy from Shahroud city stressed that issuing a resolution against Iran's peaceful nuclear program is not important, adding if the US does not issue a resolution against us, it should make us surprised. Jalali said psychological warfare and creating discord are two main goals of the US in adopting the resolution, but Iran will use nuclear energy just for peaceful means. 1391/1771 ---> Iran-Majlis-Resolution ***************************************************************** 2 IRNA: Alarmist assessments of Iran's nuclear program lack key component - Zarif - Dec 30, IRNA -- Iran's Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Javad Zarif in an article published Saturday in the US Daily 'Los Angeles Times' discussed last week Security Council's resolution against Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and said evidence shows that alarmist assessments of Iran's nuclear program lack a key component. The following is full text of Ambassador Zarif's article: When the U.N. Security Council was forced to convene on the Saturday before Christmas to vote on Resolution 1737 against Iran's nuclear program, it was only natural to ask what the urgency was. Iran had not attacked or threatened to use force against any member of the United Nations; in fact, Iran has not attacked any country for more than two centuries. Iran was not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon. To the contrary, as a study released this week by the National Academy of Sciences concludes, Iran needs nuclear energy in spite of its oil and gas reserves. At the same time, Iran has categorically rejected the development stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on both ideological and strategic grounds. It has remained committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which it ratified in 1970 and was even prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the treaty. All of Iran's nuclear facilities have been inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has stated its readiness to place them under an even more stringent regime, as it did from December 2003 to February 2006, when more than 2,000 person-days of scrutiny resulted in repeated statements by the IAEA that there was no evidence of a weapons program . As IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei recently said, "A lot of what you see about Iran right now is assessment of intentions." Many such assessments have been produced by the intelligence agencies of governments with agendas hostile toward Iran. They are, as a result misleading. For instance,a draft National Intelligence Estimate by, the CIA in 1992 concluded that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000. The Israelis have been saying for many years that Iran will pass the "point of no return" within six months or less. But even these alarmist assessments concede that there is no actual evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and that even if it wanted to do so, it would not be capable of developing one before 2010 or 2015. So, no urgency, no imminent threat. The real reason for the pre- Christmas meeting was to take advantage of a more favorable Security Council composition before new members arrive on Jan. 1 and impose sanctions on Iran. The sanctions aim to punish Iran for refusing to suspend its peaceful and legal uranium enrichment activities. However, suspension is not a solution in itself; it can only provide time to search for one. A stopgap suspension was already in place for two years, while Iran engaged in negotiations. But over the last three years, the United States and its European allies have never proposed any long-term solution other than insisting on an indefinite suspension of Iran's enrichment activities. In contrast, my country has proposed real alternatives to ensure that its civilian nuclear program will remain exclusively and indefinitely peaceful: On March 23, 2005, Iran offered a comprehensive and far-reaching package to France, Germany and Britain, including national legislation to permanently ban developing or using nuclear weapons, technical guarantees against proliferation and unprecedented, around-the-clock IAEA inspections. It also envisaged relations of mutual respect and cooperation in a wide range of economic, political and counter- terrorism areas. Despite their initial enthusiasm, the Europeans refused to engage in negotiations on that package, insisting instead on indefinite suspension, apparently because of U.S .objections. On July 18, 2005, Iran offered to allow the IAEA to develop an optimized arrangement on numbers, monitoring mechanism and other specifics "for an initial, limited operation at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility", which would address our needs and allay their concerns." The offer was not even considered. On Sept 17, 2005, Iran expressed its readiness to engage in serious partnerships with private and public sectors of other countries for uranium enrichment in Iran in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency. Again, the offer was rebuffed. On March 30, 2006, Iran proposed establishing regional consortia for fuel-cycle development with countries inside and outside the region, with joint ownership and division of labor based on the expertise of the participants. No one cared to respond to this proposal. During the September and October 2006 talks between Iranian nuclear negotiators and the European Union, Iran proposed an international consortium, an offer that was initially considered very promising by the Europeans but then was rapidly rejected as insufficient. Once again, they insisted instead on suspension. These offers were exact replicas of the IAEA's main proposals on multinational fuel activities, including enrichment, published Feb. 22, 2005, Iran's readiness to implement them presents a unique opportunity not only to remove concerns about our fuel-cycle activities but also to strengthen the Nonproliferation Treaty by providing a model for other countries with similar enrichment programs. No other country with similar technology has been prepared to be as flexible as Iran. Neither suspension nor sanctions can achieve the stated objective of ensuring nonproliferation because Iran has now been compelled to develop nuclear technology on its own. As many nonproliferation experts have already pointed out, in countries with Iran's level of technological achievement, only engagement, transparency and international monitoring can provide assurances of nonproliferation. Iran remains eager to dispel any doubts. It is not too late to reach an agreement on meaningful measures that can serve our common objective of limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: Ayat. Rafsanjani blasts anti-Iran UNSC resolution Tehran, Dec 31, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Rafsanjani Iran's former president and expediency council chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Sunday harshly criticized recent anti-Iran UN Security Council resolution and stressed that Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Addressing large groups of worshipers at Tehran University campus on Eid Qurban (Feast of Sacrifice), Ayatollah Rafsanjani said Iran is ready to continue its peaceful nuclear activities under the international regulations. While underlining Iran's readiness for dialogue with the Group 5+1 on its peaceful nuclear program, Ayatollah Rafsanjani warned against any problem that might arise in the negotiation process. "The officials too should settle the existing problems with generosity; any problem by any of the parties would be hard to compensate," said Ayatollah Rafsanjani. ***************************************************************** 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: UNSC anti-IRI resolution illegal - MP 2006/12/31 Member of Parliament from Zanjan, Rafat Bayat, on Saturday said that the anti-Islamic Republic of Iran resolution 1737 which was approved by the United Nations Security Council on December 23, is illegal. He told IRNA that IRI's peaceful nuclear activities are within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) laws and that IRI has not violated them. "Iran has fully cooperated with the agency and has taken confidence building measures. Besides, its nuclear activities were suspended voluntarily for a while," he added. The MP urged that the so-called 5+1 group should officially recognize IRI's legitimate right to access nuclear technology and dismissed their discriminatory approach towards IRI as compared to other NPT members. "This is while the racist 'Israeli' regime which is not a member of any disarmament convention and does not even accept the NPT, Safeguard Agreement and Additional Agreement, declares that it possesses nuclear weapons. "Besides, members of the 5+1 group do not show any reaction to the Zionist regime's admittance about possession of nuclear weapons, but assist 'Israel' to be equipped with weapons of mass destruction," he added. He underlined that IRI will continue its nuclear activities within the framework of the agency's regulations and that the government will not give up defending national interests. Bayat stressed that MPs urge the government to expedite the country's peaceful atomic programs and continue cooperating with the IAEA to secure the national interests. "The countries whose revenues are based on the sale of military equipment and drugs are real violators of international treaties." "Given these states access to the most advanced nuclear technologies, they attempt to deprive others of such technologies to supply them with atomic fuel in future," he added. M/D 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 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Zarif rejects concerns over N-issue 2006/12/31 Islamic Republic of Iran's Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Javad Zarif in an article published Saturday in the American daily 'Los Angeles Times' discussed last week Security Council's resolution against IRI's peaceful nuclear activities and said evidence shows that alarmist assessments of IRI's nuclear program lack a key component. The following is full text of Ambassador Zarif's article: When the U.N. Security Council was forced to convene on the Saturday before Christmas to vote on Resolution 1737 against IRI's nuclear program, it was only natural to ask what the urgency was. IRI had not attacked or threatened to use force against any member of the United Nations; in fact, Iran has not attacked any country for more than two centuries. IRI was not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon. To the contrary, as a study released this week by the National Academy of Sciences concludes, IRI needs nuclear energy in spite of its oil and gas reserves. At the same time, IRI has categorically rejected the development stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on both ideological and strategic grounds. It has remained committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which it ratified in 1970 and was even prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the treaty. All of IRI's nuclear facilities have been inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IRI has stated its readiness to place them under an even more stringent regime, as it did from December 2003 to February 2006, when more than 2,000 person-days of scrutiny resulted in repeated statements by the IAEA that there was no evidence of a weapons program. As IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei recently said, "A lot of what you see about Iran right now is assessment of intentions." Many such assessments have been produced by the intelligence agencies of governments with agendas hostile toward IRI. They are, as a result misleading. For instance, a draft National Intelligence Estimate by, the CIA in 1992 concluded that IRI could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000. The 'Israelis' have been saying for many years that IRI will pass the "point of no return" within six months or less. But even these alarmist assessments concede that there is no actual evidence that IRI is trying to build a nuclear weapon and that even if it wanted to do so, it would not be capable of developing one before 2010 or 2015. So, no urgency, no imminent threat. The real reason for the pre- Christmas meeting was to take advantage of a more favorable Security Council composition before new members arrive on Jan. 1 and impose sanctions on IRI. The sanctions aim to punish IRI for refusing to suspend its peaceful and legal uranium enrichment activities. However, suspension is not a solution in itself; it can only provide time to search for one. A stopgap suspension was already in place for two years, while Iran engaged in negotiations. But over the last three years, America and its European allies have never proposed any long-term solution other than insisting on an indefinite suspension of IRI's enrichment activities. In contrast, my country has proposed real alternatives to ensure that its civilian nuclear program will remain exclusively and indefinitely peaceful: On March 23, 2005, IRI offered a comprehensive and far-reaching package to France, Germany and Britain, including national legislation to permanently ban developing or using nuclear weapons, technical guarantees against proliferation and unprecedented, around-the-clock IAEA inspections. It also envisaged relations of mutual respect and cooperation in a wide range of economic, political and counter- terrorism areas. Despite their initial enthusiasm, the Europeans refused to engage in negotiations on that package, insisting instead on indefinite suspension, apparently because of America's objections. On July 18, 2005, IRI offered to allow the IAEA to develop an optimized arrangement on numbers, monitoring mechanism and other specifics "for an initial, limited operation at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility", which would address our needs and allay their concerns." The offer was not even considered. On Sept 17, 2005, Iran expressed its readiness to engage in serious partnerships with private and public sectors of other countries for uranium enrichment in Iran in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency. Again, the offer was rebuffed. On March 30, 2006, IRI proposed establishing regional consortia for fuel-cycle development with countries inside and outside the region, with joint ownership and division of labor based on the expertise of the participants. No one cared to respond to this proposal. During the September and October 2006 talks between Iranian nuclear negotiators and the European Union, IRI proposed an international consortium, an offer that was initially considered very promising by the Europeans but then was rapidly rejected as insufficient. Once again, they insisted instead on suspension. These offers were exact replicas of the IAEA's main proposals on multinational fuel activities, including enrichment, published Feb. 22, 2005, IRI's readiness to implement them presents a unique opportunity not only to remove concerns about our fuel-cycle activities but also to strengthen the Nonproliferation Treaty by providing a model for other countries with similar enrichment programs. No other country with similar technology has been prepared to be as flexible as IRI. Neither suspension nor sanctions can achieve the stated objective of ensuring nonproliferation because IRI has now been compelled to develop nuclear technology on its own. As many nonproliferation experts have already pointed out, in countries with IRI's level of technological achievement, only engagement, transparency and international monitoring can provide assurances of nonproliferation. IRI remains eager to dispel any doubts. It is not too late to reach an agreement on meaningful measures that can serve our common objective of limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. M/D Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Ayat. Rafsanjani: No ambiguity in Iran's peaceful nuclear program - Tehran, Dec 31, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Rafsanjani Iran's former president and Expediency Council chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Sunday there is no ambiguity in Iran's nuclear activities, which are "peaceful and under international regulations." "The quality of our nuclear program is clear to all; there is no ambiguity in in the nuclear activities and the Islamic Republic of Iran has times and again announced that it is ready to remove dark points, if any, through negotiations," said Ayatollah Rafsanjani while delivering his second sermon to large groups of worshipers at Tehran University campus on Eid Qurban (Feast of Sacrifice). Ayatollah Rafsanjani held opponents of Iran's nuclear program accountable for possible ambiguities. "Those opposing the activities have caused the ambiguity and the anti-Iran UN Security Council resolution is the result of such attitudes," said Rafsanjani. He said the anti-Iran UNSC resolution contains many "menacing" points, showing that enemies of Iran's Islamic Revolution have plans against the country. He then warned against any problem which would be hard to compensate and called on the parties involved to act wisely. "Any problem thus arising would not be something easy, though it can't be compared with problems in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine; any fire thus ignited would be harmful for many. Due to the same reason, they should act wisely and refrain from doing anything dangerous; our officials too should settle the ongoing problems with generosity. Any problem by any of the parties would be hard to compensate," said Ayatollah Rafsanjani. The Iranian official afterwards expressed regret over present events in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon and blamed foreigners for the mishaps. "We are unfortunately witnessing repeated crimes and crises in the countries; the problems are getting further complicated day by day. A survey of the problems in any of the countries points to the role of foreigners; I mean those who don't wish restoration of tranquility and peace there," Ayatollah Rafsanjani made it clear. ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Iran ex-president warns West on sanctions Sunday December 31, 01:13 PM [Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani] TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has warned Western powers that pressuring Iran to halt its controversial nuclear work would have consequences for the whole region. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on December 23 that imposes sanctions on Iran for its refusal to freeze nuclear enrichment -- a process that can make nuclear fuel or the fissile core of an atom bomb. "This is a dangerous resolution, they are creating problems for themselves and the region ... many will suffer from the smoke of this fire," Rafsanjani said in a prayer sermon carried live on state radio on Sunday. "Sanctions cannot make Iran surrender," the former president said, while pledging cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to "clear allegations that Iran wants to go towards nuclear military work". "We are ready to cooperate with international organizations with all their rules of inspection," he said, calling on Iranian officials to seek to resolve the nuclear standoff with "prudence and patience". In response to the UN resolution, Iran's conservative-dominated parliament on Wednesday adopted a bill requiring the government to "revise" its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog. The bill gives the government a free hand to decide precisely how to reduce cooperation, which could involve limiting UN inspections of Iran's nuclear sites. The West fears Iran is seeking to develop atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear programme. Tehran vehemently denies the charge, insisting it wants to enrich uranium solely to provide energy for a fast-growing population. AFP ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: White Paper defines N.K. as 'grave threat' The Defense Ministry's new White Paper yesterday defined North Korea as a "grave threat" to the security of South Korea, citing the North's increasing efforts to reinforce its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The "Defense White Paper 2006" also cited Dokdo as one of the military's prime areas of responsibility in the territorial protection of Korea in response to Japan's recent claims to the rocky islands in the East Sea. The label "grave threat" represents an elevation in the level of threat compared to that described in the 2004 document, said a senior official at the Defense Ministry. In 2004, the ministry assessed the North's military capability as a "direct military threat." "It's an upgrade in the threat level because the term 'direct threat' is applied to the case of a direct, but less serious threat," the official told reporters, highlighting the main contents of the biennial report. North Korea detonated a nuclear device in October this year, ringing security alarms in the region and the United States. The latest edition of the Defense White Paper maintains the deletion of a controversial clause that refers to North Korea as the "main enemy." The term was included in issues of the report prior to the 2004 edition. The deletion was denounced by critics, chiefly from conservative, anti-communist circles, who viewed it as the government's "unscrupulous attitude" toward the North Korean threat. The Defense Ministry said it published several thousand copies of the 2006 edition, the second of its kind published by the incumbent administration. In the 2006 edition, Pyongyang's conventional forces, nuclear test, weapons of mass destruction and forward deployment of forces were enumerated as sources of serious threats to South Korea's security. The paper said North Korea is believed to have manufactured one or two atomic bombs from 10-14 kilograms of plutonium obtained before the 1994 Agreed Framework. It is also presumed that the North extracted an additional 30 kilograms of plutonium between 2003 and 2005. However, the ministry said it rejects granting North Korea the status of nuclear-armed country despite its atomic test. The latest edition also estimated the communist country possesses 2,500-5,000 tons of chemical weapons as well as an unknown number of biological weapons such as anthrax and smallpox. The defense document said North Korea deploys 70 percent of its ground forces near the border with South Korea to enable sudden raids without redeployment. The North's ground forces comprise 19 corps-level units including four mechanized corps and a missile command. The communist regime has increased the number of multiple-launch artillery vehicles by 200, it said. The paper also said the North possess 420 warships, 60 submarines and 260 amphibious landing ships. Around 60 percent of the naval forces are deployed near the inter-Korean border while 40 percent of its 820 aircraft are stationed at frontline air bases. (davidpooh@heraldm.com) By Jin Dae-woong 2006.12.30 ***************************************************************** 9 Korea Herald: [OUTLOOK FOR 2007]Long road ahead for N.K. nuke talks When North Korea tested a nuclear device last October, the landscape of the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula became much more complex. The six-party talks hosted by North Korea's sole ally China convened at the end of December but closed just a week later without any tangible progress. Although the failure of the talks was widely anticipated, it spelled out the tough road ahead for the participants and their concern with North Korea's dangerous ambition. The start of year 2007 begins veiled in pessimism as North Korea remains resistant. With the United States preoccupied with the Iraq war and Iran's nuclear ambition, the untangling of the North's nuclear problem is expected to take a lot more time, experts say. "It is most likely that North Korea will continue to hang on to the format of both multilaterally and bilaterally talking with the United States, demanding the solution to financial sanctions and in the worst case, carry out a second nuclear test," said Prof. Yoon Duk-min of the state-run Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security. Professor Chun In-young of Seoul National University agreed. "The members of the six-party talks will meet again next month but the tug of war will continue over the sequence of any nuclear freeze and the incentives." He said the problem is likely to remain deadlocked until the Bush administration ends in 2008. At the latest six-party talks North Korea continued in their determination to push its demands and withhold any concessions - until the United States first lifted the sanction against a bank in Macau before even beginning discussions about its nuclear programs. The communist regime also separated its stance on nuclear programs and nuclear weapons, saying that it will dismantle its nuclear weapons in exchange of wide incentives including economic aid and the normalization of diplomatic ties with the United States. Prof. Koh Yoo-hwan of Dongguk University explained that such a move represented a new strategy on the part of North Korea. "After testing its nuclear device, North Korea has separated its nuclear program and nuclear weapon to demand a step-by-step compensation, in other wards, using the 'salami slicing' strategy," he said. Salami slicing refers to doing something in small parts to achieve something that would otherwise be impossible or extremely difficult. While most suspect that such a move by North Korea would mean North Korea will stick by its nuclear status, Koh Yoo-hwan offered a different analysis. "As North Korea took out what could be its final card - the nuclear test - in its brinkmanship style strategy, it can be said that the time has come nearer to solve the nuclear crisis," he said. "This could in fact be described as the pinnacle and turning point of the game of chicken being played by North Korea and the United States." At the six-party talks it was the main aim of the United States to get North Korea to agree to suspending work at the Yongbyon nuclear facility in return for a written security guarantee. If North Korea allows inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it would be rewarded with talks on energy and economic aid. The North Korean delegation, on the other hand, returned to the six-party talks with elevated negotiating power after having detonated a nuclear device in October. North Korea said only when "circumstances matured" would it be willing to talk about abandoning its nuclear programs, meaning Washington must first lift the sanctions. It is also reportedly open to freezing its Yongbyon reactor when the "conditions are met," meaning compensation must first be promised. But it does not mean North Korea is unwilling to negotiate, experts say. "North Korea is also one of the rational actors. It also calculates the profit and loss of its strategies," Chun In-young said. "The nuclear test means North Korea has that much more leverage. It means it has more influence. But as an actor, North Korea will not push its card until it pushes itself into a collapse. It will use it to maximum," he said. Koh agreed, "For North Korea and its strategy, it has now entered a stage where it is gambling with life. It means the North can collide or collapse if it takes one more step forward." After North Korea detonated a nuclear device, the United Nations adopted Resolution 1718, which obligates all 192 member states to take measures against possible proliferation of finances, materials and technology related to weapons of mass destruction in addition to luxury goods. The sanctions will inevitably tighten the noose around North Korea. "The matter of concern is that the sanctions from the international community will inevitably continue, leaving North Korea more and more deprived in both food supplies and economy," Yoon Duk-min said. He went on to explain that North Korea would not be able to depend on South Korea either. "South Korea will have no choice but to resume some of the aid due to domestic politics and public sentiment but most of the inter-Korean businesses are run by private companies now. Even if the government-level exchange resumes, the private sector might choose not to engage with the North as the security situation remains unstable," he said. North Korea must think about two conditions effecting the United States in making the next move, the experts say. One is the lack of negotiating room that the Bush administration gave itself from the beginning of its term. "The United States is determined that no incentive will be given until the nuclear facility is suspended for verification. It has made clear that it will not repeat the past of the Geneva Agreement." Upon reaching the Geneva Agreement in 1994, North Korea froze its nuclear reactor and the United States and the allies began constructing a light-water reactor as compensation. The arrangement failed after the North allegedly admitted to running a clandestine uranium-based nuclear program in 2002. It was considered one of the Clinton administration's key foreign policy failures. "The matter of concern is that the patience level of the United States is wearing thin," Chun In-young said. For the Washington policymakers it is evident that it is North Korea's negotiation strategy to demand one thing and when it is fulfilled to immediately demand yet another concession. "North Korea has a pattern in which it takes a provocative action, returns to the negotiating table and makes that action an established fact," Yoon Duk-min agreed, adding that it was now a matter of how the North would make the nuclear test another one of those established facts. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambition is a more imminent problem for the United States, they said. "The United States will have more room to tackle North Korea's issue once the situation in Iraq is improved," Chun In-young said. Pundits agree in their observations that the United States showed at least a hint of flexibility at the last round of the six-party talks. The United States put efforts into showing willingness to negotiate by opening a separate discussion on BDA with the North and by offering the step-by-step nuclear dismantlement plan. North Korea has not entirely refused nor is it fully satisfied with the current proposal. Observers pinpointed three aspects to watch regarding the North Korean nuclear problem this year. In the short-term the question is how the BDA issue will unfold. "If the two sides manage to put a lid on the problem at the working-level talks early next year, it would allow for the negotiations on the Sept. 19 Joint Statement to begin full-fledged," Koh Yoo-hwan said. Chun In-young agreed and added that even if the BDA issue is resolved it would not mean an immediate solution to the nuclear problem. "We must pay attention to the fact that the United States has put forward a detailed step-by-step proposal." Another important factor is North Korea's demand to turn the nuclear negotiation into arms talks - meaning it is claiming to be acknowledged as a nuclear state Although the North has carried out a nuclear test, it is considered virtually impossible for the United States to accept such a demand. "The North's demand can be put aside for later and be dealt at the level of North Korea's nuclear dismantlement and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through a multilateral security guarantee," Koh said. The third question is whether the six-party talks framework can be maintained. "The format of the six-party talks is likely to stay put as China, Japan, Russia and the United States all believe in the multilateral process," Yoon said. "For the Bush administration especially, it is crucial to maintain the six-party talks framework in dealing with North Korea's nuclear problem at present." North Korea, on the other hand, will keep trying to dissolve the format in order to conduct bilateral negotiations with the United States, he explained. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2007.01.01 ***************************************************************** 10 Korea Herald: A tough year expected for S. Korea-U.S. alliance Korea's military alliance with the United States faces another difficult year as tough negotiations concerning a host of issues await them. "It is not optimistic that the allies will smoothly address all the major issues in 2007. Despite a series of agreements the two sides achieved in 2006, their implementation will be made in the way the allies' partnership is weakening and finally dissolving," Kim Tae-hyo, international politics professor at Sungkyunkwan University, told The Korea Herald. "In the new year, the alliance will see an elevation of tensions due to clashes over the issues," Kim added. Two major issues at stake are setting up a concrete plan for the transition of wartime operational control to the South Korean armed forces and hammering out a master plan for the relocation of U.S. military bases on the peninsula. The allies aim to fix a concrete date for the control transfer by the first half of this year in accordance with an agreement made last year between both defense ministers. In October, the two sides compromised in agreeing to transfer the wartime control from Washington to Seoul between Oct. 15, 2009 and Mar. 15, 2012 in a measure to patch up rifts between the allies concerning a target year. South Korea is sticking to its original target year of 2012 while the United States contends that 2009 is more appropriate. "The differences over the target year are not really a crucial problem for the two sides. The authentic problem is that South Korea's push for an independent wartime operational control has harmed the trust that had been established between Seoul and Washington. This year, the negotiations will deepen distrust between the allies and aggravate the alliance relations," Kim said. Meanwhile, experts predicted that the wartime control transition will take place later than 2009 in favor of Seoul's desire. However, before the two countries reach an agreement on a concrete date, they will face challenges arising from differences of both countries and also from the Korean society's opposition to the plan. "The United States is expected to postpone its return of wartime control to sometime later than 2009. But the issue will sustain tensions between the two sides," said Professor Choi Kang at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, a state-run think tank. Seoul claims it needs time to equip its armed forces with high-tech weapons for an effective independent wartime control. At the same time, the proposed target year of 2012 is also aimed at softening domestic oppositions to the control handover. South Korean conservatives call on the government to scrap the plan and to reopen negotiations to delay the control transfer. They are concerned that the South Korean armed forces still lack surveillance and precision-striking capabilities. They also claim the command change which entails deactivation of the current South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, will endanger South Korea's security and its alliance with the United States. Opponents on the right staged a series of harsh protests against the governments efforts last year. Meanwhile, Washington prefers to advance the control transfer with the pledge of providing a "bridging capability" to South Korea to offset possible strategic gaps. The U.S. side regards a lag in the change will entail setbacks in effective operations of its forces until the command transfer is complete. "The timing of the control transition is likely to be around 2012 under U.S. understanding of South Korean needs. But it will not be a process of solution to the alliance problem, but a process of deterioration," Kim Tae-hyo said. Another source of contention in the alliance is emerging from differences over costs and the timetable for relocating U.S. military bases in South Korea, experts said. Seoul officials recently said that the U.S. base relocation is likely to be postponed until 2013 because construction of an alternative facility has been delayed due to protests by residents and anti-U.S. activists. In 2004 Seoul and Washington agreed to move facilities and troops from the Yongsan Garrison and 2nd Infantry Division near the border with North Korea to Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, by 2008. According to the agreement, U.S. Camp Humphreys, located 70 kilometers south of Seoul, and the nearby Osan airbase will become the main installation of the U.S. Forces Korea for dealing with contingencies in the Northeast Asian region. The USFK claims that construction of the new installation should be completed between 2009 and 2010 for smooth U.S. troop relocation. The U.S. military is concerned that a further delay would result in possible strategic losses, entailing an unexpected postponement in transforming itself into a rapid expeditionary force with strategic flexibility. The USFK pursues a policy of military transformation so as to build a more mobile force in line with global-wide U.S. troop realignment plans. However, South Korea hopes the U.S. troop relocation will coincide with the transition of wartime control, with fears of a possible strategic gap until the restructuring is realized. The Seoul government intends to keep American troops deployed near the frontline to effectively cope with possible North Korean attacks until the major command change is completed. "The base relocation appears to simultaneously occur with the wartime control transition around 2012 following Seoul's intentions. The U.S. concession will coexist with an estranged partnership with South Korea," Kim said. The big-budget base project will also involve disagreements over how to share cost. The United States had recently proposed South Korea spend up to 400 billion won ($434 million) to relocate the U.S. digital command system called C4I (command, control, communication and computer and intelligence) to a new installation. The newly proposed budget marks a sharp rise from an ##earlier demand of 9 million won for Korea's share of the project's costs. Seoul and Washington also differ over how to split the cost for elevating land of the base site to prevent the new facilities from being flooded in rainy season. The base site is located at comparatively low land surrounding which a river is flowing. The two sides plan to embark on the land-refill construction early this year. "The cost sharing negotiation will also be another tough process, but the problem could be addressed in a relatively easy manner," Choi said. Separate from the construction issue, however, Seoul and Washington have also been split on how to divide the cost for the decontamination of 59 U.S. bases that will be returned to Korean ownership by 2011. The Seoul government has been insisting on strict criteria for the cleanup, based on Korea's antipollution laws. If adopted, it is estimated the decontamination will cost up to $500 billion. The United States, on the other hand, claimed such a demand was excessive, citing a memorandum under the Status of Forces Agreement. The U.S. military has been arguing it will remove only the polluted fuel tanks inside the bases concerned, which would cost them some $2 million. By agreeing to accept the first 15 bases as "fully decontaminated," last year, the Seoul government has caved into Washington's version of decontamination. The decision is likely to pose a bigger hurdle for Korea in the follow-up negotiation, analysts say. An environment survey of 29 bases as of June 15 showed that 26 of them were contaminated. Some analysts also say South Korea's troop withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a source of contention in the alliance. Seoul plans to bring home all 200 soldiers from Afghanistan by the end of this year as well as to end missions of the 2,300-strong Zaytun Division in northern Iraq by the same target year. The troop pullouts could be interpreted as South Korea's retreat from its advocacy for the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Others say a deadlock in the North Korean nuclear negotiation would be converted to a deterioration of South Korea-U.S. alliance relations. "Among all the problems, the most worrisome is that South Korean politicians and political parties may exploit the alliance rifts in favor of their victory in the next year's presidential election," Kim Tae-hyo said. Kim cited that anti-Americanism in South Korea was a crucial source of issue competition in the 2002 presidential election between major candidates, finally influencing the result of the election. The incumbent President Roh Moo-hyun had adroitly exploited the anti-Americanism to win the election when it blew up with deaths of two South Korean girl students run down by a U.S. tracked vehicle. "Any tough negotiation on the issues would pave ways for protests from civil society with arguments that the United States tries to overburden South Korea for its troops realignment plan. Should the development comes, scrutiny politicians who easily fall into a myopic benefits are likely to amplify the anti-American sentiment to explode in the Korean society again," Kim said. Choi Kang also agreed that politicians should be alert on the possibility, distancing themselves away from the temptation of exploiting the alliance issues for their political victory. Meanwhile, South Korea will see this year some adjustment in its long-term plan to modernize the country's armed forces and streamline its command system by 2020. "This year, the initial investment for the military reform plan will be highlighted. There is a possibility that arms acquisition plans will be adjusted in accordance with our strategic needs for an independent wartime control," Choi said. "The U.S. side could first raise the need, demanding our government speed up the military buildup for an inter-operability of the alliance," Choi added. Last year the National Assembly passed a defense reform bill for a stable implementation. Under the $290 billion plan, the military aims to scale down troop levels, largely ground forces, from 680,000 to 500,000 in phases by 2020, equipping troops with cutting-edge weapons system. "The military is expected to advance introductions of some huge-budget arms system including C4I system, striking equipment and air defense system," Choi said. The Defense Ministry plans to crank up a major acquisition plan this year to purchase 20 additional advanced fighter jets of U.S.-made F-15K class in quality. The fighters, to be introduced between 2009 and 2015, will reinforce the Air Force's assault operations along with 40 F-15Ks to be delivered from Boeing Co. by 2008. The contract is expected to attract high-tech aircraft models including U.S. Boeing-made F-15K and Lockheed Martin's F-35. The military will also continue its efforts to purchase U.S. high-altitude Global Hawk surveillance air vehicle to enhance its aerial intelligence capability. The South Korean military seeks to enhance high-tech surveillance and strike forces for the next five years to build up its self-reliant defense capabilities. The plan will revolve around three strategic elements of warfare - surveillance, digital warfare and long-range, precision strike capabilities. To beef up the reconnaissance embodied in the concept Sensor, the military will pursue 20 purchasing projects of high-tech reconnaissance and surveillance systems including four Airborne Early Warning aircraft, several multipurpose satellites and unmanned patrol aircraft. South Korea is relying on U.S. forces in Korea for a large portion of its surveillance mission. For upgraded strike forces Shooter, the country will introduce upgraded aircraft such as F-15K fighter jets, T-50 advanced trainer jets and TA-50 light attackers.The plan also includes the purchase of the Patriot missile system, code-named SAM-X, and satellite-guided missiles called JDAM. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles, an advanced version of the surface-to-air Patriot missile, will replace the country's aging arsenal of Nike Hercules missiles. (davidpooh@heraldm.com) By Jin Dae-woong 2007.01.01 ***************************************************************** 11 YONHAP NEWS: N. Korea claims U.S. made 2,200 spy fights over its territory 2006/12/30 17:28 KST SEOUL, Dec. 30 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Saturday that the United States has conducted about 2,200 spy flights over its territory in 2006 from its South Korean bases and elsewhere. An average of six U.S. spy planes flew over North Korea every day, said the North's official news outlet, the Korean Central News Agency. The flights included about 300 by the U-2 aircraft and approximately 100 flights made by the RC-135 over the past year, it said. ***************************************************************** 12 YONHAP NEWS: Top diplomats from S. Korea, U.S. to meet next Friday for talks on N.K. nukes, alliance 2006/12/29 11:43 KST SEOUL, Dec. 29 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States plan to use next week's talks between their top diplomats to explore ways of resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis and cementing political and economic ties, officials here said Friday. South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon is scheduled to hold one-on-one talks with his American counterpart Condoleezza Rice on Friday, followed by a joint press conference, the officials added. Song's trip to the U.S., slated for Jan. 3-6, would be his first trip to the country in his capacity as Seoul's top diplomat. Song assumed the post earlier this month, replacing Ban Ki-moon, the incoming secretary-general of the United Nations. In November, Song, as nominee for foreign minister, met bilaterally with Rice in Hanoi, Vietnam, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. "In next week's talks, they will discuss the framework of the two sides' alliance for the last year of the Participatory Government (the Roh Moo-hyun administration)," a ranking Foreign Ministry official said, asking not to be named. Song, who will be accompanied by South Korea's top nuclear envoy Chun Yung-woo, and Rice also plan to exchange appraisals on the results of last week's six-way talks aimed at convincing the North to abandon its nuclear program, he added. During his visit to the U.S. capital, Song is also scheduled to meet with U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, who is the chief negotiator for the U.S. in its negotiations with South Korea for a bilateral free trade agreement. lcd@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 13 YONHAP NEWS: Defense white paper says N. Korean nuclear test a 'serious' threat 2006/12/29 14:56 KST SEOUL, Dec. 29 (Yonhap) -- South Korea on Friday said North Korea's recent nuclear test posed a serious threat to the nation's security, but refused to call the communist state a full-fledged nuclear power. In its biennial Defense White Paper released Friday, the Ministry of Defense said the North's conventional weapons and its frontline troops continued to pose serious threats to the country. "North Korea's conventional military strength, nuclear test, WMD and deployment of its armaments along the front line are serious threats to our security," the report said. The overall urgency of the paper was noticeably increased from that of the 2004 edition as it followed North Korea's first-ever nuclear weapons test on Oct. 9. The ministry, however, failed to label North Korea as the country's main enemy, reflecting Seoul's continued efforts to warm up its relations with Pyongyang. "Considering the seriousness of threats from (North Korea's) nuclear test and weapons of mass destruction, the government described the North's military strength as a serious threat in this year's edition," a ministry official told reporters while asking not to be identified. The white paper said the North was estimated to have obtained some 30 kilograms of plutonium, enough to make up to five atomic bombs, in the last three years, but claimed the communist nation has yet to become a full-fledged nuclear state. "North Korea is estimated to have obtained an additional 30 kilograms of plutonium if it reprocessed spent fuel rods in 2003 and 2005 as it had claimed," the paper said. The North has been believed to possess up to 14 kilograms of plutonium it obtained in the early 1990s by extracting the nuclear substance from spent fuel rods used in nuclear reactors. The ministry official later said the North's nuclear detonation test in October posed new threats to the country, but said the threats were not as serious as those from a nuclear state. "(The government) sees the test as a partial success," the official said. "We believe (the device used in the test) is less powerful than a normal nuclear weapon and little more powerful than a conventional nuclear bomb," the official added. Despite years of economic hardship, the communist state also continued to increase its conventional arms this year, according to the white paper. The paper said the North acquired some 200 artillery cannons, which can directly strike Seoul when deployed at the inter-Korean border. A total of five North Korean fighter jets have crashed since 2004, a faint evidence of the North's troubles from its aging arms, but the paper said the communist state's air capability continued to pose grave concerns for the South. Some 40 percent of the North's 820 fighter jets were deployed just north of the inter-Korean border, according to the paper, placing the South Korean capital within only minutes' reach. Repeating the government's recent calls for the transfer of wartime operational control of South Korean troops from the United States, the white paper explains in detail the background and reasons for Seoul's demand. The divided Koreas have technically remained in a state of war for over half a century as the 1950-53 Korean War only ended with an armistice. A complete version of the Defense White Paper is to be posted on the Defense Ministry's Web site, www.mnd.go.kr, while an English version of the report is due in March. (END) ***************************************************************** 14 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: New assessment calls North Korea a ˇ®serious threat' Has enough plutonium to make as many as 7 nuclear weapons, South's military reports December 30, 2006 ¤Ń Ties have improved between the two Koreas, but the Defense Ministry's latest White Paper still calls North Korea a "serious threat" and says the country has enough plutonium to make six to seven nuclear weapons. The previous edition of the publication, in 2004, for the first time avoided describing the North as South Korea's "main enemy," but still said the North's "military poses a direct threat" to the South. The military report is published every two years. Citing changes in the North's conventional combat strength, the most recent paper points out that a North Korean mechanized infantry brigade added 200 self-propelled guns this year to increase its supporting firepower and also added 201 portable bridges to cross rivers, in what is believed to be a move to upgrade the units' offensive capabilities. The South's military assessed, provided that Pyongyang own statements are true, that the North could have up to 40 to 50 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, enough to produce six to seven nuclear weapons. Experts have said in the past that the North lacks the technology to make a nuclear warhead small enough to mount on its current array of delivery vehicles. The defense paper states that Pyongyang is continuing to improve its Rodong-2 type missile, which it estimates has a range of up to 6,700 kilometers (4,163 miles). It does not say whether the North would be able to launch a nuclear warhead on that missile. A defense ministry official said yesterday the current White Paper considered the North's recent nuclear test and the threat of weapons of mass destruction when making its assessment of the overall threat posed by the North. The official said it was Seoul's judgment that the nuclear device was less powerful than a normal nuclear weapon but more powerful than a conventional bomb. The military publication was published annually from 1988 to 2000. Its first publications appeared in 1967 and 1968. It was then discontinued for 20 years. by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 washingtonpost.com: North Korea's Pass - The dictatorship's bet that its neighbors will tolerate its nuclear weapons appears to be paying off. Sunday, December 31, 2006; Page B06 NEARLY 12 WEEKS have passed since the North Korean dictatorship conducted what it said was a nuclear bomb test -- and made explicit the grave threat it poses to global security. At the time the regime of Kim Jong Il appeared to be calculating that it would not suffer severe consequences for its provocation and that the world would eventually accept it as a nuclear power, as India and Pakistan have been accepted. Sadly, that logic is beginning to look justified. True, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on Oct. 14, five days after the test, that condemned the action and applied some sanctions. But China blocked the tougher sanctions proposals, and both Beijing and South Korea have resisted U.S. pressure to enforce the measures rigorously. Three weeks after the test the North agreed under apparent pressure from China to return to the "six-party" negotiations on its nuclear program. But when the talks finally took place earlier this month it turned out the only subject North Korea's representatives were authorized to discuss was unrelated U.S. banking sanctions. The talks ended without result, and no new session has been scheduled. North Korea's ability to sustain its defiant posture is remarkable because, in contrast to the cases of India or Pakistan, the outside world has the ability to cripple the regime if it chooses. China provides 90 percent of North Korea's oil and most of its food; it also enforces inhumane border controls that prevent brutally repressed and frequently starving North Koreans from fleeing their country. South Korea provides most of the foreign investment in the North. If the two countries were to decide that stopping North Korea from producing more nuclear weapons was more important than preserving its dictatorship, they could remove the lifelines they provide Kim Jong Il. So far, they haven't. The leverage of the United States is limited. Critics who insist that the Bush administration should conduct bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang not only ignore the extensive one-on-one talks that Ambassador Christopher R. Hill has held with North Korean officials, they also presume that it's possible to change North Korean behavior without the collaboration of its prime benefactors. Some argue that the administration should give up the financial sanctions that froze North Korean accounts in a Macao bank last year and that are now the focus of Pyongyang's demands. Yet it's hard to see why abandoning the scant nonmilitary leverage the United States does possess -- and easing the pressure on North Korea's dollar counterfeiting and drug trafficking -- would make the regime more likely to negotiate seriously about its weapons. In fact the best option the Bush administration now has is to work with such allies as Japan to raise the economic pressure on North Korea as much as is possible. Diplomacy is best focused not on Pyongyang, but on Beijing -- which needs to be convinced that the stability it says it seeks in Asia, and in its relations with the United States, depends on its willingness to bring real pressure to bear on North Korea. The aim need not be to bring down the regime, only to convince it that its existence will be imperiled rather than secured by nuclear weapons. Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 16 Korea Times: Nuclear Power Office to Move to Kyongju Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Biz/Finance Kyongju will host the head office of the nationˇŻs nuclear power-managing organization. However, some residents and union members differed from management over where the head office of the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) should be located inside the North Kyongsang Province city. The company Friday announced plans to build its main office in Changhang village in eastern Kyongju. Union members attacked the decision, saying that the office should be moved to the central part of the city instead of a rural area to spread around benefits and improve the quality of life. Earlier in the day, about 50 members of the labor union blocked company President Lee Joong-jaeˇŻs way to a press conference and detained him for quarter an hour. During the confusion, Lee fainted. He recovered soon after being hospitalized in Seoul, but the press conference was cancelled. Residents in the central parts of Kyongju also said they will do whatever it takes to change the decision. Citizens in eastern Kyongju demanded that the main office be built in the area, claiming that they backed the construction of the highly dangerous radiation waste disposal facility in their neighborhood on condition that the KHNP head office would be relocated to the city. However, citizens in the central part of the city said that construction of the office is expected to generate 3.6 trillion won in economic benefits, and should be built in the central region. 12-30-2006 00:20 ***************************************************************** 17 Korea Times: It's Fusion Time: Korea Gets Piece of Action Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Technology Long-Term Strategy Due Out This Year on How to Feed Energy-Starved Nation By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter Chinese work testing a large number of super-conductive magnets in Hefei, ChinaˇŻs Anhui Province, in this file photo tkaen on March 14, 2006. The magnets work as an experimental fusion reactor, and Chinese scientists successfully conducted fusion tests with the facility in September, 2006./ AP-Yonhap This year, nuclear ``powerˇŻˇŻ will be certain to become an issue on the Korean Peninsula as everyone expects. But this time around, it will involve South Korea rather than the North. The South Korean government plans to produce a long-term plan this year focused nuclear fusion energy with the aim of commercializing the alternative energy source in about 30 years. ``The Assembly passed a bill aimed at promoting research on nuclear fusion energy in late November,ˇŻˇŻ said Woo Myung-soon, an official at the Ministry of Science and Technology. ``Under the bill, the government is ready to kick in a big investment into the potential-laden nuclear fusion energy beginning this year,ˇŻˇŻ Woo said. Nuclear fusion harnesses the same process of plasma fusion that generates the sunˇŻs energy. In this regard, itˇŻs different from todayˇŻs nuclear reactors. Current reactors use fission that produces energy when atoms are split apart. In comparison, fusion releases energy as atoms are combined. ``To cope with energy challenges, Korea, which does not produce a drop of petroleum, needs to find a new way to create electricity different from the present use of fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion is a good option,ˇŻˇŻ Woo said. National Fusion Research Center (NFRC) Vice President Lee Gyung-su said the environmentally responsible nuclear fusion will be the only solution to tackle energy problems of the future. ``Fusion is cost-effective and 100 percent safe. Its raw fuels are lithium used for cell phones or laptop batteries, and water. Both are abundant for millions of years. The fusion process is also safe because it automatically stops in an emergency,ˇŻˇŻ Lee said. ``In addition, fusion is clean as there is no carbon dioxide. There is merely some short-lived nuclear waste that decays over a hundred years,ˇŻˇŻ Lee said. He projected the emission-free fusion reactors, which replicates a reaction taking place in the heart of stars, will be commercially used in the late 2040s. If successful, its impact would be great as the lithium in one laptop battery would produce electricity equivalent to one generated from 40 tons of coals. ITER Program In recognition of the potential of nuclear fusion, the world is now collaborating to establish a large-sized experimental facility, dubbed the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Late last year, several nations agreed to spend $12.8 billion to build ITER near the southern city of Marseille. France, which depends on nuclear fission reactors for 80 percent of its electricity demands, spearheads the efforts followed by other European countries, the United States, India, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Korea is poised to spend a total of 1.82 trillion won for the project through 2040 _ 877 billion won by 2015, 909 billion won by 2035 and 37 billion won by 2040. ``Should the world accelerate spending on the nuclear fusion, its commercial launch will be possible in about 15 years,ˇŻˇŻ said Lee at the state-backed NFRC. But it is not all a bed of roses. There are many thorns according to a Seoul professor, who declined to be named. ``When I started nuclear studies 30 years ago, scientists said it will take about three decades to commercially embark on nuclear fusion reactors,ˇŻˇŻ the professor said. ``They are still saying it will take another 30 years. Fusion reactors may not begin producing energy for 40-50 years and they may never do so,ˇŻˇŻ he said. Despite decades-long research, the anonymous professor said, experimental fusion reactors have never been able to release more energy than they use up. ``We need to heat hydrogen gas to more than 100 million degrees Celsius so that the atoms will combine together. It is a tall task to make a vessel to contain such hot materials,ˇŻˇŻ the professor said. ``I think scientists should be more frank. They could prove to be liars if they keep promising to commercialize nuclear fusion power in 30 years or faster,ˇŻˇŻ he said. Chang In-soon, former head of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, said the country has to chase nuclear fusion energy but there is no guarantee of success. ``Let me say this first that success is not certain regarding nuclear fusion reactors. In fact, there is no guarantee of success for all futuristic technologies,ˇŻˇŻ Chang said. ``Without a doubt, fusion reactors are hard to build. But they can be the solution to an energy shortage and they deserves our funding and time,ˇŻˇŻ he said. voc200@koreatimes.co.kr12-31-2006 18:00 ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: South Korea, US to hold talks on North's nuclear - Sun Dec 31, 3:20 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea " /> and the United States will hold talks in Washington this week, where the standoff over North Korea " /> 's nuclear ambitions will be discussed, according to the foreign ministry. Foreign Minister Song Min-Soon, who took office early this month, is scheduled to meet with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " /> on Friday, the ministry said in a statement. They will discuss "North Korea's nuclear problem, the South Korea-US alliance and other issues of mutual concern" at the talks, it said. Six-nation negotiations aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear programs resumed in Beijing from December 18-22 after a 13-month hiatus but failed to reach any agreement, even falling short of setting a date for the next round. North Korea refused to engage in substantive discussions at the talks, citing no progress in the lifting of US sanctions imposed on Pyongyang over allegations of money laundering and counterfeiting. The talks -- which group both Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia -- reconvened in December following Pyongyang's October 9 nuclear test. Song will leave for Washington on Monday to attend the state funeral services for former US president Gerald Ford, who died on December 26 at the age of 93. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 washingtonpost.com: That Blasted Year - Dave Barry shoots 2006 full of holes By Dave Barry Sunday, December 31, 2006; W18 IT WAS A MOMENTOUS YEAR, a year of events that will echo in the annals of history the way a dropped plate of calamari echoes in an Italian restaurant with a tile floor. Decades from now, our grandchildren will come to us and say, "Tell us, Grandpa or Grandma, as the case may be, what it was like to be alive in the year that Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Britney Spears and Katie whats-hername all had babies, although not necessarily in those combinations." And we will smile wisely and emit a streamer of drool, because we will be very old and unable to hear them. And that will be a good thing, because there are many things about 2006 that we will not want to remember. This was the year in which the members of the United States Congress, who do not bother to read the actual bills they pass, spent weeks poring over instant messages sent by a pervert. This was the year in which the vice president of the United States shot a lawyer, which turned out to be totally legal inTexas. This was the year in which -- as clearly foretold in the Bible as a sign of the Apocalypse -- Howie Mandel wound up with a hit TV show. Also, there were many pesky problems left over from 2005 that refused to go away in 2006, including Iraq, immigration, high gas prices, terrorism, global warming, avian flu, Iran, North Korea and Paris Hilton. Future generations are going to look back at this era and ask us how we could have allowed Paris Hilton to happen, and we are not going to have a good answer. [JANUARY] . . . a month that dawns with petty partisan bickering in Washington, D.C., a place where many people view petty partisan bickering as honest, productive work -- like making furniture. The immediate cause of the bickering is the Republican ethics scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, both of whom you can tell, just by looking at them, are guilty of something. The Democrats charge that the Republicans have created a Culture of Corruption and should be thrown out of office so the Democrats can return to power and run the scandal-free style of government for which they are so famous. The Republicans respond that the Democrats are soft on terrorism, soft on terrorism, soft on terrorism, soft on terrorism. Both sides issue news releases far into the night. The other big focus of the bickering is the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. As always, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings provide high-quality TV entertainment as the nation tunes in to see whether Sen. Edward M. Kennedy will be able to successfully remember the nominee's name. The bulk of the hearings are spent in the traditional manner, with Democrats trying to trick the nominee into revealing his views on abortion, and Republicans reminding the nominee that he does not have to reveal his views on abortion. The subsequent exchange of news releases is so intense that several government fax machines burst into flames. In the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden, who may or may not be dead, nevertheless releases another audiotape, for the first time making it downloadable from iTunes. Bin Laden also starts a blog, in which he calls upon his followers to destroy the corrupt infidels and also to try to find out how a person, hypothetically, can get Chinese food delivered to a cave. In the Middle East, Palestinian voters elect the militant Hamas party, which assumes control of government functions such as street repair, which Hamas decides to handle by firing rockets at potholes. Canada also holds elections, which are won by some Canadian, we assume. In economic news, the big story is the retirement of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who, after 19 years as the person most responsible for guiding the American economy, steps down, taking with him the thanks of a grateful nation and a suitcase containing $11 billion. But the financial news is not so good in . . . [FEBRUARY] . . . when President Bush, delivering what is billed as a "major address on energy policy," reveals that the nation has an "addiction" to "foreign oil," which comes from "foreign countries" located "outside of the United States" that are getting this oil from "under the ground." To combat this problem, the president proposes the development of "new technology" in the form of "inventions" such as "a Lincoln Navigator that gets 827 miles per gallon," although he allows that this could take "time." But this bold energy initiative does not get nearly as much attention as the administration's decision to allow a company owned by the United Arab Emirates to operate some U.S. seaports. This outrages Congress, which briefly ceases partisan bickering to demand that the White House return control of the ports, in the interest of national security, to Tony Soprano. Speaking of guys who avoid the limelight: Vice President Dick Cheney, attempting to bring down a quail with a shotgun, shoots attorney Harry Whittington. Local authorities rule the shooting was an accident, noting that if the vice president were going to intentionally shoot somebody, it would be Nancy Pelosi. The quail is eventually tracked down and vaporized by an F-16. Internationally, the big news comes from Denmark, center of a mounting furor over some cartoons, published the previous year in a Danish newspaper, that depict a prophet whom, in the interest of not offending anybody, we will refer to as Fohammed. This upsets several million of the prophet's followers, who request a formal apology from the newspaper, greater sensitivity to their religious beliefs and, where necessary, beheadings. Eventually everybody realizes that the whole darned thing was just a silly misunderstanding. That is all we are going to say about this. In sports, Super Bowl XVXXLMCMII takes place in Detroit, and by all accounts it's a big success for the Motor City, with huge crowds thronging to both of the restaurants. The Pittsburgh Steelers win a game featuring a controversial play in which an apparent Seattle Seahawk touchdown pass is called back after the Steeler defender -- in what is later ruled an accident -- is gunned down by Vice President Cheney. But the big sporting event is the Winter Olympics, a glorious quadrennial celebration of world-class virtuoso athletic accomplishment in sports nobody has ever heard of. Surprise winners include Latvia in the 500-kilometer Modified Nordic Combined; the Republic of Irvingkahnistan in the 2,300-meter Slavic Personified; and U.S. skier Bode Miller in Most Nike Commercials Featuring a Competitor Who, in the Actual Competitions, Mainly Falls Down. [MARCH] . . . the real-estate boom appears to be over, as the government reports that, so far in 2006, only one U.S. homeowner managed to sell his house, and he had to offer, as an incentive to the buyer, his wife. But the employment numbers remain strong, thanks to strong growth in the sector of people trying to get you to refinance your mortgage for, like, the sixth time. Meanwhile, as the average gasoline price creeps past $2.50, the Hummer company, having downsized from the massive Hummer to the somewhat smaller H2, and then to the even smaller H3, begins development of the H4, which the company says will be "a very rugged skateboard." In the Academy Awards, the overwhelming favorite for best picture is "Brokeback Mountain," the story of two men who discover, while spending many isolated weeks together in the mountains, that they enjoy exchanging instant messages with Mark Foley. But, in a stunning upset, the Oscar for best picture instead goes to "Crash," a documentary about Bode Miller. In other entertainment news, a book by two San Francisco Chronicle writers revives suspicions about possible steroid use by San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds, alleging, with extensive documentation, that as recently as 10 years ago, Bonds was a woman. In other science news, thrilled NASA astronomers, in what they describe as a "smashing, surprising" discovery, announce that they have found evidence of pockets of water beneath the surface of Enceladus, one of the moons of Saturn, which strongly suggests -- as has long been suspected -- that astronomers do not get out much. In foreign news, Israeli voters give a parliamentary majority to acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert because his name can be rearranged to spell "hot eel drum." Meanwhile in Paris, thousands of demonstrators take to the streets and shut down the city to demonstrate the fact that, hey, it's Paris. In the Middle East, tension mounts in response to mounting tension. We don't know specifically what is happening in Africa, but we know it is bad. [APRIL] . . . Tom DeLay decides not to seek reelection to Congress, making the announcement via audio-tape from a cave somewhere in Pakistan. Republican leaders express relief over DeLay's decision and issue a statement pledging that there will be "no more Republican scandals, unless somebody finds out about Mark Foley." Meanwhile in the Middle East, tension mounts still higher when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces that Iran has successfully produced enriched uranium, although he claims that his nation plans to use it only for peaceful purposes, "such as cooking." In Iraq, there is good news and bad news for the Bush administration: The good news is that rival Iraqi leaders have finally agreed on a new prime minister. The bad news is that it is Nancy Pelosi. Domestically, the national debate over illegal immigration heats up as thousands of demonstrators take to the streets of major U.S. cities, thus causing a total shutdown of Paris. Meanwhile the Mexican government, in what is widely viewed as a deliberate provocation, convenes in Milwaukee. But the big story is the price of gasoline, which continues its relentless climb toward an unprecedented $3 a gallon. Responding quickly, Congress, in a rare display of decisive bipartisan action, takes a recess, with both sides promising to resume bickering the instant they get back. [MAY] . . . the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has a budget of over $3 billion, predicts that the 2006 hurricane season will be worse than usual. This item will seem funnier later in the year. In related news, the voters of New Orleans reelect Ray Nagin as mayor, proving that Hurricane Katrina killed far more brain cells than was previously believed. On the terrorism front, the Bush administration comes under heavy criticism following press reports that the National Security Agency has been collecting telephone records of millions of Americans. Responding to the outcry, President Bush assures the nation that "the government is not collecting personal information on any individual citizen," adding, "Warren H. Glompett of Boston, call your wife back immediately, because your dog has eaten your entire Viagra supply." In another controversial move, the president announces that he will use National Guard troops to stop illegal immigration. The initial troops are assigned to guard the border between Mexico and Arizona, with California, New Mexico and Texas being covered by Dick Cheney. In Houston, former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are convicted of fraud by a federal jury, which apparently is not persuaded by the defense's claim that Skilling and Lay could not have been responsible for the collapse of the $100 billion corporation because they were, quote, "both getting haircuts." TRUE FACT: After the verdict, Lay says, "We believe God in fact is in control." ANOTHER TRUE FACT: Less than two months later, Lay will die of heart failure. In sports, Barbaro, the popular racehorse who won the Kentucky Derby, breaks his leg in the Preakness after a freak collision with Bode Miller. Barbaro is forced to retire, although his agent does not rule out future appearances on "Dancing With the Stars." Meanwhile the hottest show on TV is the much-hyped finale of "American Idol," which is won by crooner Taylor Hicks, who narrowly edges out Nancy Pelosi. [JUNE] . . . the big sports story is the start of the World Cup tournament, with U.S. fans hopeful that our players have finally caught up with the rest of the world in soccer. The American team arrives in Italy brimming with confidence, only to be informed that the tournament is being held in Germany. Undaunted, the team boards a train for Geneva, with the coach promising that "we will score many touchdowns." In politics, the debate over Iraq continues to heat up, with President Bush insisting that "we must stay the course, whatever it may or may not be," while the Democrats claim that they would bring the troops home "immediately," or "in about six months," or "maybe not for a long time," depending on which particular Democrat is speaking and what time of day it is. On a more positive note, U.S. troops kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is identified by intelligence experts as "a person with a really terrorist-sounding name." In another hopeful development in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shiites agree to try to come up with a simple way for Americans to remember which one is which. On the legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Bush administration cannot try suspected terrorists in ad hoc military tribunals, after the court learns that the administration is interpreting "ad hoc" to mean "under water." Dan Rather, who stopped anchoring the evening news in 2005, announces his retirement from CBS after a career spanning 44 years and several galaxies. Explaining his decision, Rather cites a desire to "explore other options" and "not keep getting maced by the CBS security guard." On a happier note, the United States marks the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway system -- an engineering marvel consisting of 47,000 miles of high-speed roads connecting 157,000 Waffle Houses. A formal ceremony is planned, but it has to be canceled when Dad refuses to stop. [JULY] . . . the Tour de France bicycle race is once again tainted by suspicions of doping when the winner, American Floyd Landis, is clocked ascending the Alps at over 200 mph. Landis denies that he uses illegal drugs, attributing his performance to, quote, "gears." In other sports highlights, Italy defeats France in a World Cup final match that is marred by a violent head-butting incident involving Bode Miller. The U.S. team fares poorly in the World Cup, failing to win a single match; the players blame this on their inability to adjust to the "no hands" rule. But the month's big story occurs in the Middle East, where violence flares along the Israel-Lebanon border in response to the fact that, because of terrible planning, the two countries are located right next to each other. In another troubling international development, rogue state North Korea test-fires seven ballistic missiles, including two believed to be potentially capable of reaching U.S. soil. World tension goes back down when the missiles, upon reaching an altitude of 200 feet, explode and spell "HAPPY BIRTHDAY." American military analysts caution that these missiles "could easily be modified to spell something more threatening." In other rocket news, the troubled U.S. space program suffers yet another setback when the launch of the shuttle Discovery is delayed for several days by Transportation Security Administration screeners, who insist that the astronauts remove their shoes before they go through the metal detector. Finally, however, Discovery blasts off and flies a flawless mission, highlighted by scientific experiments proving that when you let go of things in space, they float around, same as last year. [AUGUST] . . . when the International Astronomical Union rules that Pluto will no longer be classified as a major planet, on the grounds that it is "less than half the size of James Gandolfini." A top U.S. law firm immediately files a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Pluto, as well as "anybody else who has been hurt by this ruling or has ever experienced neck pain." In sports, a French medical laboratory burns to the ground after the catastrophic explosion of Floyd Landis's urine sample. Fidel Castro is rumored to be seriously ill after publication of photographs showing worms crawling out of his eye sockets. Cuban authorities insist that the aging leader is merely recovering from surgery and that, for the time being, government operations are in the capable hands of Nancy Pelosi. As the situation in Lebanon deteriorates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warns that, if violence continues, the United States will have no choice but to dispatch Vice President Cheney to the region to hunt doves. Within minutes, a cease-fire breaks out, with both sides agreeing to resume fire at a mutually convenient future date. Meanwhile, commercial air travel turns into a total nightmare. No, wait, it was already a total nightmare. But it turns into an even worse total nightmare after Britain uncovers a terrorist plot targeting international flights, which results in a whole new set of security rules, including a total ban on all gels and liquids, including spit, urine, heavy perspirers and lactating women. After days of chaos at the airports, the TSA issues a new directive stating that "passengers may carry small quantities of liquids on board, but only if they are inside clear, one-quart, sealable plastic bags." This leads to still more chaos, as many TSA employees interpret this to mean that the passengers must be inside the bags. Eventually the TSA issues a clarification stating that "if necessary, the bags can have air holes." Elsewhere in the War on Terror, the Bush administration suffers a setback when a federal judge in Michigan rules that U.S. authorities cannot call up suspected terrorists and try to get them to switch long-distance carriers. In crime news, a man in Thailand claims that he had something to do with the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It quickly becomes clear that the man is an unstable creep whose story is totally unbelievable, so the cable TV shows drop it. Ha-ha! Just kidding! The cable TV shows go into days of round-the-clock, All-JonBenet-All-the-Time Wallow Mode. Battalions of legal experts are called in, some of them so excited about the opportunity to revisit the JonBenet tragedy that additional janitors have to be brought to the studios to mop up puddles of expert weewee. On the weather front, the until-now quiet hurricane season erupts in fearsome fury in the form of Tropical Storm Ernesto, which hurricane experts, using scientific computer models, predict could become a major storm and inflict devastation upon Texas, or possibly Florida or Connecticut. A state of near-panic sets in as millions of coastal residents jam gas stations, hardware stores and supermarkets, while many schools and businesses close. Tension mounts for days, until finally Ernesto slams into Florida with all the fury of a diseased fruit fly. Life slowly returns to normal for everyone except the ever-vigilant hurricane experts, who immediately begin scanning their scientific computer simulations for the next potentially deadly threat. [SEPTEMBER] . . . Steve Irwin, of "Crocodile Hunter" fame, is fatally wounded while filming a new TV series-- in what biologists describe as a freak accident -- he collides with Bode Miller. Meanwhile, Americans -- already on edge because of concern over terrorism, avian flu, AIDS, nuclear escalation and global warming -- find themselves facing a deadly new menace: killer spinach. The lethal vegetable is removed from supermarket shelves by police SWAT teams; many units of innocent produce are harmed. Paris shuts down completely. Speaking of vegetables, the U.S. Congress is rocked by yet another scandal with the publication of e-mails and instant messages sent to male pages by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, in which he explicitly discusses acts of a sheepherding nature. As the scandal expands, House Republican leaders issue a statement claiming that they "are not aware of any so-called Congressman Mark Foley of Florida." Democrats cite Foley as another example of Republican corruption, declaring that they would never, ever, under any circumstances tolerate such behavior, unless it involved a consenting page. In other political developments, the New York Times prints a leaked top-secret government report expressing doubts about the war in Iraq. The Bush administration holds a secret meeting to prepare a response, but within hours the Times prints leaked details of the meeting, including who went to the bathroom and why. The administration then attempts to take out the Times building with a missile, but the Times, using leaked launch codes, redirects the missile to The Washington Post. As the debate over Iraq heats up, President Bush pledges to "keep on continuing to stay the present course while at the same time not doing anything different." Democratic leaders declare that they have a "bold new plan" for Iraq, which they will reveal just as soon as the New York Times leaks it to them. Abroad, Pope Benedict XVI gets in big trouble when he gives a speech suggesting that the Muslim religion has historically been linked to violence. Ha-ha! What a crazy idea! The pope soon sees that he has made a big mistake and apologizes several times. Rumors about Fidel Castro's health continue to swirl following publication of a photograph showing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shaking Castro's hand. The rest of Castro's body is nowhere to be seen. [OCTOBER] . . . North Korea conducts an underground nuclear test, which is especially troubling because the ground in question is located in Wyoming. This goes virtually unnoticed in Washington, where everybody continues to be obsessed with the growing body of instant messages generated by Mark Foley, who, despite his busy schedule as a lawmaker, apparently found time to attempt to become sheepherding buddies with pretty much every young male in North America. In other political developments, Sen. Barack Obama, looking back on a career in the U.S. Senate that spans nearly 20 months, allows as how he might be ready to move on to the presidency. Obamamania sweeps the nation as millions of voters find themselves deeply impressed by Obama's views and the fact that he was on "Oprah." In a gracious gesture from a potential 2008 rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sends Obama a good-luck card, which is stapled to the head of a horse. Opponents of illegal Mexican immigration had cheered when Congress authorized the construction of a 700-mile fence. Their cheers quickly fade when they learn that, because of wording inserted at the last minute by Sens. Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens, 650 miles of the fence will be constructed in West Virginia and Alaska. Vice President Dick Cheney again becomes the center of controversy when, while being interviewed on a radio show, he defends the interrogation technique known as "water-boarding" as a legitimate anti-terrorism tool, not torture. At first the host disagrees, but after several "commercial breaks," Cheney brings him around. A strong earthquake shocks Hawaii, causing Paris to shut down completely. In sports, a football game between the University of Miami and Florida International University is marred by violence, prompting both schools to seriously consider banning players from carrying handguns onto the field. In baseball, the New York Yankees, despite being clearly the best and most expensive team the world has ever seen, fail to even get into the World Series, leaving Yankee fans to spend yet another bitter off-season wondering why their team can't simply be awarded the championship and not have to play these stupid games against clearly inferior teams from dirtball cities that don't even have subways. [NOVEMBER] . . . when Kerry's "joke" causes widespread outrage, prompting Kerry, with typical humility, to insist that it was obviously humorous and that anybody who disagrees is an idiot. Kerry is finally subdued by Democratic strategists armed with duct tape, but not before many political analysts see a tightening of the race to control Congress. As the campaign lumbers to the finish line, the Republicans desperately hope that the voters will not notice that they -- once the party of small government -- have turned into the party of war-bungling, corruption-tolerating, pork-spewing power-lusting toads, while the Democrats desperately hope that the voters will not notice that they are still, basically, the Democrats. The actual voters, of course, are paying no attention, having given up on politics months ago because every time they turn on the TV all they see are political ads accusing pretty much every candidate on either side of being, at minimum, a child molester. Thus nobody really knows what will happen as the voters go to the polls. In Florida, nobody knows anything even after the voting is over, because -- prepare to be shocked -- many electronic balloting machines malfunction. Voters in one district report that their machines, instead of displaying the candidates for Congress, showed "Star Wars: Episode IV." (By an overwhelming margin, this district elects Jabba the Hutt.) Nationwide, however, it eventually becomes clear that the Democrats have gained control of both houses of Congress. President Bush handles the defeat with surprisingly good humor, possibly because his staff has not told him about it. For their part, future House and Senate majority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid issue a joint statement promising to "make every effort to find common ground with the president," adding, "We are clearly lying." Pelosi sets about the difficult task of trying to fill leadership posts with Democrats who have not been videotaped discussing bribes with federal undercover agents. The first major casualty of the GOP defeat is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who, the day after the election, is invited to go quail-hunting with the vice president. He is never seen again. As Rumsfeld's replacement, the president nominates -- in what is widely seen as a change in direction on Iraq -- Barbra Streisand. In other celebrity news, Michael Richards, a graduate of the Mel Gibson School of Standup, responds to a comedy-club heckler by unleashing a racist tirade so vile that even John Kerry realizes it is not funny. A chastened Richards apologizes for his behavior, citing, by way of explanation, the fact that he is a moron. Speaking of which, O.J. Simpson is once again in the headlines when Fox TV announces that Simpson will be interviewed on a two-night special in conjunction with his new book, If I Did It, in which he will explain how, "hypothetically," he would have murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. This idea is so sick, so disgusting, so utterly depraved that it would undoubtedly get huge ratings. But Fox, faced with withering criticism, is forced to cancel the project, which is the brainchild of publisher Judith Regan, about whom you could write a "hypothetical" book titled If Judith Regan Had the Moral Standards of a Tapeworm. On the economic front, the holiday shopping season officially kicks off with "Black Friday," and retailers are pleased with the numbers: 2,038 shoppers hospitalized, up 37 percent from last year. In other good news, with only a few days left in the virtually storm-free 2006 hurricane season and still no storms in sight, U.S. weather experts, citing new data, predict that the season will end up having been very mild. This forecast turns out to be right on the money, but the experts waste no time on self-congratulation, as they immediately begin making scientific predictions for next year's hurricane season, which, they warn, could be a bad one. [DECEMBER] . . . gets off to a troubling start , with the worsening situation in Iraq worsening faster than ever. The nation's hopes for a solution are pinned on the Iraq Study Group, a presidentially appointed blue-ribbon panel consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats and the Wizard of Oz. In accordance with longstanding Washington tradition, the panel first formally leaks its report to the New York Times, then delivers it to the president, who turns it over to White House personnel specially trained in reading things. In essence, the study group recommends a three-pronged approach, consisting of: 1) a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, but not on a fixed timetable; 2) intensified training of Iraqi troops; and 3) the physical relocation of Iraq, including buildings, to Greenland. Republican and Democratic leaders, after considering the report for the better part of a nanosecond, commence what is expected to be a minimum of two more years of bickering. With the Iraq situation pretty much solved, the world's attention shifts to Iran and its suspected nuclear program, which becomes the subject of renewed concern after U.S. satellites detect a glowing 400-foot-high spider striding around Tehran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists that it is "a peaceful spider" that will be used "only for mail delivery." Shortly thereafter, North Korea -- in what many observers see as a deliberate provocation -- detonates a nuclear device inside the Lincoln Memorial. Finally responding to these new threats to international stability, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdon, Russia, China and Google -- hold an emergency meeting in Paris, where, after heated debate, they vote to have a bottle of 1959 Chateau Margaux with their entree. Unfortunately, they cannot agree on a dessert wine, causing the city, which had just reopened, to shut down completely. In other food news, New York City, having apparently solved all of its other problems, bans "trans fats." Hours later, police surround a Burger King in Brooklyn and fire 50 bullets into a man suspected of carrying a concealed Whopper. The medical examiner's office, after a thorough investigation, concludes that the man "definitely could have developed artery problems down the road." Speaking of health problems, rumors that Fidel Castro is ailing gain new strength when, at an official state dinner in Havana, a waiter accidentally tips over the longtime Cuban leader's urn, spilling most of him on the floor. In other deceased-Communist news, British police rule that the mysterious death of a former Russian spy in London was a murder, caused by the radioactive element polonium-210. New York immediately bans the element, forcing the closure of 70 percent of the city's Taco Bells. As the year, finally, nears its conclusion, Americans turn their attention to the holiday season, which they celebrate -- as generations have before them -- by frantically overbidding on eBay for the Sony PlayStation 3, of which Sony, anticipating the near-homicidal level of demand, manufactured an estimated 11 units. Millions of Americans also head "home for the holidays," making this one of the busiest air travel seasons ever. The always vigilant TSA responds by raising the Security Threat Level to "ultraviolet," which means that passengers may not board an airplane if they contain blood. But despite the well-founded fear of terrorism, the seemingly unbreakable and escalating cycle of violence in the Middle East, the uncertain world economic future, the menace of global warming, the near-certainty that rogue states run by lunatics will soon have nuclear weapons, and the fact that America is confronting these dangers with a federal government sharply divided into two hostile parties unable to agree on anything except that the other side is scum, Americans face the new year with a remarkable lack of worry, and for a very good reason: They are busy drinking beer and watching football. So, Happy New Year. (Burp.) Dave Barry can be reached at 20071@washpost.com. © 2006 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 20 Xinhua: China issues white paper on national defense www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-29 09:55:33 BEIJING, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- China says it pursues a self-defensive nuclear strategy in a White Paper on National Defense issued here Friday. The White Paper, issued by the Information Office of the State Council, says China's nuclear strategy is subject to the state's nuclear policy and military strategy. "Its fundamental goal is to deter other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China," the White Paper says. Full story <<< White Paper: China's national defense policy purely defensive in nature BEIJING, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- China says it pursues a national defense policy that is purely defensive in nature, according to a White Paper on China's National Defense in 2006 issued here Friday. The White Paper, issued by the Information Office of the State Council, says China's national defense provides the guarantee for maintaining China's security and unity, and realizing the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way. Full story <<< White Paper: China's security still faces challenges BEIJING, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- China's security still faces challenges that must not be neglected, says a white paper on China's National Defense in 2006 issued by the Information Office of the State Council, here on Friday. The White Paper says the growing interconnections between domestic and international factors and interconnected traditional and non-traditional factors have made maintaining national security a more challenging task. The struggle to oppose and contain the separatist forces for "Taiwan independence" and their activities remains a hard one. Full story <<< White Paper: China honors commitment to int'l arms control, non-proliferation BEIJING, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- China has honored its commitment to international arms control and non-proliferation, says a white paper issued here Friday by the Information Office of the State Council. China has made sound preparations for implementing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), says the white paper titled "China's National Defense in 2006". Full story <<< White Paper: China pursues regional security cooperation BEIJING, Dec. 29 (Xinhua) -- As part of China's efforts to advance international security cooperation and strengthen military relations with other countries, the country pursues regional security cooperation. Since its founding five years ago, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has steadily deepened and expanded cooperation in security, economic and cultural areas in practical terms, says the white paper "China's National Defense in 2006" issued here Friday by the Information Office of the State Council. Full Editor: Mo Honge ***************************************************************** 21 Antiwar.com: Preserve, Protect and Defend - by Gordon Prather Quotable What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness god has given us in this world... – Robert E. Lee December 30, 2006 On hearing of the death of former President Gerald Ford, syndicated columnist Robert Novak – who infamously "outed" a CIA covert agent in what appears to have been a White House conspiracy, involving Vice President Dick Cheney, to discredit the CIA operative’s husband, who had joined the international chorus of those claiming that President Bush had knowingly invaded Iraq on false pretenses – told CNN he "didn’t think Ford was much of a President." The next day, Bob Woodward publishedin the Washington Post excerpts from interviews with Ford, conducted more than a year after that invasion, but "embargoed" at Ford’s request until his death. By then Ford – and almost everyone else – knew that the international chorus had been right; Bush had unconstitutionally invaded Iraq, and on false pretenses to boot. Way back in 1991, Saddam had abandoned his attempt to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, had destroyed his chemical weapons and the infrastructure necessary for producing fissile material or chemical agents or biological agents. Of course, the CIA and the UN’s Special Commission on Iraq had known that since 1995, as a result of the defection of Saddam’s son-in-law, who had been in charge of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Furthermore, on the eve of Bush’s war to "disarm" Saddam, on-the-ground UN inspectors had reported to the Security Council that Saddam had made no attempt since 1991 to reconstruct that infrastructure. However, by the time Woodward interviewed Ford, Bush was no longer claiming he had launched his war of aggression to keep Saddam from providing nukes to terrorists. No, he was claiming he had invaded Iraq to "free" the Iraqi people. Operation Iraqi Freedom he called it. "Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, but was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." Now, isn’t that weird? A man who’s "not much of a President" who believes his "obligation number one" is acting "in our national interest"? Of course, Ford had never aspired to the Presidency. And when President Nixon proposed Ford – then the House Minority Leader – to Congress to succeed Spiro Agnew (who resigned the Vice-Presidency in disgrace in 1973) Nixon did so largely because Ford was certain to be confirmed. Election by the House and confirmation by the Senate of Nixon’s reported first choice – John Connally, protégé of Lyndon Johnson, former Democratic Governor of Texas, former Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon, an international wheeler-dealer, a man many people suspect was Lee Harvey Oswald’s intended target and a man who very much aspired to be President – would not have been easy. But Nixon – who didn’t realize he was selecting his successor – probably later wished he had made the effort. (You might want to reflect a few moments on the real possibility of John Connally having become the 39th President.) Ford was essentially unprepared to execute the office of President. He didn’t have a staff of his own and what was left of Nixon’s staff would hardly do. So Ford turned to his former colleagues in the House. Congressman Donald Rumsfeld gave up his seat to become Ford’s Chief of Staff. But, according to Woodward, Ford said he frequently kept Rumsfeld in the dark. In particular, Ford decided "on my own" to fire Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger and to rein in (somewhat) Secretary of State Henry Kissinger by replacing him as National Security Advisor with his deputy, Brent Scowcroft. Rein in Kissinger? The guy with whom Woodward recently revealedDubya has been meeting, secretly, on Iraq? Yep. Ford replaced that Kissinger as National Security Advisor with Scowcroft? The guy who was later National Security Advisor to Bush the Elder? The guy who was a leading proponent of ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? The guy who was Chairman of Bush the Younger’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board? The guy who wrote "Don’t Attack Saddam," the August 15, 2002 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Yep, that’s the guy. Ford next forced Rumsfeld to replace Schlesinger as Secretary of Defense, leaving young Dick Cheney – who had been a staffer in Rumsfeld’s congressional office – to serve as Chief of Staff during the latter stages of Ford’s unsuccessful attempt to be elected President in his own right. Ford had initially turned to another former colleague in the House, "Bo" Callaway, Nixon’s Secretary of the Army, to run that campaign. But according to Woodward, Ford was under "enormous pressure" to dump Nelson Rockefeller – who Congress had reluctantly allowed to succeed Ford as Vice President – from the GOP ticket in 1976. Callaway and other southern Republicans were apparently the source of much of that pressure. So, according to Woodward, when Rockefeller offered to be dropped from the ticket, Ford took him up on the offer. According to Woodward, Ford regretted bowing to the pressure to dump Rockefeller. It was "an act of cowardice on my part." Woodward does not mention it, but at this point James Baker – a John Connally protégé – then serving as Under Secretary of Commerce, replaced Callaway as Ford’s Campaign Manager. James Baker? The guy who managed Bush the Elder’s unsuccessful campaign for the GOP nomination in 1980, only to become Reagan’s first Chief of Staff, and then Secretary of the Treasury? The guy who managed Bush the Elder’s successful Presidential campaign in 1988, and then became Secretary of State? The guy who negotiated arms reduction treaties – the Lisbon Accords – with the Soviet Union and marshaled international opposition to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? The guy who managed Bush the Younger’s legal activities with respect to the contested Presidential election in Florida in 2000? The guy who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group? Yep, that’s the guy. Well, it will be interesting to read in Woodward’s next book what else Ford had to say about Dubya, Rummy, Cheney and the incredible unconstitutional mess they have gotten us into, here at home, and abroad, especially in Iraq. Of course, Ford was already 90 years old when Woodward interviewed him. But it appears that Ford believed unto death that Presidents should take seriously their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." the Antiwar.com Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2006 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 22 Japan Times: Trouble with rearming Japan | Sunday, Dec. 31, 2006 READERS IN COUNCIL Trouble with rearming Japan By KENICHIRO MORI Tokyo In a recent letter, a reader stated that Japan should revise its Constitution and rearm itself, and he welcomed Shinzo Abe as Japan's new prime minister. Although I also support the new prime minister, I don't agree with the writer. The writer stated that Japan and other Asian nations, "together with the U.S., should work together politically and militarily to strengthen the defense of Asia from any rogue nations or any global terrorist groups, and help consolidate stability." Although the whole world worries about North Korea's nuclear tests and its possession of nuclear weapons, if Japan showed signs of rearmament, relationships between Japan and other Asian nations would deteriorate. It would create a bigger history-awareness problem than the issue of worshipping at Yasukuni Shrine, which has calmed down of late. Japan's taking a leadership role in Asia would become impossible, and Japan would be completely overtaken politically by a rising China, deserted by the United States, and considered no better than North Korea -- isolated from the world. What Japan should do first is strengthen its relationship with other Asian nations and with the U.S., and see that North Korea is denuclearized. This will increase everyone's safety in Asia and result in advancing Japan's nation-building. The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved [Previous] Letter 2 of 6 in READERS IN COUNCIL, December 31 [Next] The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Rafsanjani: U.N. Sanctions Will Backfire From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday December 31, 2006 12:01 PM By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani warned Western countries Sunday that their strategy of pressuring Iran to roll back its nuclear program by imposing sanctions will backfire. Rafsanjani, who heads the influential Expediency Council, also said that Iran was willing to work with international organizations to resolve the standoff over its nuclear program. ``The problems will not be limited to Iran. Many (countries) will suffer from the smoke from this fire,'' Rafsanjani told a crowd of thousands at Tehran University who gathered on the first day of the Eid al-Adha for Iranian Shiite Muslims. The United States and some of its Western allies contend that Iran is using its nuclear program as cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the accusation. The U.N. Security Council on Dec. 23 voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment - a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs. In a sermon broadcast live by Iranian state TV, Rafsanjani said that Iran will not halt its uranium enrichment under the pressure of sanctions. But Rafsanjani appeared to declare his willingness to work with the U.N. nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resolve Iran's differences over its nuclear program with the international community. ``We are ready to resolve the accusations with logic, negotiations and inspections. We are ready to cooperate with international bodies under their regulations,'' he said, in a more moderate stance than that taken by Iranian lawmakers who recently voted to re-examine Iran's ties with the IAEA. Rafsanjani did not give conditions for negotiating, but Western countries have required Iran to suspend enriching uranium as a requirement for holding talks - a condition Iran has rejected. He described the U.N. resolution to impose sanctions on Iran as dangerous, saying that although it was amended ``it still has 15 dangerous and ominous points.'' He did not elaborate. The U.N. resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees ``that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 Haim: Nuclear Power: Failed Technology or Candidate for a Comeback? Callawy considering a new reactor Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:35:40 -0600 (CST) PLEASE FEEL FREE, & ENCOURAGED TO FORWARD THIS ARTICLE ON TO OTHERS WHO MAY BE INTERESTED. THANKS! Hello friends, It was just a little more than one year ago, on December 1, 2005, that Ameren CEO Gary Rainwater announced that his company was actively considering building a new nuclear power plant in mid-Missouris Callaway County. I spent much of my late 20s and early 30s locking horns with Amerens predecessor, Union Electric, over their efforts to build two large nuclear reactors on their Reform, Missouri site. Today, Callaway I has been operating for 22 years and construction on the original Callaway II was abandon nearly 30 years ago. It took countless marches, demonstrations, petition drives, public hearings, legal interventions and three separate statewide ballot issue campaigns to decide the fate of the original two Callaway units. Over the decade I involved myself in this issue (mid-1970s-mid-1980s)opposing the nukes, and working to promote saner alternativesI made many good friends, learned much about energy and related issues, and honed my activist skills. Although I have many fond memories of the struggle to prevent my generation leaving a legacy of long-lived, lethal radioactive waste for all future generations to contend with, I had no desire to travel that path again. My hope that the logic of sustainable choices would win out may have been premature, however, and I once again find myself immersed in studying nuclear safety, health effects, economics, fuel cycles and that like. Sometimes, I feel like Im back home with old friends. There is something eerily familiar and profoundly frustrating about this issue coming back to haunt us after 30 years. Thus, while I eagerly embrace the organizing that our new Missourians for Safe Energy group is doing, my mind is often drawn to that quote from Marx regarding history repeating itself the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. After the tragedy of $3.1 billion being spent on Callaway I, enough to invest in efficiency improvements that would have completely obviated the need for Callaways electricity and that of at least a couple of large coal plants, we are now faced with the farcical prospect of AmerenUE attempting to build yet another dangerous, dirty and expensive nuke right here in this beautiful state of ours. To avoid this great leap backward it is imperative that as many of us as possible focus at least a portion of our political attention and energies on the nuclear question over the next couple of years. The Bush administration has been greasing the skids and virtually bribing utilities to order new nukes. If we can stop the so-called nuclear renaissance now, before it becomes a full fledged nuclear relapse, we might be able to move forward on the transition to a safe, sustainable and democratic energy future based upon energy efficiency and a diverse mix of eco-friendly renewables. The choice is ours. Below is an article I recently submitted for publication in Counterpoise (www.counterpoise.info) laying out some of the reasons it is imperative that we address this issue now. It has also been posted on the Missourians for Safe Energy at http://mosafeenergy.org/Content/content/view/64/37/ I would welcome your feedback on the content herein. I would also very much welcome your activism and participation in this effort. I should note for those of you here in mid-Missouri reading this that the next MSE meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 17, 7:30 p.m. at the Peace Nook. You are invited to attend. All the best for 2007, Mark Haim Nuclear Power: Failed Technology or Candidate for a Comeback? By Mark Haim I grew up in the 1950s and 60s. Back then, in the era of Atoms for Peace, nuclear power was sold to the American people as our future. We were moving forward into an age of limitless, clean energy that would be so abundant, it would be too cheap to meter. By the time I became a young adult in the early 1970s Richard Nixon was telling us that the United States would have 1,000 large nuclear plants installed by the year 2000. By then, Id learned not to trust what people like Nixon were telling me, however. By the mid-1970s the once bright hope sold to a generation of baby boomers and our parents came crashing down as the realities of nuclear safety, routine radiation releases, worker contamination, potential melt downs, mill tailings and the unresolvedperhaps irresolvablenuclear waste quandary began to sink in to public awareness. Soon, instead of cheering crowds at ribbon cuttings, there were mass demonstrations, legal interventions, public debates, civil disobedience actions and a diverse network of grassroots safe energy organizations springing up all across the nation. All this happened well before the March 1979 Three Mile Island accident which, in the words of former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Peter Bradford, turned a $2 billion asset into a $1 billion cleanup job in about 90 minutes. The utility industry, which already had its doubtsas nuclear plants were proving to be far more costly than anticipatedbasically pulled the plug on the nuclear option. The last nuclear plant to be completed in the United States was ordered in 1973. Dozens of plantsmany partially builtwere canceled. Not wanting to throw good money after bad, the utilities wrote off billions already invested. Writing in Forbes Magazine in 1985, James Cook labeled The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. Fast Forward Two Decades Many observers believed the moribund industry stood no chance of rising from the grave. In 2001 The Economist, Britains leading financial journal, declared Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter. Corporations, like General Electric and Westinghouse, were heavily invested in this technology, however. They continued to lobby for a revival of nuclear powers fortunes. They found willing allies in the Bush-Cheney administration, whove been more than happy to heap billions in new subsidies on the industry, while relaxing regulatory oversight and eliminating opportunities for citizen input. This Federal commitment to a nuclear revival, combined with rising energy prices, and growing concern over global climate change has led some U.S. utilities to give nukes a second look. The idea that nuclear power is climate friendly has also been a factor in making some environmentalists reluctant supporters of nukes, regarding them as a lesser evil compared with coal, which the industry presents as the only other realistic option. While critics can debunk the carbon neutral myth with solid numbers, the nuclear industry is able to spend hundreds of millions on sophisticated public relations campaigns that tend to drown out the facts. Today we stand at a precipice. While no utility has yet taken the plunge and placed an order for a new nuke, there are at least a dozen sites around the nation, most of them in southeastern states, where utilities have stated an intention to build a new nuclear plant. Many others, including AmerenUE here in Missouri, have indicated that they are considering nukes. Unfortunately, from the perspective of those concerned about a potential nuclear revival (or, perhaps more accurately, a nuclear relapse), much of this is coming in under the radar. Here in Missouri, for example, relatively few people are aware that Ameren is considering building a new nuke. And, far fewer still have in any way made their concerns about nuclear power heard. Ironically, this is actually the timebefore any contracts are signed, before money and corporate prestige are invested, before jobs are on the linewhen citizen input has the most chance of making a difference. But, because all is so tentative, opposition has been slow to mobilize. Issues to Consider As a new generation grapples with nuclear power, they must focus on key questions including: what exactly is nuclear power, why is it dangerous, why there is so much concern over nuclear waste and what are the connections between the peaceful atom and nuclear weapons? Its also important to explore what nuclear power will cost and how this compares to available alternatives. The question of global warming also must be addressed. Energy issues in general, and nuclear power in particular, are more technical subjects than those familiar to many progressive activists; issues like the Iraq War, homophobia or homelessness. This is no reason to shy away from engagement. In fact, decisions we make now regarding energy and nuclear issues are some of the most critical one can imagine. They will impact every aspect of our lives, and will resonate for many centuries to come. These decisions are far too important to leave to vested interests like oil companies, nuclear vendors and utilities. Citizen participation is essential. A Fancy Way to Boil Water Nuclear fission power is a different way to make steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Rather than burning a fossil fuel, releasing energy stored in its chemical bonds, when fissioning uranium or plutoniumsplitting atoms into several smaller atoms or subatomic particlessome of the matter in the nuclei is converted to energy, giving off heat and boiling water. This is the Einsteinian concept E=MC2 put into action. The big advantage of getting energy in this manner is that lots of energy is released by converting very small amounts of matter. The big problem is that, to get this energy, we have to mine, process, transport, handle and contain radioactive materials. Radiation causes cancer, leukemia and genetic damage, and there is no safe dose below which there is no risk of harm. Moreover, the process of mining uranium takes naturally occurring radioactive materials out of stable, contained locations in the Earth, concentrates them, and then, in the fission process, multiplies their radioactivity literally one million fold. Nuclear reactors, like any machine designed by humans, are subject to breakdowns and accidents. Unlike a conventionally fired boiler, however, the consequences of a nuclear plant accident could be truly catastrophic. Thats because each large reactor contains within its core the radiological equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. Put another way, radiation is measured in curies. A large teaching hospital and medical research facility with 1,000 laboratories handling radioactive materials might house in total 2 curies. A typical reactor by comparison contains within its core at any moment 16 billion curies (not to mention the additional radiation in the waste holding pools and dry casks; often decades of high level waste is stored on site). Thus, nuclear technology is uniquely unforgiving of mistakes. Should a worst case accident happen, the radiation release could kill tens of thousands of people and leave vast areas uninhabitable. Moreover, there is not only danger should some hypothetical accident occur. Nuclear plants routinely release some radiation into the air and water every day. These permissible releases not only occur at the plants, but at every step in the nuclear fuel production chain. There are very serious environmental impacts from uranium mining and milling, and often the mill tailingsthe bulk of the mined ore that is left behindare left uncovered, venting radioactive gases directly into the atmosphere. Isolation for a Quarter Million Years? Unlike chemical wastes, which can generally be neutralized, the dozens of different radioisotopes produced through fissioning uranium each have their own half-lifethe time it takes for half of what is present to decay into something elseand this fixed rate is something we cannot practically alter. Some half-lives are very short, mere seconds or minutes, others are on the order of multiple decades, while still others far longer. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. Since isolation for the hazardous life of a substance means for at least ten half-lives, we are talking about coming up with a means of isolating this deadly substance for approximately a quarter of a million years. Nuclear waste thus presents us with a great ethical dilemma. It must be isolated from the environment virtually perfectly for far longer than our species has so far lived on the Earth, or for about one hundred times as long as the time thats elapsed since ancient Greek civilization peaked. This is far longer than we can expect continuity in human institutions. Its also far longer than we can realistically predict what will happen geologically, assuming we opt for burial of the waste. A location that appears stable now, might not be 5,000 or 50,000 years from now. And certainly, no above ground building can be expected to stand or to be secure for that long. We are more than 60 years into the Nuclear Age and not one of the 31countries using nuclear power has yet to implement a permanent waste solution. Humanity is producing this vast inventory of lethal materials without knowing how we will isolate them, where we will do so, or how much it will cost. We are leaving it to future generations to solve the waste problem. This means safely transporting all the spent fuel and decommissioning the plants. That means doing the work of dismantling the reactorswhich themselves must be treated as waste, cut up into pieces, transported and put into repositories. Its not just the power plants and the spent fuel that must be addressed, but all the facilities at all the steps in the nuclear fuel production chain, and all of the waste streams each of them has generated. It also includes paying the tab for all of this, although some funds in theory have been allocated. Future generations will be required to accept the risks of handling these materials and the costs of doing so, even though they received none of the energy from these plants. Presumably our immediate descendents, over say the next century or two, will need to address decommissioning and clean-up, should they have the resources, social organization and will to do so. The temporal injustice is likely to be compounded for many generations to come, should these nuclear materials leak out of whatever storage they are placed in, contaminating water or air. It is also possible that future generations will turn to our eras waste for their weapons. It is also worthy of mention that one microgram (a millionth of a gram) of plutonium inhaled virtually guarantees lung cancer, and about 12 pounds is all thats needed to make a bomb equivalent to the one that leveled Nagasaki. A typical 1,000-megawatt reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium a year, and, in total, about 30 metric tons of high level waste. The Siamese Twins Nuclear weapons represent the preeminent existential threat to our existence. There is no secret to the bomb. It is only limited access to special nuclear materialshighly enriched uranium or plutoniumthat keeps any nation or sub-national group from acquiring these doomsday weapons. Most states that have gone nuclear over the past several decades have pursued their nuclear ambitions under the legitimating cover of civilian nuclear power programs. The more fingers on the trigger, the more likely nuclear war becomes. Today Iran tells the world community that they are only interested in nuclear technology and know-how for energy purposes and who can say for certain this is not the case? If, however, they, or any other nation, install a full-blown nuclear fuel capability, including enrichment and/or reprocessing they can at any point opt to weaponize. As long as our government says to the world that nuclear is the answer to our energy needs, and keeps selling this technology to developing nations, Uncle Sam will fill the role of a nuclear Johnny Appleseed. Only by abandoning nuclear power and encouraging all nations to do the same can we make the pursuit of nuclear weapons capability unambiguous and relatively easy to sanction. The imperative of our age is survival and the nuclear Siamese twins present a most serious threat. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inexorably linked and, to reduce the nuclear threat, rather than see it rise dramatically in the decades ahead, we must eschew both kinds of nukes. In accordance with Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we should also negotiate the mutual, verifiable elimination of the nuclear arsenals of all n-weapons states, including those in the U.S. arsenal. The hypocrisy of telling others that they cannot have a single WMD, when our government holds many thousands only breeds resentment and gives others the incentive to attain nuclear status, if for no other reason than to deter the nuclear bully. Pre-Positioned WMD for Terrorists If, on Sept. 11, 2001, a plane had been flown into the Indian Point nuclear power plant 35 miles north of Manhattan, instead of the WTC, the carnage could have been in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Nuclear plants, because of their massive inventories of highly radioactive materials pose a unique set of risks as compared to any other energy technology. According to a July 2002 report titled Making The Nation Safer: The Role Of Science And Technology In Countering Terrorism, the potential for 9/11 type attacks on nuclear power plants is high. The report, released by the National Research Council, describes the threat risk as high with potential consequences ranging from reactor shutdowns to core meltdowns with very large releases of radioactivity. Nuclear security concerns extend beyond attacks on reactors themselves. We also face possible attacks on nuclear waste storage facilities, including on-site holding pools, and nuclear waste transportation. There is also the possibility of sabotage by plant workers or diversion of radioactive materials from a nuclear plant for use in a terror attack at another location. In an era of violent conflicts, terror attacks and wars, it seems foolhardy to build a whole new set of targets that leave all of us vulnerable to security breaches or attacks. The Costlier, Subsidized Option Nuclear power only exists thanks to massive taxpayer subsidies. Everywhere it has failed the test of the marketplace and new nuclear plants are only being built in countries where governments are underwriting the venture. No U.S. utility has ordered and built a new nuke in more than 30 years. At the behest of nuclear vendors, who are heavy contributors to GOP coffers, the Cheney Energy Task Force recommended a whole raft of new subsidies, and, in 2005, Congress complied, providing the industry with $12-13 billion in new funding. It should be noted that over the 50-year period of 1948-1998 nuclear power received $74 billion in federal research and development subsidies (in constant 2003 dollars). This was 56% of all federal energy R&D subsidies. While subsidies are sometimes helpful in jumpstarting a fledgling industry, commercial nuclear power has been with us for 50 years now. If the industry is not yet mature and competitive, is there any reason to believe that it ever will be? The truth of the matter is that no one knows what a new nuclear plant will actually cost. We do know that the industry has consistently low-balled its cost estimates in order to sell their multi-billion dollar white elephants. We also know that there are safe sustainable alternatives, such as wind power, that are commercially competitive right now. We cannot afford to sink trillions into nuclear dinosaurs, when we need this money to fund the transition to a sustainable energy future. Nukes, No Cure for a Warming Planet Although the utility industry has generally fought tooth and nail against restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, they and the larger nuclear industry are now finding global climate change concerns a convenient way to sell us a new generation of nukes. While it is true that nuclear plant operations do not directly emit CO2, the primary greenhouse gas, their overall argument is deeply flawed. To begin with, it is not power plant operation, but rather the full cycle of energy production that must be looked at. In the case of nuclear power, this includes mining and refining uranium ore, processing and enriching the uranium, fabricating and transporting the fuel, transporting and dealing with the waste, and, of course, building and ultimately dismantling the power plants. Each of these steps involves the use of fossil fuels. Fuel enrichment is especially energy intensive. Moreover, if we were to proceed, as the industry advocates, and build 1,500-3,000 new nukes, to fuel all these plants, would require turning to ever lower grade ores. This is not only more expensive, but is also much more energy intensive, requiring large inputs of fossil fuel to mine and crush the rock to extract the uranium, not to mention to restore the mining sites and deal with the radiation-releasing mill tailings. While nuclear advocates love the straw man argument that nukes are more climate friendly than coal, our real choice is not whether to invest in nukes or coal, but rather includes, along with these options, efficiency improvements and renewables, both of which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a significantly lower cost than nukes can. According to Nuclear Information and Resource Service, energy efficiency improvements are seven times more effective at reducing greenhouse gases, per dollar spent, than nuclear power. Yearly costs per 1000 kg avoided CO2 emissions are $68.9 for wind and $132.5 for nuclear power. The Safe, Sustainable Alternatives The real alternative to both nuclear power and to polluting fossil fuels is an energy future based upon the twin pillars of efficiency and renewables. The potential for cutting energy consumption is vast. Virtually everything we do can be done using far less energy. Simple technical fixes, like including more insulation and better windows in our buildings, can reduce heating a cooling needs dramatically, saving money and environmental impact. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, just by investing in efficient lighting, we could eliminate fully 10 percent of electric consumption, enabling us to shut down 120 large nuclear or coal plants, saving massive environmental impacts and $30 billion a year in fuel and operating costs. All our energy needs can be met by a diverse mix of renewable sources. Our planet is constantly bathed in incoming solar energy. We need only capture a small fraction to power or economy, as the Earth receives in one half-hour the equivalent of all human uses for a full year. While we would be wise to use a mix of renewable sources, a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study determined that, in the U.S., wind power alone, sited in environmentally acceptable locations, could supply more than three times current electric consumption. A June 2005 study by Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that globally, if we harvested just 20 percent of the available wind power, we could produce energy equal to all the worlds current usage in all forms, or more than seven times current electrical consumption. Time for Action The next two years are critical. Sufficient citizen opposition could scuttle the nuclear revival. Or the industry could gain traction, leverage billions in subsidies and begin building a whole new generation of plants. We have a window of opportunity. This is the time to get organized and mobilize a groundswell of support for safe, sustainable energy. The choice is ours. A slightly different version of this article was written in November 2006 for Counterpoise Magazine by Peaceworks Director and Missourians for Safe Energy co-founder Mark Haim. You can also find this article on-line at http://mosafeenergy.org/Content/content/view/64/37/ Mid-Missouri Peaceworks 804-C E. Broadway Columbia, MO 65201 573-875-0539 E-mail: mail@midmopeaceworks.org Web site: www.midmopeaceworks.org Check out our News Blog http://www.midmopeaceworks.org/articles.php "Acquiescence in Bush's monstrous war in Iraq has amply demonstrated the political elite's limited capacity for introspection, independent thought and civic courage." Stephen F. Cohen, The Nation, July 10, 2006 ***************************************************************** 25 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuke power economics do not add up - Labor - www.smh.com.au December 30, 2006 - 2:04PM Nuclear power will do nothing to protect the Australian economy and environment from climate change, says Labor's treasury spokesman Wayne Swan. Prime Minister John Howard yesterday released the final report of the government's Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Task Force, saying nuclear energy could help stem the rise in electricity prices as the nation attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Mr Swan says the economics of nuclear energy do not add up. "The Howard government's fixation on nuclear energy is a massive distraction from the main game of protecting our economy and environment from the dangerous effects of climate change," he said in a statement today. "Even if Australia were to adopt and implement the report's recommendations, it would come too late to be of any practical use in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10 to 15 years," he said. Mr Swan said the Switkowski report confirms 25 nuclear power stations would only be feasible in Australia with massive government subsidies and would be at least 50 per cent more expensive than existing alternatives. Renewable energies would be more commercially viable, he said, and would also reduce emissions and meet Australia's energy needs. "John Howard must face up to the fact that nuclear power costs too much, takes too long and produces dangerous radioactive waste for future generations to manage. "It is not a solution, it's the creation of a further problem," he said. AAP | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 26 San Luis Obispo Tribune: The follow up file: Still using that nuclear energy expertise 12/31/2006 | Name: David Oatley Job: Private consultant to the U.S. nuclear energy industry What he said then: When The Tribune spoke to David Oatley in March, the vice president of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was retiring from PG after eight years as Diablo’s general manager. Oatley said the long hours and intense pressure of running a nuclear power plant contributed to his retirement, at age 52, but that he was considering several options to continue to use his nuclear energy expertise, including consultant work or building a new nuclear plant elsewhere in the country. What he says now: Oatley is consulting part time for nuclear power companies in Pennsylvania and Illinois. "I give an evaluation of the plants’ operational performances ... of where the company can improve and where they’re doing well," he said. Of the 63 nuclear power plants in the country, about 80 percent, including Diablo Canyon, were built in the mid-1960s and 1970s. "It’s amazing to see how similar they are with each other," Oatley said. While the plants are now 30 to 40 years old, their safety risks have not increased, he added. "It isn’t the age of the plant; it’s how you maintain that counts," he said. "All nuclear plants in the United States have robust inspection programs to maintain and replace aging components. It’s also more cost-effective to replace the parts, rather than build an entirely new plant. "Diablo is now a much more reliable plant than it was at its beginning," he said. "Our understanding of the plant has improved. We’ve learned how to prevent and predict failures. And we have better technology to see where and when things are starting to degrade." Oatley said expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly acceptable to the public in the face of global warming, since it is a renewable, non-carbon dioxide producing source of energy. "There has been a huge shift in public attitude from 10 years ago, when the future of nuclear power looked bleak," he said. "Now people, at least outside of California, are changing their minds." Oatley predicted that up to six companies nationwide may apply next year to build new nuclear plants in the United States. Most are east of the Mississippi or in the state of Texas, he said. Oatley estimated some of those plants could be operational as early as 2013. — Melanie Cleveland ***************************************************************** 27 Earth Times: NRC fines Southern Nuclear for fuel rods Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:00:00 GMT ROCKVILLE, Md., Dec. 29 U.S. nuclear regulators have issued a Georgia nuclear plant with a $104,000 fine for losing highly radioactive parts of fuel rods.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Friday the fine against Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc., owner and operator of the Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley, Ga. In a statement explaining the fine, the NRC said an inspection that wrapped up in August discovered 18 inches of fragments from spent fuel rods in the cooling pool could not be accounted for.The high radiation level of the material would have made theft or diversion difficult, dangerous and highly unlikely, the NRC statement said. Southern Nuclear failed to keep records and implement adequate procedures for tracking the spent fuel segments from November 1981 until the company's records review in 2004 and physical inventory in 2005, and those discrepancies resulted in the violation, the statement said. NRC Region II Administrator William Travers sent a letter to Southern claiming the company could have discovered the problem earlier.Southern has 30 days to contest the penalty or pay it. Copyright 2006 by UPI (c) 2006 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 AU ABC: NSW rejects PM's call to overturn nuclear ban ABC Sydney | Local News | Story Saturday, 30 December 2006. 13:08 (AEDT)Saturday, 30 December Mr Watkins says NSW will play no part in a nuclear industry.ABC The New South Wales Deputy Premier says the State Government will not be overturning its ban on nuclear energy, despite a call by the Prime Minister to do so. John Howard released the final report from his task force into nuclear energy yesterday, saying Australians need to accept that it will be a part of the country's future energy needs. He has called on the states to overturn their ban on uranium mining and exploration. But Deputy Premier John Watkins says New South Wales will not be part of any nuclear industry. "It's too dangerous and it's too expensive," he said. "Which community in New South Wales, which coastal community is going to have a nuclear power plant lobbed into their community? "If John Howard thinks he can get away with this go and ask the community that are going to be expected to have a nuclear power plant in their backyard and they'll say no resoundingly." ***************************************************************** 29 Herald News: Tritium troubles schools Member of the Sun-Times News Group December 30, 2006 By Dean Tambling SPECIAL TO THE HERALD NEWS BRAIDWOOD -- The millions of gallons of tritium-laced water spilled in and around the Braidwood Nuclear Power plant this past decade now are getting part of the blame for a pending budget crisis at Reed-Custer School District. John Asplund, district superintendent, said at a recent school board meeting that he has many questions and no answers when it comes to the recent assessment of the power plant. The school district has appealed the $350 million value set for the power plant by the county's supervisor of assessments. Appraisers hired by the school district said the plant is worth $585 million. The school stands to lose about $7 million in revenue if the county stands by its findings. All three sides went before the county's board of review Monday. "Exelon's appraisal came in closer to the county's," Assistant State's Attorney Phil Mock said. Mock is questioning whether the county agrees with the methods used by the school's appraisers. A ruling could be made as early as next week. Asplund said the nuclear power plant in Byron was assessed at $360 million last year, but was increased to more than $500 million this year. The district has studied possible cost cuts. One option, which was not recommended, is closing Custer Park School. The board discussed creating savings by moving some classrooms. The district's intermediate school houses third- through fifth-graders and early childhood and at-risk preschoolers. The primary school houses kindergarten through second-grade students. Asplund said he will recommend moving the second-grade students to the intermediate school and moving the early childhood and at-risk preschool students to the primary school. This would put all of the students who attend for a half day in the same building and create space at both of the schools, which could be leased out to generate income. heraldnewsonline.com: © Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group | and ***************************************************************** 30 edmonton sun: Commentary - EDITORIAL: Glowing future? www.edmontonsun.com mailbag@edmsun.com Sat, December 30, 2006 Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn raised some eyebrows last week when he not only gave a big thumbs-up to the idea of using nuclear power in the oilsands, but suggested that the building of a nuclear reactor to help power the huge resource extraction was all but inevitable. "It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, in my mind," said Lunn, who added that he had unspecified "discussions" last week on the idea, presumably with oilsands companies. Lunn noted that nuclear energy is "absolutely emission free" and "CO2 free" and that it can help replace natural gas and other fossil fuels currently being burned to extract other fossil fuels from the tarsands. And a public opinion survey commissioned last year found that while only 40% of Albertans were in favour of the notion of building a nuclear power plant, another 30% were neutral to the idea, lending to a spin that 70% of Albertans are not opposed to nuclear power. Not to mention the Canadian Energy Research Institute produced a report in 2003 that found a small nuclear reactor could produce steam for tarsands extraction on an economically competitive basis as a natural-gas fired steam extraction process. But while nuclear energy has made great strides since "Three Mile Island" and "Chernobyl" entered our vocabularies as everyday words synonymous with "meltdown" and "disaster," we wonder how many of those 70% of Albertans would actually respond if a reactor was built, say, on the outskirts of Fort McMurray in order to help power the oilsands. Not to mention, it's easy to answer poll questions in a vacuum when the notion of a nuclear reactor is just that - a hypothetical question posed by an employee of a polling company. It would be a bit different if you were living in Fort McMurray and had a reactor in your backyard. We're not here to fearmonger on nuclear power. It has definite advantages over conventional fossil fuels. But it also has real problems, most notably what to do with the highly radioactive, spent fuel rods. And the fear factor regarding nuclear energy can overpower even the most logical arguments in favour of it. If Lunn is serious, and a nuclear-powered tarsands is in Alberta's future, the people of this province must be properly consulted about and informed of what is going on. We're not normally inclined to call for travelling roadshows to consult "stakeholders," but this is a topic in which Albertans must be allowed to have their say and be listened to before any sod-turning is done on a reactor site, and, if necessary, have the question put in a provincewide referendum. Alberta has a bright future. But Albertans should decide whether the future is so bright it glows. Next story: EDITORIAL: Bye, Saddam! CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 TND: Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation Action Plan | Technology News Daily Submitted by Technology News... on Fri, 2006-12-29 15:52.Energy U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Director Sergey V. Kiriyenko last week submitted to U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin a joint work plan that will provide a framework for further bilateral cooperation in the development of nuclear energy technology and deployment. The plan was completed and signed by both parties the week of December 11, 2006, as part of an agreement that stemmed from the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, in July of this year. The Report, Joint Working Group on the Development of a Bilateral Action Plan to Enhance Global and Bilateral Nuclear Energy Cooperation, details principal areas of cooperation as well as short-term cooperative focus areas, underscoring that both countries see a strong need and role for the expansion of safe, emissions-free nuclear power. In addition, the Report discusses the two nations’ common vision for the structure of the global nuclear energy system of the future, and for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies through comprehensive nuclear fuel services. The Report establishes measures that will promote sustainable and safe nuclear energy use and expansion, in the United States, Russian Federation, and worldwide while strengthening nuclear nonproliferation and effectively addressing waste management. Specifically, it outlines national strategies in nuclear power; identifies the common bases for U.S.-Russian cooperation in advanced reactors, exportable small and medium reactors, nuclear fuel cycle technologies, and nonproliferation and; defines a plan for cooperation. Principal areas of cooperation in nuclear science and technology outlined in the report include: 1. The development of exportable small-and-medium power reactors; 2. Use and design of fast reactors; 3. Development and demonstration of new nuclear fuels for fast reactors and processes for their fabrication; 4. Development and demonstration of advanced methods for the recycling of spent nuclear fuel and transmutation; 5. Developing methods for providing international nuclear fuel cycle services; and 6. Development of nonproliferation and safeguard concepts, methodology and technology. In early 2006, President Bush and President Putin presented - independently of each other – initiatives concerning global nuclear energy expansion aimed at pursuing sustainable development in the world and concurrently addressing nonproliferation issues in a reliable manner. Both leaders agreed that in order to safely expand nuclear energy, the world must consider issues related to nonproliferation, energy security, sustainability, international stability, and environmental security. The Working Group membership is comprised of representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, the U.S. Department of State, representatives from leading national laboratories, and the Russian Federation’s Rosatom, Rostekhnadzor nuclear oversight service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Defense. It will be co-chaired by U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon and Rosatom Deputy Director Nikolay Spasskiy. The Group will also be supplemented at the technical level by an expert team comprised of appropriate representatives of DOE and national laboratories participating in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program and representatives of Russian organizations engaged in the implementation of President Putin’s Fuel Cycle Initiative. Technology News ISSN 1911-1711 ***************************************************************** 32 Belfast Telegraph: Strong opposition to Australian plans for nuclear power - www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk Saturday, December 30, 2006 Supporters of Prime Minister John Howard's policy that Australia should introduce nuclear power are outnumbered by opponents, an opinion poll says. Howard has urged state leaders to lift bans on expanding Australia's uranium industry and says the country needs to introduce nuclear power to meet its future energy needs. But a respected Newspoll published in The Weekend Australian newspaper found just 35% of respondents supported the building of nuclear power plants in Australia - down from 38% when a similar poll was conducted in May. It also showed opposition to nuclear power in Australia had declined from 51% to 50% during the same period. ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: World's two oldest nuclear power stations to close in Britain - Sun Dec 31, 8:43 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - The world's two oldest commercial nuclear power stations, which are in Britain, are closing down, the organisation which manages them said. Dungeness A in Kent, and Sizewell A in Suffolk, both first generation Magnox nuclear power stations, are being decommissioned because they are less efficient than larger plants. In addition, a reprocessing facility at Sellafield in Cumbria, which is used to make spent fuel from the plants safe, is closing in 2012. Dungeness A started generating electricity in 1965, while Sizewell A become fully operational the following year. Together, they provided more than one percent of Britain's total generating capacity. A spokesman for British Nuclear Group (BNG), which manages nuclear sites and their clean-up, said that some 99 percent of radioactive material would be removed within the next three years and taken to Sellafield. But final site clearance will take more than a century and is expected to be completed in 2110. The closures come as Britain strives to clean up its old nuclear sites with a programme which could cost up to 70 billion pounds, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 IHT: Bulgaria closes 2 nuclear reactors ahead of EU entry - Europe - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: December 31, 2006 SOFIA, Bulgaria: Two units at Bulgaria's only nuclear plant, Kozlodui, were closing down Sunday, in the last hours before Bulgaria's European Union entry on Jan. 1, the National Electric Company said. The mothballing of the two 440-megawatt Russian-made reactors was part of Bulgaria's EU entry agreements. The EU requested the shutdown of the 25-year-old reactors, citing safety concerns. The Kozlodui plant will continue operations with two 1,000-megawatt units, also of the Russian VVER type. The two smaller units were to be taken off-line over a period of several hours Sunday evening. In a few months, the nuclear fuel will be removed from the reactors and stored at the plant. The whole process of decommissioning the two units and clearing their sites will take decades and will cost Bulgaria at least ¬500 million (US$650 million), according to official estimates. All rights reserved [IHT] ***************************************************************** 35 Indian Express: N-deal to spark spinoffs Sunday, December 31, 2006 Posted online: Sunday, December 31, 2006 at 0000 hours IST NEW DELHI, DEC 30: When US President George Bush signed the Henry J Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, it signaled the end of India’s 32-year isolation — and the beginning of a new phase of growth. In 2007, say analysts, we will see the ramifications of the deal. “India will first have to initial an accord with the IAEA on safeguards. More crucial, the US will have to convince the Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift restrictions on nuclear trade with India,” says G Parthasarathy, foreign policy analyst. “That should not be impossible as the big powers favour the deal but China might want Pakistan to get the same rights,” he warns. “Much depends on India’s negotiating ability.” C Uday Bhaskar, dy director, Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), agrees: “The greatest impact will be the removal of US-led denial regimes and the acceptance of India as a nuclear state.” Says Air Cmde Jasjit Singh: “India’s growing stature as a stabilising influence in Asia has been recognised.” US companies engaged in the nuclear energy business believe that India’s efforts to raise nuclear power production to 60,000 MW by 2030 could yield contracts worth $100 billion. Parthasarathy adds a note of caution: “India should not be in a hurry to import civilian nuclear technology and materials from the US. While Bush has said that provisions on restrictions of transfers are advisory in nature, a Democrat president may think otherwise.” The nuke deal is also expected to pave the way for more such deals on military equipment and technology transfer. “That would be the logical extrapolation. The altered perception about India in the US will have its spin-off on all other trade, technology and related economic ties,” says Bhaskar. © 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: Mitsubishi, GE to tie up on wind, nuclear power - report Fri Dec 29, 11:10 PM ET TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries plans to work with US conglomerate General Electric on nuclear and wind power generation ventures, a newspaper has said. Under the plan, the two firms will jointly bid for a 300-million-dollar project to boost capacity by 20 percent at the 1.36-million-kilowatt Laguna Verde nuclear plant in Mexico, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun reported. If their bid is accepted, General Electric intends to supply peripheral reactor equipment while Mitsubishi Heavy will supply steam turbines, the business daily said. General Electric has already agreed to work with Mitsubishi's rival Hitachi on nuclear power projects amid growing interest worldwide in nuclear energy, particularly in the United States. Mitsubishi Heavy also plans to supply General Electric with step-up gears, a key wind turbine component, as early as 2008 in a bid to lower production costs and increase its market share in the wind power industry, the daily said. General Electric holds the number two spot in the global wind power industry, while Mitsubishi Heavy ranks about tenth. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 MyWestTexas.com - Expansion: Energy Industry in 2006 Mella McEwen Oil Editor Midland Reporter-Telegram 12/30/2006 Strong crude oil and natural gas prices flowed through the Permian Basin's oil fields in 2006 as almost $20 billion from the production of crude oil and natural gas -- as of October -- funded significantly higher drilling activity and oil and gas well completions. "It's been a good year, it's been a good couple of years," said Karr Ingham, the Amarillo economist who prepares the Texas Permian Basin Petroleum Index and the Texas Petroleum Index, which he prepares for the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. Natural gas prices have fallen from December 2005 highs, but crude oil prices for the year have posted double-digit increases to levels about $60 a barrel, Ingham said. "The rig count continues to climb," 30 percent to an average 155 rigs a month through October drilling in the West Texas portion of the Permian Basin, he said. "I thought it would level off but it has yet to do so. But beyond drilling, there's new technology in place to bring to the surface what's there. What was easy to find, we've tapped into. An awful lot of oil and gas remains, but it's tougher to get to and to bring to the surface. Current prices allow for that technology. If prices hold, and I'm talking even $40 to $50, I think there will be exciting times in the Permian Basin. Producers will have the financial wherewithal to develop new production technologies to let operators bring to the surface what remains. It will be a new high-tech wildcatting experience." Pain at the Pump While Permian Basin producers were reaping high prices for their crude oil and natural gas, drivers were feeling the pinch of record gasoline prices, which soared to a record average $3 per gallon this summer. "I hate the fact that one segment of the oil industry, which has high prices, get blamed for most the problems," said Bill Kent, president of Kent Industries, which sells Texaco-branded gasoline at its chain of Kent Kwik convenience stores. "Luckily, here, most people understand high crude prices are good -- for West Texas, anyway. But it still hits us in the pocketbook since crude oil prices are the biggest part of gasoline prices. We want good crude prices but low gasoline prices." Retailers like Kent Kwik, he noted, don't benefit when gasoline prices rise, in large part because of the growing fondness consumers have for paying for gasoline purchases with their credit cards. Retailers have to pay a 3 percent fee -- the equivalent of 6 to 7 cents at $3 per gallon -- to the credit card companies, he explained. That drops to about 4 cents when prices drop to $2 per gallon, making margins a little better. "We don't benefit," he stated. "Credit card fees eat up our price mark-up. Our gas margins are the same whether gasoline is $1 a gallon, $2 a gallon or $3 a gallon." High gasoline prices, he observed, didn't dampen demand for the fuel. "Our sales were good, but that may be a reflection of our economy," Kent said. "Nationally the industry is flat to up a little." Consumers can expect more of the same in 2007, he predicted, with continued concern about supplies and tension in the Middle East keeping crude prices -- and, thus, gasoline prices -- high. "I think prices will continue to be volatile and I think they will for a long time," he said. "We will continue to see prices yo-yo; we could see prices spike and then they come down stabilize as they are now. I don't see much different for 2007." Beyond Oil and Gas "I've said for several years for West Texas and the Permian Basin, we truly are America's energy epicenter," said Stephanie Sparkman, executive director of the West Texas Energy Technology Initiative. "Domestic oil and gas has grown more critical to America's energy security." But 2006 has brought energy opportunities beyond the region's historical oil and natural gas, she said. She has been active in local efforts to secure the $1 billion federal FutureGen project, which would use state-of-the-art clean coal-burning technology with near-zero emissions to produce 275 megawatts of electricity and serve as a research facility for storing -- and ultimately using -- the carbon dioxide and hydrogen generated by the coal gasification. FutureGen, Sparkman said, will be a benefit not only to West Texas, where a site near Penwell in Ector County is one of four vying for the project, but to oil producers. "As we are successful in taking those CO2 emissions from FutureGen and similar projects and inject them into the ground to produce more oil and gas, that will help us with an energy crisis I say is already upon us," she stated. That is why what she calls the impending marriage of oil and coal is so important to the nation's energy security. The region's heritage of oil and gas production has also laid a foundation for developing geothermal energy, Sparkman said, with "geothermal processes being developed in the Permian Basin that will revolutionize the geothermal industry. And Dr. (Richard) Erdlac's work will confirm that geothermal will be alive and well in the Permian Basin, again because of our rich history in oil and gas." Andrews County's efforts to win the High-Temperature Testing and Training Reactor, a new nuclear power technology, is exciting, she said, because it is seen as safe nuclear power and could serve to make that area of West Texas the nation's nuclear corridor, linking Andrews County and its WIPP site with the uranium enrichment facility just over the state line in New Mexico. Monahans, she continued, is looking at some solar power projects to take on and the large wind farms in West Texas have helped propel Texas in the lead as the nation's top producer of wind power. West Texas is even eyeing the move toward biodiesel, Sparkman said, noting that she attended the recent groundbreaking for Ocho Gen, a biodiesel plant in Seminole. "It is incredible what they're doing," she said. "They will be bridging -- I guess a marriage there as well -- agriculture and energy." The impact of all those various energy products will not have a trickle down effect, she said, but will be like an avalanche in terms of energy, job creation and business start-ups. Sparkman concluded, "When I say the Permian Basin is America's energy epicenter, there is so much going on to back that up. And that's so important because I believe we're not facing an energy crisis, we're in the middle of an energy crisis and we are doing all we can to provide domestic energy for America's consumers. We will be the example to which the rest of the nation and the rest of the world will look to one day." ©MyWestTexas.com 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 UPI: Analysis: U.S. nuke energy expands in 2007 United Press International - Energy - 12/30/2006 1:34:00 AM -0500 By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. nuclear power industry ends 2006 optimistic as what has been dubbed a "nuclear renaissance" is on the horizon and applications for the first new nuclear plants in more than two decades are expected to be filed in 2007. But the head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is warning stagnant funding from Congress could slow the regulatory process and push back nuclear energy expansion. Nuclear energy has survived the black eye of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the near incident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979 (although the United States stopped while the rest of the world continued building nuclear plants). Only 103 reactors are online in the United States, less than a quarter of global nuclear power reactors, delivering 20 percent of the U.S. energy supply. The last U.S. reactor was licensed in 1979 and the last one came online in 1996. But technology has improved, industry officials say, making nuclear energy safer and more economically viable. There have been no licenses for new nuclear plants submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission yet, let alone approved or reactors built and turned on. Dale Klein, chairman of the NRC, expects five to seven license applications next year, another eight in 2008 and more than 30 within the coming half decade. "It really is a fun time to be in nuclear power and it is somewhat of a nuclear renaissance," said George Vanderheyden, senior vice president of Constellation Generation Group and president of UniStar Nuclear, a joint venture between Constellation Energy and Areva Inc. He added: "2006 was a tremendously interesting year." And it all kicked off the year before, when President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included three provisions aimed at jumpstarting new nuclear in the country. This includes federally backed insurance against regulatory process delays and indemnification from nuclear incident liability; tax credits; and federal loans for the first applications to traverse the NRC's new combined construction and license permitting process. "There will be lots of challenges as we move forward with nuclear power," said Vanderheyden, "even though there's a lot of optimism building throughout the country today." The nuclear sector lacks domestic manufacturers for nuclear plant parts and faces a shortage of qualified workers across the industry. There's also no final solution for nuclear waste being stored around the country, mostly at active plants. But nuclear power is buoyed by many factors besides industrial evolution: the increased price and volatility of fossil fuels, especially natural gas which boomed during nuclear absence; and a new focus on global warming that some eye nuclear as a response to. "We have a need for a lot of electricity," said Buzz Miller, senior vice president of nuclear development for Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Southern has filed an application for an early site permit to add two new reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Waynesboro, Ga., the most advanced of new reactor developments. The U.S. Energy Department's data arm, the Energy Information Administration, estimates the nation's energy demand will increase by 1.1 percent a year through 2030. Nuclear energy will increase by .6 percent annually. The EIA estimates that by 2020 an additional 9 gigawatts of nuclear capacity will be added to today's 100 gigawatts due to the Energy Policy Act provisions and another 3.5 gigawatts as a response to fossil fuel costs. If this model proves true, nuclear power's share will drop from the 20 percent it holds now. "It's imperative that we press hard on nuclear to keep that same desired fuel mix to help level out the volatility from any one fuel at any one time," Miller said. But keeping the 20 percent share of the energy market needs to be nuclear's top priority, he said. "When we demonstrate the ability to get new nuclear online, I think at that point people can start to make decisions about displacing other fuel." It's unlikely a new nuclear plant will come online before 2015. That gives time for coal, another source of cheap, domestic energy, to get past a key barrier: that it is a major toxic polluter. "Competition will be between coal and nuclear" to meet the expected increase in demand for baseload electricity, said Gary Hunt, president of Global Energy Advisors, an analyst division of Boulder, Colo.-based Global Energy Decisions. With a regulatory process ready and waiting to evaluate and approve the new technology line of nuclear plants in the United States next year, the nuclear industry said in 2006 one issue could be a lagging detractor: stagnation on a nuclear waste resolution. A sole repository planned for inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain seems dead with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., becoming Senate Majority Leader. Other options include temporary storage or permanent storage elsewhere, including at the nuclear plants themselves. "If we don't have an effective way of disposing the waste, nuclear potential decreases," Hunt said. Congress couldn't agree on a budget for the NRC, among other spending plans, before wrapping up this year. It passed a Continuing Resolution keeping funding at 2006 levels, at least until mid-February. Earlier this month Klein, chairman of the NRC, said that could result in a 12 percent overall funding cut. "A 12 percent reduction for a year long Continuing Resolution would definitely impact our business," he said. He said the commission is looking at various operating scenarios based on the funding it receives, though the NRC will "not reduce oversight or requirements for existing fleets." Most at risk of slowing, though not stopping, is the process for new license applications, renewals of existing licenses and power uprates, and hiring the needed additional employees. "If the review process takes longer, the time before electrons flow from the plants takes longer," Klein said, which could have a ripple logjam effect years down the road. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 News & Star: Shaping future for atom plant Published on 30/12/2006 Chapelcross: Landmark By Dave Gudgeon MORE people are being asked to air their views about the legacy of the Chapelcross nuclear site near Annan. New staff have been recruited to help de-fuel the plant which has four cooling towers visible from miles around. That operation should be completed by 2009 while full de-commissioning could take another quarter of a century. But the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is anxious to know what the public want to see following the clean-up. It has asked the Chapelcross Site Stakeholder Group (SSG) to seek out opinions and an open day will be held at the Victoria Hall, Annan, on January 18, to inform local people. Dumfries and Galloway councillor Ian Lindsey, chair of the Chapelcross SSG, said:“Chapelcross has been a feature of the local landscape and has played a vital role on the economy of the region for more than half a century. “It is therefore crucial that local people, community groups and organisations play a key role in identifying what physical condition they want to see the site left in after the decommissioning has been completed.” A public decision conference is to take place in February when a recommendation will be made to the NDA on the basis of collated feedback. A total of about 40 new staff are involved in the de-fuelling and decommissioning process, including general workers, monitors, project managers and field construction engineers. The recruitment took the number employed at the plant to about 480. Bosses promised to tap into skills in southern Scotland and Cumbria and fill as many of the positions as possible with local people. ***************************************************************** 40 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power 'cheaper than coal' By Samantha Maiden January 01, 2007 12:48am "The Australian" AUSTRALIANS risk higher electricity prices if the nation fails to embrace nuclear power and relies on low-emission coal technology. In a new push to force the Labor Party to abandon its opposition to nuclear power, the Howard Government is preparing to warn consumers that the anti-nuclear stance could hit the family budget. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has conceded that companies are unlikely to establish nuclear power plants until a bipartisan approach is offered. Companies would be fearful that investment in a nuclear power plant would be too risky unless Labor ruled out a future ban on construction, Mr Macfarlane told The Australian A day after a Newspoll in The Weekend Australian revealed just 35 per cent of voters support the construction of nuclear power plants, Mr Macfarlane cited Ziggy Switkowski's report on uranium mining and nuclear energy to warn that failure to embrace the nuclear option would cost families. "You are also committing yourself to higher electricity prices," he said. "Low-emission coal technology could be double or even triple the existing cost. I don't think it's a question of if we go to low-emission technology, but when. "But if you look at the figures in the report, it's $50-100 a megawatt hour compared with nuclear, which is $40 and $65 a megawatt hour. If you turn your back on nuclear, you've got to rely on the commercialisation of low-emission technology for coal. That may happen, but it's a decade or so away." Mr Macfarlane defended the safety of nuclear power, echoing the Switkowski report's statement that Australians were more likely to die of a shark attack or be hit by lightning than from a nuclear plant disaster. "The history of nuclear globally is very good compared with any other energy source," he said. "Even if you count Chernobyl, which never would have been built in a Western country, the accidents and deaths are below the coal industry." But Mr Macfarlane was sceptical about some of the timelines in the Switkowski report. "Ziggy says 10 years. It's probably 15 years or better," he said. "Nuclear power stations will be built in Australia when there is bipartisan support. If there is nonsensical opposition from the Labor Party, then it won't happen." Mr Macfarlane said imposing a carbon trading scheme nationally would put Australia at a disadvantage in trade with Southeast Asia. "It would simply cause manufacturing to move offshore," he said. "But we haven't ruled it out, on the basis there would be a global trading scheme." Opposition Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan said the underlying finding of the Switkowski report was that nuclear power economics did not add up. "Even if Australia were to implement the report's recommendations, it would come too late to be of any practical use in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10 to 15 years." Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT + 11). ***************************************************************** 41 Guardian Unlimited: Oldest nuclear power stations close From Press Association [UP] Press Association Sunday December 31, 2006 6:43 AM The world's two oldest commercial nuclear power stations are to close. British Nuclear Group (BNG) said Dungeness A in Kent and Sizewell A in Suffolk will be shut down during Sunday. The reactors, which have been producing electricity for 40 years, are being decommissioned because they are less efficient than larger counterparts and because a reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which is necessary to make their spent fuel safe, is due to close in 2012. A BNG spokesman said Sizewell A will be turned off first followed by Dungeness A a few hours later. The spokesman said over the next two to three years the power stations will be de-fuelled, which will remove 99% of radioactive material from the sites. The spent fuel will be taken to Sellafield. That will be followed by some demolition work and removal of intermediate and low level radioactive waste. Final site clearance and closure will take more than a century and will not be completed until 2110. The spokesman said the number of staff at the sites would increase during the decommissioning process. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 42 ABC4.com: Monticello cancer link decision delayed - Last Update: 12/30/2006 4:39:08 PM SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Monticello residents must wait for spring to learn whether state health officials agree there's a link between cancer cases and a closed local uranium mill. The Utah Department of Health's study of 440 cases was scheduled for completion in December. It was delayed while the state worked out a contract with the Utah Cancer Registry, which will conduct part of the research. "We're trying really, really hard to be patient," said Barbara Pipkin, a member of the town's Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure committee. State officials agreed to expand an existing study by looking at registry cases after a series of public hearings in May. The additional cases included people who had moved or were treated out of state and those inadvertently excluded from the registry. The health department is also trying to find ways to add names of people diagnosed with cancer before 1973, when the registry was established, epidemiologist Juliana Grant said. The uranium mill operated on Monticello's south side between 1941 and early 1960. The mill processed uranium and vanadium. After its closing, area residents used mill tailings in the mortar and foundations of their homes. Residents want monetary compensation for anyone who fell ill, not just for miners and millworkers. Monticello was once a U.S. Department of Energy Superfund Site, but was removed from that list in 2000. ---- Information from: The Deseret Morning News, www.deseretnews.com ©2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ***************************************************************** 43 Deseret News: Cancer-mill study delayed [deseretnews.com] Saturday, December 30, 2006 Monticello will have to wait till spring for results By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News The town of Monticello will have to wait until spring to find out whether the state health department agrees that there's a link between cancer cases and the town's former uranium-processing mill. Deseret Morning News archivesA photo of Monticello from 1942 shows mill housing in the foreground and the uranium mill in the background. It operated from 1941 to the beginning of 1960, processing both uranium and vanadium. For years, toxic dust blew across the southeastern Utah town. Originally scheduled for completion in December, the Utah Department of Health's study was delayed while it worked out a contract with the Utah Cancer Registry, which will be conducting part of the research, according to DOH spokesperson Cody Craynor. "We're trying really, really hard to be patient," said Barbara Pipkin, a member of the town's Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure committee. "I really think they're trying in every way humanly possible" to finish the study, she said, "but we're frustrated." Following public meetings with Monticello residents last May, health officials agreed to expand their original study, looking at additional cancer cases not already listed in the Utah Cancer Registry. Those new names include former town residents who moved out of state or were treated out of state, or whose names were inadvertently excluded from the registry. The health department is also looking at ways it can include names of people who were diagnosed prior to 1973, the year the Utah Cancer Registry was established, according to health-department epidemiologist Dr. Juliana Grant. Last summer, the Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure committee provided the health department with 440 new cancer cases (on top of the 141 cases that were part of the original DOH study). Those 440 people now must complete an expanded survey, and that information must be verified. Then health department epidemiologists will repeat their investigation to determine whether there were indeed elevated rates of cancer in Monticello compared to the state as a whole. The department is also hoping to find another small town, perhaps in a nearby state, that could be used as a comparison. "In an ideal world, what we would want is a town exactly like Monticello in every way, even clones of the same people, except with no uranium mill," Grant said. In lieu of that, epidemiologists are hoping to find a town with similar demographics, including similar rates of cigarette smoking. Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsSan Juan Commissioner Bruce Adams meets with Fritz Pipkin, Jackie and Albert "Pete" Steele and Barbara Pipkin of Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure in May. The uranium mill operated on the south side of Monticello from 1941 to the beginning of 1960, processing both uranium and vanadium. For years, toxic dust blew across the southeastern Utah town. After the mill was closed, uranium tailings were used by residents in the mortar and foundations of their homes. Monticello residents would like monetary compensation for all victims, not just the miners and mill workers but the children who played in the leftover tailings piles and the wives who washed the laundry of the men who came home covered with uranium dust. The town was declared a U.S. Department of Energy Superfund Site and was eventually given a clean bill of health in 2000. E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 44 Pahrump Valley Times: Signal pact approved e-mailed to: dmcmurdo@pvtimes.com. Dec. 29, 2006 By MARK WAITE PVT An interlocal agreement with the Nevada Department of Transportation to jointly pay for a traffic light at Homestead Road and Highway 160 was approved by Nye County Commissioners during a special conference call Wednesday morning. The vote was 4-0 in favor. Commissioner Candice Trummell was absent. Nye County Commissioner Patricia Cox, in her final meeting, unclogged the log jam after she spoke to Nevada Department of Transportation Director Jeff Fontaine, who explained that the state will pay $450,000 plus engineering costs, not $350,000 as was previously thought. The state will pay $250,000 from a traffic safety grant and $200,000 from an NDOT cost-sharing plan, Cox said. The motion states the project won't exceed $1.05 million. Nye County plans to use $750,000 from Payment Equal to Taxes it receives from the U.S. Department of Energy for the land value of Yucca Mountain and $300,000 in impact fees for its share. Commission Chairman Gary Hollis still had some reservations about the agreement. "I don't want to set a precedent that we have to fund every light in the future," he said. Cox said the county can specify what improvements it wants NDOT to construct in its annual program. But she said the county has to step up to the plate on this project. "They have a budget just like we do, and if it's not in their budget for a traffic light, we're not going to get one," Cox said. Commissioner Roberta "Midge" Carver, a county liaison to the Regional Transportation Commission added, "I'm not going to sit here and not see the light get done." The only resident at the meeting in the county administration building, Dan Schinhofen, reminded commissioners they had unanimously approved a resolution to get this done back in May. "I've had my own family members have close calls at this intersection," Schinhofen said. Commissioner-elect Andrew "Butch" Borasky, whose term begins next week, asked, "If NDOT had $2.5 million to do a roundabout, how come they don't have more money to do this?" Cox said NDOT would've paid for the entire cost of a roundabout with federal traffic safety program funds. But Pahrump residents soundly rejected a proposed roundabout during meetings late last spring. The traffic signal could take another year to be installed. Traffic signals have to be custom fabricated, according to NDOT. The Homestead and Winery Road intersection with Highway 160 is one of a number of intersections about which Pahrump residents have cried out for a traffic signal. During a county commission meeting last week, Alex Mendez of CivilWise Services said the average daily traffic count on Homestead Road was 1,423 vehicles. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 45 Pahrump Valley Times: Commission prepares for '07 Dec. 29, 2006 Nye County Commissioners will consider a fire assistance agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Nevada Division of Forestry for volunteer fire departments during an 8:30 a.m. meeting Tuesday at the Nye County Courthouse at 101 Radar Road in Tonopah. It will be the first county commission meeting for incoming commissioners Andrew "Butch" Borasky and Peter Liakopoulos, newly elected for commissioner Districts 4 and 5 in Pahrump. Commissioners will also consider augmenting the Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office oversight fund by $1.16 million. Nye County would discontinue its participation in the Central Nevada Community Protection Working Group under another agenda item up for discussion. The Nye County Sheriff's Department wants commissioners to obtain bids to upgrade security surveillance and monitoring equipment in the county detention centers. A public hearing is scheduled at 10 a.m. on a bill amending procedures for creating a list of appraisers of county property for sale or lease. Newly-elected District 36 Assemblyman Ed Goedhart is scheduled to talk to county commissioners about any concerns they wish to submit regarding the upcoming state legislative session at 1:30 p.m. Comments are due on the projects to be submitted for the Community Development Block Grant program. The county is applying for funding for the extension of water lines to a proposed Beatty industrial park at the former Barrick Bullfrog Mine and the construction of improvements to the Gabbs sewer system. The appointment of county liaisons to 22 committees is on the agenda. They include: the Nye County Senior Nutrition Program; Nevada Association of Counties; Pahrump Regional Planning Commission; Nye County Park and Recreation Committee; Economic Development Authority of Esmeralda and Nye counties; Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool; Public Agency Compensation Trust; Regional Transportation Committee; a nuclear waste liaison; Tri-County working group; Capital Improvements Advisory Committee; Development Agreement Task Force; Nye County water issues; town boards; Nye County jails needs assessment; Local Emergency Planning Committee; Nevada Business Services; Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board; Nye County School District issues; Public Utilities Commission and Quad-State County Government Coalition. Commissioners will also appoint three members to the Tonopah library board of trustees. Commissioners will vote on a $46,252 bid to repair the roof of the building at the Calvada Eye in Pahrump. Four closed sessions are scheduled: two to consider labor or personnel issues, two to confer with legal counsel on potential or current litigation. Golden Route Operations LLC, owned by the same company that owns the Pahrump Nugget Hotel and Casino, has a request to expand their business to Nye County before the Nye County Licensing and Liquor Board at 9 a.m. For comment or questions, please e-mail Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 46 Courier Post: Stop radioactive dump plan courierpostonline.com Sunday, December 31, 2006 Attorney General Stuart Rabner is trying to stop a Gloucester County company from creating the state's first radioactive dump. Not too long ago, New Jersey appeared to be the region's favorite dump site. It was littered with contaminated Superfund sites. There still are 50 Superfund sites in the state that have contaminated or threaten drinking water sources. New Jersey doesn't need another threat buried under residents' feet. But that is what could happen if the state's lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fails. The state has asked the federal court in Philadelphia to stop the NRC from reviewing a plan by Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. to bury more than 50,000 tons of radioactive slag and dust on its property in Newfield, a 1.7-square mile community of about 1,600 residents. The company's plans include providing monitoring and security for the waste for 1,000 years, at which point it says the radioactive slag will no longer be a health and environmental threat. But state officials said the radioactive life will extend well beyond 1,000 years. There are alternatives for getting rid of the radioactive waste and Shieldalloy should be required to pursue them. It could ship the waste to dump sites in Utah and South Carolina that already handle such hazardous waste. But the company wants to do what is least costly to it, even if it comes at the expense of local residents and the state. The NRC should not approve this plan. It needlessly puts New Jersey residents and the state's drinking water supplies at risk. Shieldalloy should be required to do what is safest for the community, and not just what will keep its bottom-line healthy. Published: December 31. 2006 3:10AM "> Copyright 2006 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 47 San Bernardino County Sun: State may be amiss about perchlorate Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 12/31/2006 12:00:00 AM PST How much of a dangerous chemical is safe to drink? The answer to that question is something two states - California and Massachusetts - don't agree upon. And a new study by scientists at the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has put California on the defense for its reliance on an older, smaller-scale study. The dangerous chemical in question is perchlorate, which has been found in drinking-water wells throughout the Inland Empire, leading Rialto and Colton to file federal lawsuits against a number of corporations and government entities, including Goodrich, Black & Decker, San Bernardino County and, in Rialto's case, the Defense Department. Used in the production of products such as rocket fuel, explosives and fireworks, perchlorate can be harmful to humans by interfering with the functioning of the thyroid gland. In July, Massachusetts capped the amount of perchlorate allowed in drinking water at two parts per billion. California, on the other hand, is heading toward adopting a standard of six parts per billion. That won't become official until the state Department of Health Services responds to comments it received on the plan, which could take until the end of January. The differences boil down to science and politics, officials and environmentalists say. Limited study This summer, before the release of the CDC study, the state Health Services Department proposed six parts per billion as the maximum level of perchlorate allowed in drinking water. Some environmentalists complained that the level was too high, noting it was three times higher than the level set by Massachusetts only a month earlier. State officials based their proposal on a study authored by the late Dr. Monte Greer, who reported that healthy adults could safely be exposed to perchlorate at concentrations of about 200 parts per billion. "We felt that the Greer study was really the best study to use," Allan Hirsch, a spokesman for the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said before the CDC released its study. The Greer study, however, was limited in scope. It exposed a relatively small number of healthy adults - 37 - to perchlorate for just 14 days. Because of those limitations, Renee Sharp, an analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research organization, said California should have considered how perchlorate can affect sensitive populations, such as children and people with thyroid conditions. Massachusetts officials agreed. Carol Rowan West, director of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Research and Standards, put less confidence in the Greer study than do her counterparts in California. "We had more concerns about the quality of the data and lack of data on certain issues," she said. In addition, while California officials assumed that 60 percent of the perchlorate a person ingests comes from drinking water, Massachusetts officials put that number at 20 percent, saying people consume more perchlorate from food. Women and perchlorate The CDC study provides policymakers with a great deal of new information to chew on. "It's a very respectable study from a highly respected organization," said Kevin Mayer, the regional perchlorate coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency. The nationwide study found that even low levels of perchlorate can affect thyroid hormone levels. "We didn't expect to see such low levels of perchlorate have this effect on the thyroid," said one of the study's co-authors, James Pirkle. He said women with low urinary iodine levels or low levels of iodine in their diet are particularly vulnerable. "This is going to be important information for those people who are setting acceptable levels (for perchlorate)," he said. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is now analyzing the CDC's data, Hirsch said. Kevin Riley, the deputy director for prevention services at the California Department of Health Services, said the agency is not legally permitted to set a lower standard than what California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recommends. The political factor Environmentalists also claim that political and cost considerations help explain why California is moving toward a higher standard than the one adopted by Massachusetts. If the California standard were set at two parts per billion, the costs of treating water would be "astronomical," said Eric Fraser, Colton's director of water and wastewater. He said water standards are often based on factors other than public health. Water in the Bay Area, for example, is only disinfected, not filtered, he said, because of political pressure to lower water-quality standards. "It just shows you how the political process sometimes can impact the adoption of drinking- water standards," he said. Updated: December 31, 2006 12:04:33 AM PST Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 48 Tennessean: Oak Ridge scientists to resume reactor research in March - Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, 12/31/06 - Tennessean.com Oak Ridge scientists to resume reactor research in March Equipment shut down last January for improvements OAK RIDGE — The research reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is expected to be up and running again in March if it passes a series of startup tests, according to Oak Ridge officials. The High Flux Isotope Reactor, the world's most powerful research reactor, has been shut down since January for installation of a cold source and other improvements. "We've begun the restart process already," said Thom Mason, the associate lab director for neutron sciences told the Knoxville News Sentinel. Reactor operations were set to resume in the summer but weren't to allow more time for testing of research equipment and support operations. The 40-year-old reactor is one of Oak Ridge National Lab's prized research tools. Scientists study the structure and properties of materials using the reactor's high concentration of neutrons. Despite the reactor's age, Oak Ridge officials say it is expected to last for another 40 years. The lab has spent about $70 million on improvements at the reactor in recent years. Lab officials want to maximize the number of useful cycles for research in 2007, Mason said. "The reactor has been down for an extended period in connection with this upgrade, and what we want to do is get it to a mode where it can be scientifically productive again," he said. Chilly tests ahead Researchers are anxious to do experiments with the newly installed cold source that cools research chambers to -425 degrees Fahrenheit. Using liquid helium and hydrogen, the cold source will slow the movement of neutrons, lengthen the wavelength and make the stream of radioactive particles more amenable for studies of polymers and certain biological materials. In 2005, the reactor was shut down for about a month because officials were worried about how it would perform during an earthquake. Officials conducted an evaluation of the reactor to prepare for new seismic standards implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy, and they raised concerns about some of the assumptions used in earlier safety calculations. The lab did not find any unsafe conditions. The Tennessean Copyright © 2006, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 KnoxNews: Research at reactor set to resume in March ORNL does readiness reviews; scientists eager for experiments using newly installed cold source By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com December 30, 2006 OAK RIDGE - Research activities at the High Flux Isotope Reactor should resume sometime in March if restart activities - including a series of operational safety reviews - go as planned. That's the latest assessment from officials at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "We've begun the restart process already," said Thom Mason, the associate lab director for neutron sciences. The 85-megawatt facility is one of the most powerful research reactors in the world. It has been shut down since January for installation of a cold source and other enhancements. An initial plan called for reactor operations to resume in the summer, but that was pushed back to later in the year to allow more time for testing of research equipment and support operations. Now there's been another postponement, although Mason said it's more about "resequencing" the restart process than an actual delay. Instead of restarting the Oak Ridge reactor at low power in December, the lab will focus on a series of readiness reviews and plan on resuming full operations in March, Mason said. Lab officials want to maximize the number of useful cycles for research in 2007, he said. "The reactor has been down for an extended period in connection with this upgrade, and what we want to do is get it to a mode where it can be scientifically productive again," Mason said. The research community has been clamoring for restart of the reactor. Researchers are anxious to do experiments with the newly installed cold source that cools research chambers to -425 degrees Fahrenheit. "Scientists are on edge. They want to get some neutrons," Herb Mook, one of ORNL's senior research scientists, said earlier this year. The cold source, using liquid helium and hydrogen, will slow the movement of neutrons, lengthen the wavelength and make the stream of radioactive particles more amenable for studies of polymers and certain biological materials. The High Flux Isotope Reactor was built in the 1960s and began full power operations in 1966. Even though it is 40 years old, the reactor is expected to last for another 40 years, said Ron Crone, director of ORNL's research reactors division. That is based on tests of the reactor's pressure vessel, which would be the limiting factor, he said. The lab has spent about $70 million on improvements at the reactor in recent years. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************