*****************************************************************
10/02/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.233
*****************************************************************
   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 The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Sorting Fact from Fiction
2 US MAY ACCEPT IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB
3 [NYTr] Iran: Targeting the Nuke Program? Or the Regime?
4 [NYTr] Iran: Nuclear "Crisis" - Sorting Fact from Fiction
5 [NYTr] Times of London: US May Accept Iran "Nuclear Bomb"
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran not to accept suspension: Elham 
7 AFP:  Bush, Putin to keep 'united position' on Iran - White House   
8 AFP: 'Good progress' in drawing up Iran sanctions - US official -
9 UPI: Iran: Enrichment suspension out of question
10 UPI: Analysis: If and when Bush 'Iraqs' Iran
11 Guardian Unlimited: EU Official Pushes Iran on Nuclear Plans
12 Japan Times: Weakness prods Pyongyang
13 AFP: Inter-Korean military talks end without agreement 
14 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: China, North Korea make friendly gestures
15 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Hits Doldrums
16 BBC: Musharraf nuclear claims attacked
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
17 US: [NukeNet]NPR story on nuclear power
18 US: Tritium's in water under TMI, study says
19 US: [NukeNet] Indian Country Today reporter censored & terminated
20 US: NRC: NRC to Conduct Special Inspection at Palo Verde Nuclear Gen
21 US: The NewStandard: Senators Move to Rush Yucca Nuke Dump - 
22 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear chief speaks on Tianwan NPP constructio
23 US: The Mercury: Study: Tritium levels safe at power plant
24 US: NRC: NRC Public Meeting Scheduled for Oct. 6th to Discuss Indian
25 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Procedures for Me
26 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, et al.; Vogtle Electric
27 US: NRC: PPL Susquehanna, LLC.; Notice of Receipt and Availability o
28 IPS: POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Hits Doldrums
29 US: KARE 11 TV: Commission approves Xcel's nuclear waste plan for Mo
30 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Gov. signs Blakeslee's energy bill
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
31 US: Deseret News: University of Utah gets grant to fight 'dirty bomb
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
32 reviewjournal.com: Scientists ponder future of Yucca Mountain dust
33 US: The Rebel Yell: Article: Nuclear waste discussed
34 US: Deseret News: Is tailings work slow?
35 US: AU ABC: Soil testing prompts uranium mine fears. 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
36 DOE: U.S. Department of Energy and NTI Announce Key Nonproliferation
37 SF New Mexican: DOE: Energy Department: Sandia project unneeded
38 Knox News: Move of bomb-grade uranium saves millions
39 Knox News: Footnote in history
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Sorting Fact from Fiction
 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 00:48:01 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM

Sunday, October 01, 2006
What's Left
www.gowans.blogspot.com

-------------

http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/10/iranian-nuclear-crisis-sorting-fact.html

Sunday, October 01, 2006

The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Sorting Fact from Fiction

By

Stephen Gowans 

Iran is being portrayed by the US, other Western governments, Israel and
their mass media, as a threat to international peace and security. The
leadership of Iran, particularly the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is said
to be filled with an irrational, violent Hitler-like loathing of Jews,
expressed in Holocaust denial, mocking the suffering of its victims, and the
pursuit of nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. These portrayals are
based on exaggeration, innuendo, and, in some cases, the deliberate twisting
of the truth. The objective is to secure public consent for another war of
conquest on an economically nationalist, oil-rich country. Iran's leadership
is not a threat to international peace and security, does not mock the
Holocaust, and is not pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map.
It's true that Iran's developing an independent nuclear power industry would
furnish the country with the potential to develop nuclear weapons, but this
amounts to nothing more than a defensive threat to a small class of
financiers, high-level executives and corporate lawyers whose common
interests lead them to rally around the idea that Iranian oil should be
under US control and made available to the project of enlarging the capital
of US oil companies. 

Background

The United Nations Security Council (SC) passed a resolution on July 31,
2006 ordering Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium by the end of August.
Tehran declined, continuing to enrich uranium, despite the threat of
sanctions. The SC also directed all countries to block shipments to Iran of
any materials that could be used to enrich uranium or develop ballistic
missiles. This latter directive strengthened sanctions the United States
already had in place on companies supplying potential nuclear program or
missile-related goods to Iran, and buttressed existing US efforts to isolate
Iran financially by blocking its access to the US banking system (much as
Washington had done to north Korea.) Iran correctly pointed out that
inasmuch as its nuclear program operates within the limits of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the SC acted beyond its authority. Iran's
activities are legal and are not unique. How, then, is SC action warranted? 

Significantly, the resolution was issued concurrent with Israel's summer
2006 invasion of Lebanon, a conspicuous affront to the international peace
and security the SC is authorized to protect. Of the two events - Iran's
lawful enrichment of uranium under the supervision of UN inspectors, and
Israel's military assault across international borders - the latter clearly
fell within the SC's jurisdiction and the former not at all. Nevertheless,
for 38 days the SC failed to stay Israel's hand. By the time it acted, over
1,000 Lebanese civilians were dead, over 4,000 were wounded, one-quarter of
Lebanon's population was displaced, and 1,500 homes were destroyed. 

Since compliance with an international treaty does not constitute a breach
of international peace and security, the SC's resolution must at least
implicitly refer to Iran's activities as being uniquely menacing, despite
their lawful character. From the perspective of the US government, the
menace is revealed in indirect clues that Iran's nuclear activities have a
military content, notwithstanding the finding of the IAEA, the body that
monitors compliance with the NPT, that there is no concrete evidence that
Iran's nuclear program is military in nature. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld might say. In this view, concrete evidence is too demanding
a standard for a post-9/11 world. If we wait for the evidence of a mushroom
cloud rising above New York City, it's too late. But by the same reasoning,
the US would be well-advised to launch a surprise nuclear strike on the UK.
The UK has a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal to wreak massive devastation
on the US, on a scale Iran and north Korea together, with al Qaeda's
assistance, couldn't remotely approach. True, there's not a speck of
evidence the UK plans to attack the US, but, to follow Rumsfeld's reasoning,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do we wait until mushroom
clouds rise above a dozen US cities? 

I wish to address two elements of the US argument about why Iran is a
threat. First, the question of what evidence exists, even if not concrete,
that Iran intends to turn its enrichment activities to military use. And
second, the nature of the threat Iran would pose if its nuclear activities
were carried forward to the establishment of a nuclear weapons capability.

The Evidence 

Washington says there are two reasons to believe Iran is planning to
secretly build a nuclear arsenal. The first, advanced by US Vice-President
Dick Cheney, is that Iran has no need of nuclear power to supply its energy
needs. It is an oil-rich country that can easily rely on its petroleum
resources to generate electricity. Therefore, Iran's pursuit of civilian
nuclear power must be a cover for a military program. 

To be sure, Iran is rich in oil, but all the same, imports gasoline. Having
oil in the ground and the capability to refine it are separate matters. Iran
has the raw materials (so long as they last), but not the means, in
sufficient quantities, to convert oil into the usable form it needs to meet
all its energy requirements. Its refineries produce 10.5 million gallons per
day, but the country uses 17 million gallons. The balance is imported. [1] 

Given that Iran's oil reserves are finite, it makes sense for Iran to
develop an independent civilian nuclear energy industry as a successor
energy source. Iran has rich stores of uranium and therefore the potential
to become self-sufficient in nuclear energy. The US-backed dictator Shah
Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's former ruler, recognized this as a prudent
strategy. Under the Shah, a consortium of US corporations was slated to
develop a giant nuclear industry, with Washington's blessing. At the time,
the American nuclear energy industry ran ads in the US touting the program
to pressure American legislators to follow the Shah's lead. Photos of a
regal Shah, resplendent in full ceremonial dress, appeared under the
headline, "Guess who's building nuclear power plants?" The text explained,
"The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one of the largest reservoirs of oil
in the world. Yet he's building two nuclear plants and planning two more to
provide electricity for his country. He knows the oil is running out - and
time with it." 

The plans for US-built nuclear power plants in Iran were toppled in 1979,
when the Shah was forced into exile by Ayatollah Khomeini and his
revolutionaries. Washington imposed sanctions, and later Iran turned to
Russia to build a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Hence, as early as the
70s, Washington recognized a cogent economic case was to be made for nuclear
power in Iran. 

NBC news anchor Brian Williams suggested another argument for why Iran's
pursuit of nuclear power must be motivated by military goals. [2] "Why keep
[missiles] in your arsenal if you don't someday hope to tip them with a
nuclear weapon?" Williams asked Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a
September 20, 2006 interview. The problem with this view is that it's based
on the logical error of concluding that if A implies B then B must imply A.
To see how Williams' reasoning goes awry, consider this: Lesbians are women
(nuclear warheads sit atop missiles) therefore all women are Lesbians
(therefore all missiles are intended to carry nuclear warheads.) 

Washington says Iran's failure to report previous nuclear activities to the
IAEA is another reason to be suspicious. However, the monitoring agency
found no evidence Iran's previously undisclosed activities were related to a
nuclear weapons program [3]. Iran may have had a compelling case for
covering up its nuclear activities, fearing the US would move to block a
nuclear power industry as a means of checking the country's economic
development, a point I elaborate on below. 

Ever since being called out, Tehran has fully cooperated with the IAEA, even
going so far as to accept, until recently, a more stringent inspection
protocol than other treaty signatories submit to, including the US. The
monitoring body says there's no evidence Iran's current enrichment
activities are weapons-related. 

The Threat

By the reckoning of the US administration, there are two reasons to believe
an Iran possessed of rudimentary nuclear weapons would be a serious danger.
The first, revealed in statements that Iran has developed its rocket
technology to allow it to strike Israel and parts of Europe, is that Tehran
plans to launch a nuclear attack. Since this would be suicidal, it can be
dismissed fairly readily as preposterous, insofar as one assume Iran's
leadership is rational. (More on the idea it's not rational, in a moment.)
Iran could be crushed by the conventional forces of either Israel, Britain
or France alone, to say nothing of being wiped off the map should either
country choose to call upon its own nuclear arsenal to deliver a retaliatory
blow. Israel's cache of nuclear weapons, believed to total at least 200
warheads (some say 400), is considerably larger than anything Iran could
produce for years and years, and France's and Britain's nuclear forces are
much larger still. 

The second view is that Iran may not launch a strike itself, preferring
instead to use a proxy, such as Hezbollah, to attack Israel, or to use some
other non-state organization to create a nuclear 9/11 in a major American
city. This view is reminiscent of the spurious claim made by Washington that
Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, an oft-repeated lie that even Bush has recently
distanced himself from. The claim, of course, has a conspicuous value in
justifying the US-British invasion of Iraq. Many Americans were willing to
back any measure to punish al Qaeda and its supporters for 9/11, and the
simple expedient of suggesting there was a link between Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein was sufficient to build public support for the conquest of
Iraq as a supposed blow to al Qaeda. 

More recently, Washington portrayed Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers
as an action undertaken at the behest of Iran rather than as an independent
act Hezbollah had undertaken to press for the release of Lebanese captured
by Israel [4]. The aim was the same: to press the case for war against Iran
by drawing links between Iran and "terrorists." While Hezbollah originated
in Iran, and likely receives material support from the country, the US State
Department notes that "it also can and does act independently." [5] This
resonates with the view of the top US commander in the Middle East, General
John Abizaid, who believes the capture of Israeli soldiers "probably.took
place at a fairly low level from standing orders within Hezbollah." General
Wayne Downing, a former counter-terrorism adviser to the White House, echoed
Abizaid's view. "Is Iran pulling the strings? The guys I'm talking to say
'no'." [6] Even so, the Bush administration claimed that Iran used its links
to Hezbollah to fight a proxy war with Israel. But Hezbollah had two reasons
for engaging Israel that had nothing to do with Iran: First, to acquire a
bargaining chip to sue for the release of its militants; second, to repel
the Israeli invasion. Since the motives for Hezbollah's behaviour in this
instance are clear, there is no need to invoke an external agency (Iran) to
explain the organization's actions. 

Iran, then, would not be a threat in the sense of posing an immediate danger
of a nuclear strike, or of arming sub-state groups with nuclear weapons to
be used in non-conventional ways against the US, Israel or other US allies.
Moreover, the very fact that a state possesses nuclear weapons does not by
itself make it an offensive threat, in the same way having missiles does not
necessarily mean they'll be tipped with nuclear warheads, or being a woman
necessarily means one's a Lesbian. Otherwise, Israel, India and Pakistan,
nuclear-weapons states, would be looming offensive threats to the US, and
France, Britain, Russia and China, which possess substantial nuclear
arsenals, would be even more so. This is not to say that any of these
countries might not, at some point, pose an offensive nuclear threat to the
US, but few Americans are lying awake at night worrying about a nuclear
strike by France. Why then does the idea resonate that an Iran in possession
of a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability is an offensive threat to the US
and its allies? 

To pose a nuclear offensive threat, a country must not only have a nuclear
strike capability, it must also have some reason for using it in an
aggressive manner. But there are no solid, concrete, reasons offered for why
Iran would want to launch an offensive nuclear attack on the US, Europe or
Israel. 

The Madman Theory 

In the propaganda business, the rule of thumb, when all else fails, is to
trot out the madman theory - the idea that official enemies will behave in
recklessly bold ways because the leadership is irrational. The madman theory
resonates for two reasons. It's a sub-species of the great man theory, the
idea that history can be reduced to the genius or madness of a few great
men. And it's idealist - it attributes the behaviour of nations, not only to
great (or wicked) men, but to their psychology and ideas. Both modes of
thought are widely accepted and used by people in their everyday lives to
make sense of the world. 

According to the madman theory, Ahmadinejad is mad, while the leaders of
France, Britain, India and so on, are not. That's why we should be afraid of
an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, but reassured no harm will come
from France, Britain, India and other US allies, even though these countries
are able to destroy on an immense scale. Kim Jong Il, leader of the DPRK, a
country that may or may not have nuclear weapons, is also portrayed as
irrational. This makes north Korea appear to pose a credible offensive
threat to Japan and the US, when, in fact, it has, at best, a rudimentary
nuclear weapons capability and no ability to reliably deliver a warhead over
long distances. 

Ahmadinejad's madness is presented as an irrational, violent, anti-Semitism.
He is, we're to believe, driven by a hatred of Jews, which, focussed into an
intense antipathy toward Israel, resolves itself into a program of seeking
to "wipe Israel off the map" by means of a nuclear strike. An Ahmadinejad in
command of a nuclear arsenal would be a clear danger, a madman with plans of
genocide - or so the argument goes.

Causal Attributions

The attribution of the behaviour of nations to the psychology of their
leaders is pervasive. Not only is it encouraged by government officials and
news media as a way of backing claims that certain foreign governments must
be brought down by war, it's currency on the political left is just as
strong. Not too long ago I overheard three Canadian women discussing world
politics, each expressing dismay at Washington's recurrent pattern of war
making, and of Canada's jumping headlong into the service of the US conquest
of Afghanistan by committing occupation troops to the Afghan theatre. It was
clear they rejected official explanations of why the US and its subordinate
Britain had waged war in recent years, on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq,
and of their own government for why it had sent troops to Afghanistan. But
they had found no alternative explanation. In the end, they appealed to
psychology, settling on "a culture of war" as the explanation for
Washington's imperialist foreign policy. It was clear, however, that they
were unhappy with the explanation.

Their unhappiness was justified. The idea that governments wage aggressive
wars because they're in the grips of a culture of war is problematic. The
explanation is circular. How do we know a government's leaders are in the
grips of a culture of war? Because they wage aggressive wars. Why do they
wage aggressive wars? Because they're in the grips of a culture of war. The
explanation goes round and round, never leaving its tightly enclosed,
self-contained system of internally-consistent logic. If it leaves a feeling
of dissatisfaction, it should.

The second problem is that even if we assume there's something called a
culture of war, where did it come from and how did it grow? It didn't just
materialize, springing fully formed from a vacuum. There must be some reason
it exists. For example, if we confine our attention to the US, perhaps the
country's politically powerful defense industry profits from war, and has
used its influence to make the case for a succession of aggressive wars.
George Shultz, the former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration,
lobbied strenuously for an invasion of Iraq. He's connected to Bechtel, the
giant engineering firm that stood to benefit from reconstruction contracts
awarded to repair the infrastructure US and British bombs destroyed in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe Shultz, and people like him, who can profit from
war, have worked hard to create a culture of war to serve their own narrow
interests. And what of US oil corporations? Would it be going too far to
suggest they have an interest in being able to exploit Iraq's, Iran's and
Sudan's oil on terms favourable to the interests of their shareholders, and
further, that they might use their enormous political leverage to tilt
public policy toward a program of regime-change in economically nationalist
oil-rich countries?

Explanations of this sort go a whole lot further than attributions of war to
either the psychology of the public (the culture of war) or the psychology
of leaders (he's mad, he hates Jews, he hates our freedoms, he has a drive
for war.) For one thing, appeals to psychology either go round and round in
circles and end up back where they started, or are deliberate obfuscations,
whose purpose is to build weak or absent threats, into big threats. So, for
example, in the face of the obvious difficulty of explaining how a nuclear
warhead-possessing Iran would constitute a grave and immediate danger, given
that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction creates a formidable
deterrent to Tehran launching a first strike, the madman theory sets all
doubts to rest. Sure, MAD works to deter the use of nuclear weapons as a
rational choice, but Ahmadinejad is not rational. Time magazine summed this
up by titling a September 25, 2006 article on the Iranian president, "A Date
with A Dangerous Mind." The Economist, for its part, once showed Kim Jong Il
on its cover, a mushroom cloud ominously rising behind him -- presumably a
warning about what would happen were the insane Korean allowed to linger too
long as leader of the "hermit kingdom."

Does Ahmadinejad have a dangerous mind? Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign
minister, thinks so. She does a good job of portraying Ahmadinejad and other
Iranian leaders as anti-Jewish hate mongers who are working feverishly to
build a nuclear bomb to incinerate Israel. "There is no greater challenge to
our values," she warns, "than that posed by the leaders of Iran. They deny
and mock the Holocaust. They speak proudly and openly of their desire to
wipe Israel off the map. And now, by their actions, they pursue weapons to
achieve this objective to imperil the region and to threaten the world." [7]

Denying the Holocaust or Exposing its Exploitation? 

In some respects there is considerable ambiguity about what Ahmadinejad's
views of the Holocaust are; in other respects, there is none. What's clear
is that Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust is exploited by Israel to justify
invading its neighbors and delivering injustice upon injustice to the
Palestinians. 

"The Palestinian people, their lives are being destroyed today under the
pretext of the Holocaust. Their lands have been occupied, usurped. What is
their fault? What are they to be blamed for? Are they not human beings? Do
they have no rights? What role did they play in the Holocaust?" [8] 

This is hardly a minority view in the Middle East, and it is not a view
without foundation. The Holocaust does not justify Zionism, the creation of
the Israeli state, the denial of Palestinian rights or the annexation by
Israel of foreign territory. In Ahmadinejad's view, the elevation of the
Holocaust to the status of sacred cow rings hollow, and points to ulterior
political motives. "In the Second World War, over 60 million people lost
their lives," he told NBC news anchor Brian Williams [9]. "They were all
human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed
have become so prominent and important?" Could the Holocaust have been
raised to prominence for a political purpose, he seems to ask? Virginia
Tilley points out that, "Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has
started to take hold in the Middle East, not because people hate Jews, but
because the narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to
'defend itself' by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East
publics are so used to the canards legitimizing colonial or imperial
takeovers that some wonder [whether the Holocaust] is just another myth."
[10] 

Does Ahmadinejad wonder whether the Holocaust as just another myth? Perhaps.
But at times it seems he adopts a deliberate agnosticism about the Nazis'
attempts to exterminate European Jewry, to provoke a reaction, as if to say,
"It's your sacred cow, not mine, and I will not be manipulated by it."
Nowhere have I seen Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust outright, which isn't to
say he hasn't, only that I haven't seen it. Even so, interviewers put
questions to him as if there's no ambiguity about his views. "You called the
Holocaust a myth," Brian Williams told him [11]. Ahmadinejad's invariable
response to the charge he denies the Holocaust is to refer to the
illegitimacy of using the event as a justification for creating a Jewish
state in Palestine on the basis of the mass expulsion of Arabs and of
maintaining Israel by uniquely denying Palestinians the right of return.
Musayeb Naimi, editor of Al Wefaq, sums up Ahmadinejad's position this way:
"Either [the Holocaust] took place or it didn't. If it didn't take place,
then it is a fabrication. If it did, it wasn't the Arabs who did it; it was
the Europeans. Why then should the Palestinians pay the price of what the
Europeans did against the Jews?" [12] 

In many of his statements Ahmadinejad accepts the Holocaust as a reality.
For example, in December, 2005 he asked, "Is the killing of innocent Jewish
people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans') support to the
occupiers of Jerusalem?" [13] Here he accepts the attempted extermination of
European Jewry as a fact. He goes on to argue, "If the Europeans are honest
they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany,
Austria or other countries - to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish
their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it."
[14] This is a provocative statement, but it makes a point. It is, however,
hardly Holocaust-denial.

Mocking the Holocaust or Criticizing Israel? 

Likewise, the claim that Ahmadinejad mocks the Holocaust is a deliberate
exaggeration, if not an outright twisting of the truth. The claim is a
reference to the Holocaust International Cartoon Contest, held at the
Palestinian Contemporary Art Museum in Tehran in August 2006. The purpose of
the contest was to expose Western hypocrisy for invoking freedom of
expression regarding the publication of anti-Islamic cartoons in the West,
while regarding Holocaust-revisionist statements as intolerable. The contest
was conceived soon after the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, ran
flagrantly racist cartoons mocking bearers of the Islamic faith. These
cartoons were defended by Western governments as a free speech issue. Yet at
the time champions of free speech were vigorously defending
Jyllands-Posten's right to mock Islam, British writer David Irving was being
sentenced to a jail term in Austria for a speech he had made years earlier
questioning the Holocaust, and the British parliament was debating a law
(since passed) that would deny freedom of speech to anyone who "glorifies
terrorism," that is, anyone who speaks favourably of the actions of militant
organizations the US, Britain and other Western countries call terrorists.
Iran's largest newspaper, Hamshari, cosponsor of the contest, explained:
"The serious question for Muslims is whether the West extends freedom of
expression to the crimes committed by the United States and Israel, or even
such as the Holocaust. Or is it freedom only for insulting religious
sanctities?" [15] Added Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "In
this freedom, casting doubt or negating the genocide of the Jews is banned,
but insulting the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims is allowed." [16] 

The cartoons displayed at the exhibit did not call the Holocaust into
question, present it as a myth, or mock its victims' suffering, but explored
the themes of Israeli brutality against the Palestinians, use of the
Holocaust to justify anti-Palestinian crimes, and parallels between Israel
and Nazi Germany. Among the drawings: A vampire wearing a Star of David
drinking the blood of Palestinians; Ariel Sharon in a Nazi uniform; three
army helmets together, two with swastikas and one with the Star of David; a
rabid dog with a Star of David on its side and the word Holocaust around its
collar; a dove prevented from flying because it is chained to a Star of
David; US president George Bush seated at a desk swatting doves; an Israeli
asleep with three Arab heads mounted to the wall above his bed; an Israeli
soldier pouring fuel into a tank from a gasoline can that reads Holocaust on
the side; a razor blade in the ground, representing the illegal
Israeli-built separation wall, bearing the word Holocaust; two firefighters,
each with Stars of David on their chests, using Palestinian blood to
extinguish flames issuing from the word Holocaust [17]. While the director
of the exhibit correctly pointed out to a New York Times reporter that the
drawings were anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish, the newspaper
nevertheless ran the story under the headline "Iran exhibits anti-Jewish
art." [18]

Incinerating Israel or Calling for the Reversal of Ethnic Cleansing?

Livni's claim that Ahmadinejad wants to incinerate Israel with nuclear
weapons, the spin put on his alleged "wipe Israel off the map" remark, is
equally baseless. According to Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the
University of Michigan, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel
off the map, because no such idiom exists in Persian. He did say he hoped
its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would
collapse." [19] Guardian newspaper columnist Jonathan Steele added: "The
Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist
leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem
must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had
vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to
the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future." [20] 

Ahmadinejad explained: 

"Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: We say that a nation
has been displaced from its own land, by those who are not original
inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have
occupied these homes. Our suggestion is that five million Palestinian
refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands
hold a referendum and choose their own system of government." [21] 

Were this to happen, Israel, as a Jewish state, would be metaphorically
wiped off the map, since a Jewish state would be rejected by Arab
Palestinians, who comprise the majority. 

Livni would have struck closer to the truth had she said Ahmadinejad denies
the legitimacy of the Holocaust as justification for driving Palestinians
from their homes, and speaks openly of wanting to see a Jewish state that
has spread itself across the better part of Palestine by ethnic cleansing
and war, succeeded by a single Palestinian state encompassing all of
historic Palestine whose form and nature is decided by the current and
pre-Palestinian-diaspora residents. While these beliefs are unquestionably
repugnant to Livni and other Zionists, they are not so repugnant to most
other people, who could hardly be roused to support a war on Iran to deal
with a man whose views seem more humane, democratic and respectful of the
rights of others than anti-Semitic, dangerous and (to use Bush's term)
Islamo-fascist. On the contrary, most people would probably side with
Ahmadinejad on the question of Palestine, not Livni. That being the case,
public discourse must be weighted with bamboozling distortions to tilt
public sentiment against the Iranian leadership as a precursor to another
war of conquest on an economically nationalist oil-rich state. 

Who Does an Economically Nationalist Iran Threaten?

This is not to say that Iran is not a threat, that an Iran with a civilian
nuclear energy industry would not be a larger threat, and that an Iran in
possession of nuclear weapons would not be a larger threat still. But the
question is: Who would Iran be a threat to? And what would the nature of
threat be? The answer to both questions can be found in the modern history
of Iran. 

In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of Mohammed Mossadegh,
nationalized Iran's oil industry, then dominated by the British-owned
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh's nationalist movement was determined
to bring Iran's oil resources under Iranian control, to be used for the
development of Iran, rather than to expand the capital of a financial
oligarchy resident in London. The US had other ideas. 

The Second World War had left Britain, France, Germany, Japan and
particularly the Soviet Union, greatly weakened. But while widely
devastating elsewhere, the war had been a good war for the US. Lend-lease
orders swept away the mass unemployment of the 30s and filled the coffers of
US businesses. 

After the war, US businesses pressed their government to scour the globe for
new investment opportunities. Iran represented just the kind of attractive
post-war outlet for surplus US capital businesses were looking for. The
problem was, Mossadegh and his nationalists stood in the way.

Springing to the aid of US corporations, Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of the
US president Theodore Roosevelt, and a senior CIA operative with the
agency's Middle East division, engineered a plot to have Mossadegh dismissed
from his post as prime minister and to bring back the self-exiled Shah
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who could be relied on to accommodate the
profit-making interests of US capital. The coup succeeded. With Mossadegh
out of the way, Iran's doors were opened to the investment opportunities US
capitalists were eager to lay hold of. 

In time, the Shah's rule became increasingly despotic and he was eventually
forced into exile, succeeded by revolutionaries led by the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Today, US oil companies have no presence in Iran. Major sectors of
the economy, including oil, telecommunications, transportation, as well as
banking and finance, are in state hands, as prescribed by the country's
constitution. 

When Hell Freezes Over

The idea the US simply wants concrete assurances Iran won't use its civilian
nuclear power program to develop nuclear warheads is a fraud. It wants to
set back the clock to the time it had a compliant ruler in Iran willing to
pave the way for US corporations to do business in Iran on profitable terms.
In the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, Washington "received a proposal from
Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States.including full cooperation
on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian
support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration
officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse,
belittled the initiative. Richard Haas, head of policy planning at the State
Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the
administration 'the bias was toward a policy of regime change.'" [22] 

The US has established new offices in the State Department and Pentagon to
organize the overthrow of the Iranian government from within. US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice asked the US Congress in February 2006 for $75
million to supplement $10 million already earmarked to finance the
activities of a fifth column of dissidents and to expand US government
propaganda broadcasts into the country [23]. The effect of openly financing
the activities of dissidents is to provoke a crackdown by Iranian
authorities, which can then be used as grist for the propaganda mill to
blacken the government's reputation further and to raise alarm about human
rights abuses. This adds another arrow in the quiver of reasons Iran must be
invaded. Perhaps most telling about Washington's indifference to Iran's
taking measures to satisfy concerns about proliferation is what a senior
Bush official refers to as the "when Hell freezes over clause." According to
this clause, even if Iran "has satisfied regulatory bodies that its nuclear
ambitions are peaceful" the US will allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own
soil only when Hell freezes over. [24] 

The Iranian leadership appears to be fully aware of US intentions and the
reasons behind them. In the view of former Interior Minister, Ali Muhammad
Besharati: "If we backed down on the nuclear issue, the US would have found
fault with our medical doctors researching stem cells. What they would like
to see us do is plant corn, make tomato paste and bottle mineral water. They
do not want to see us high-tech." Besharati's "thinking reflects the spirit
of [the Iranian] leadership" "who see this not just as a battle over nuclear
weapons but a fight for survival against a far more powerful enemy that has
lumped them into an 'axis of evil' and allocated millions of dollars to oust
the government." The leadership regards the fight as "Tehran's frontline
effort to block American influence in the region and to never again allow
Washington to have an upper hand in Iran." [25] 

The Threat of Potential Self-Defense

The threat a nuclear weapons-armed Iran presents - and this assumes the
construction of a nuclear arsenal in an independent Iran is even a valid
future possibility - is what Edward Herman has called the threat of
potential self-defense [26]; the threat that Iran's assets can't be
plundered easily on behalf of the US corporate rich because Tehran might
have the means to put up a fight. Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is,
it cannot be denied, a threat; but not to ordinary people. It is a threat to
the minority of owners and high-level executives in the US who look to Iran,
and particularly its oil, as a field for profit-making opportunities, and
who, moreover, are perfectly willing to throw young, working class kids,
into the service of securing it for them through the sacrifice of their
bodies and lives if necessary. But the prospects for success against a
nuclear-armed Iran are not what the prospects for success were in invading
an effectively disarmed Iraq, and that venture has proved to be a disaster
for the US capitalist class. 

In the past, it could have been said that US military interventions, even if
they didn't secure immediate benefits for US corporations, at least sent a
warning that communist, socialist and economically nationalist regimes that
seek to operate outside the imperialist system will pay a heavy price. In
this way, the absence of any immediate benefit would be more than outweighed
by the inhibitory effect the intervention would have on other countries. But
in the case of the war on Iraq, an entirely different message has been sent,
though not by design: if you don't have nuclear weapons, build them to deter
the US. 

Of course, a full scale invasion of Iran is not a possibility today, or even
in the near future. US forces are stretched too thin by the demands of the
Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. But what is possible is the use of bunker
busters, either conventional or nuclear, by the US or Israel or the two
working together, to destroy Iran's infant nuclear program. A strike on the
country's nuclear infrastructure would serve two goals: (i) it would delay
Iran's acquiring the capability of developing a deterrent nuclear threat and
so provide the US the breathing room it needs to recover from its Iraq and
Afghanistan operations and to marshal forces for a future invasion (this may
take quite some time); and (ii) it would set back the development of a
civilian nuclear power industry in Iran, thereby inhibiting the country's
economic development, assuring that when US forces have been sufficiently
built up and freed from other commitments that they do not have to face a
more formidable Iran, and - if economic warfare and support for dissidents
prove successful - a much weaker one. 

Conclusion

There is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program and no evidence it
intends to build one. The only reason it might build one is to develop a
deterrent against a possible invasion by the US, and while the possibility
of a US invasion is often dismissed as not in the cards, the listing of Iran
as an "axis of evil" country; existing US aggressions against Iran in the
form of economic warfare and the funding of a fifth column of dissidents
committed to bringing down the government; Washington's track record in
engineering the ouster of Mossadegh and backing the Shah; and invading a
neighbouring economically nationalist oil-rich country on contrived grounds,
all say that an invasion, is, indeed, a hand Washington might play at some
point. 

Even though there is no evidence Iran has nuclear weapons or has any plans
to develop them, a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an offensive threat to
the US and its allies, only a defensive threat to a small class of
financiers, high-level executives and corporate lawyers whose common
interests lead them to rally around the idea that Iranian oil should be
under US control and made available to the project of enlarging the capital
of US oil companies. 

While Iran supports Hezbollah, even as the US supports Israel, Hezbollah is
not controlled by Tehran. Even so, were Hassan Nasrallah nothing but an
executor of directives formulated in Tehran, this would make no difference.
Hezbollah legitimately represents the interests of the people of southern
Lebanon against Israeli aggression and in the face of their abandonment by
the US-backed Siniora government in Beirut. Iran's connection to Hezbollah
is not, therefore, an embarrassment to be denied. 

The president of Iran does not mock the Holocaust, but deplores its use by
Israel to justify Zionism, the creation of the Israeli state, and Israel's
continued ethnic cleansing, war-making and breaches of international law. 

Ahmadinejad does not promote genocide against the Jews. Instead, he opposes
Zionism, and the legitimacy of a Jewish national state based on the
expulsion of Palestinians from their land. His opposition to Zionism is, not
surprisingly, deeply offensive to Zionists, but he does not propose to carry
out a genocide against Jews living in Israel. His proposal, that Palestinian
refugees be allowed to return to their homes, and that a referendum be
organized among all residents of historic Palestine to decide how and in
what manner they should be governed, would surely lead to the end of a
Jewish national state, and its being succeeded by something altogether
different - but this hardly amounts to genocide. 

Even if it were true that Ahmadinejad was prepared to consider a nuclear
strike on Israel to wipe out the Jews living there, this would hardly make
sense, since the Palestinians, whose cause he has taken up, would be close
enough to the blast to suffer grievously. What's more, Iran hasn't the
nuclear weapons to achieve this aim, but if it did manage to develop a few
warheads, the deterrent of Israel's 200 to 400 nuclear weapons would surely
hold Iran's leadership in check. To threaten Israel, Iran would have to
develop a larger arsenal than Israel could develop, with Israel's head start
and $3 billion in annual aid from the US - an unlikely prospect. 

Iran poses no threat, either to the US or Israel, other than the threat of
potential self-defense. The claims that the country's leadership mocks the
Holocaust and seeks nuclear weapons to carry out a genocide against Jews is
pure nonsense, concocted, like the mythical stories of Saddam Hussein's
hidden weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda, to justify another
conquest of an economically nationalist oil-rich state.

1. Washington Post, July 4, 2005. 

2. Williams' argument appears to be a fall out of the practice of adopting a
theory as true without evidence, and then grasping at straws to support it,
something high-profile journalists are happy to do as their patriotic duty.
This was also the strategy that guided the Bush administration in the days
following September 11 in the search for a casus belli against Iraq.

3. Mazda Majidi, "Imperialists threaten Iran with war, sanctions over
nuclear energy," Socialism and Liberation, August 29, 2006,
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5560&news_iv_ctrl=1038

4. While Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers was framed in official
circles and by the mass media as a provocation worthy of war, little has
been said of the capture of Lebanese in Lebanon by Israeli forces during
Israel's decades-long occupation of the country. And yet these are the
conditions that gave rise to the Hezbollah raid to capture Israeli soldiers,
to offer in exchange for the release of Hezbollah militants. Nor has much
attention been paid to the repeated instances of Israeli forces that
remained in Lebanon after the UN-ordered cease-fire, capturing and detaining
Lebanese civilians, and in some cases transporting them to Israel. See The
New York Times, September 4, 2006; The Guardian, September 9, 2006.

5. Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2006.

6. New York Times, August 24, 2006.

7. Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2006.

8. Brian Williams' interview with Ahmadinejad, NBC, Sep 20, 2006.

9. Ibid.

10. "Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth," www.counterpunch.com, August 28,
2006. http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html

11. Brian Williams' interview.

12. New York Times, December 20, 2005.

13. Washington Post, December 9, 2005.

14. Ibid.

15. New York Times, February 8, 2006.

16. Ibid.

17. New York Times, August 25, 2006.

18. Ibid.

19. New York Times, June 11, 2006.

20. Ibid. 

21. Time, September 25, 2006.

22. Washington Post, June 18, 2006.

23. Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2006.

24. New York Times, September 12, 2006.

25. New York Times, August 28, 2006.

26. Edward Herman, "The U.S. and Israel: Axis of Aggression, Torture, Death,
& Devastation," Z Magazine, September, 2006.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sep2006/herman0906.html

To be notified of updates, send an e-mail to sr.gowans@sympatico.ca and
write subscribe in the subject line.

posted by Stephen Gowans at 6:06 PM    

=============
*****************************************************************
 2 US MAY ACCEPT IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB
 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:01:25 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2383147,00.html

SUNDAY TIMES (London) October 01, 2006

AMERICA is going to have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, US 
intelligence analysts have concluded at a secret meeting near Washington.

Senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community were 
almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop Iran 
acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb, The Sunday Times has learnt.

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the 
intelligence  needed  for successful air strikes was lacking. "We only 
have  an  imperfect  understanding  of  the extent and location of the 
Iranian  programme,"  said  one  source with knowledge of the meeting. 
"Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn't know how to."

The  White House's earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else 
failed  has  cooled  after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence 
analysts  that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At 
best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The 
"collateral damage" to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

"Unless  you  can  be 100% effective and set the programme back by two 
decades,  you'll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a 
result  that  is better than the current one," an intelligence analyst 
said.

General  John  Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has 
warned  that  striking  Iran  could  cripple  oil  supplies, unleash a 
"surrogate"  terrorist  army  and lead to missile attacks on America's 
regional  allies.  The  army  is  particularly  concerned about Iran's 
ability to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President 
George  W  Bush  that  there is no rush to use force as Iran's nuclear 
programme  is  beset with technical errors. "He has been saying, `Slow 
down,  it's  not an immediate problem'," said Patrick Clawson, an Iran 
expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on 
achieving  a  negotiated settlement with the help of the "EU3" nations of 
Britain, France and Germany.

"President  Bush  is  not  going  to  take military action against the 
advice  of  the  secretary  of  state, US generals and the director of 
national intelligence," Clawson said.

British  sources  confirmed  that  the  military  option was receding. 
"There  are  clear signs that the White House is keener on following a 
political approach," said a senior British source. "There's never been an 
appetite in the Pentagon for taking Iran on and the EU3 might get a deal 
that  would  bring  the  Iranians  to the negotiating table in a 
reasonable fashion."

Despite  reports  that  the  Iranians  were  willing  to suspend their 
programme   secretly,  President  Mahmoud  Ahmadinejad  has  defiantly 
announced that Iran's "atomic work" will not stop for a single day.

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week's meeting that there were no 
negotiating  carrots  or  sticks,  such  as  sanctions, capable of 
persuading  Iran  to  halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how -- which it 
maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

"The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would 
cheat," another source said.

"The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb 
unless  there's  some  miracle,  such  as  a  major  accident, a major 
defector  or an orange revolution," the source added, referring to the 
people's  protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of 
these scenarios is considered likely.

In a sign that a military option remains theoretically on the table, a 
group  of  minesweepers  that  could  be  used  to clear any potential 
Iranian  oil blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have been given "prepare to 
deploy"  orders, which could see them leaving port for the Gulf as early 
as today.

The biggest deterrent might come from the Israelis, not the Americans. 
Israeli  defence  sources are increasingly convinced that it will fall to 
them  to  stop  a  nuclear  Iran. In their view Iran should not be allowed 
to  get to the "point of no return" where it has the know-how to build a 
bomb.

"The  Israelis  are  going  to have to make a decision earlier than we 
do," Clawson said. "That's a real problem for us."
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] Iran: Targeting the Nuke Program? Or the Regime?
 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:08:43 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Rich Winkel (activ-l) - Oct 1, 2006

The Century Foundation via Info Clearing House - Sep 19, 2006
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/headlines.htm

The End of the "Summer of Diplomacy" 

by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

Targeting the Nuclear Program? Or the Regime?

Air-target planners orchestrate strikes on the basis of desired target
destruction criteria. In the case of an attack on Iran, after five
nights of bombing, we can be relatively certain of target destruction.
It is even possible to project the degree to which parts of the
Iranian nuclear program would be set back. For example, using Web
pictures of the Natanz enrichment facility, it is possible to see
three years worth of construction. An attack on that construction
might appear to set the program back three years. But it is hard to
judge. David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons inspector, observed
during our discussions that there is the program we see, but there is
also the program we do not see. Because of the gaps in U.S.
intelligence on Iran, and specifically on Iran's nuclear program,
American military leaders are growing increasingly uneasy about the
reliability and comprehensiveness of target selection.12 In other
words, after the five-night military attack we would not be able with
any degree of certainty to say how we had impacted the Iranian nuclear
program.

If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air
strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real U.S. policy
objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to
overthrow the regime. It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk
prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and
welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the
administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually
sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air
attacks.

In this case, the concept is not a ground force Thunder Run into
Tehran of the sort used in Baghdad. It is a decapitation-based
concept. Kill the leadership and enable the people of Iran to take
over their government. More reasonable leadership will emerge.

Under this concept, the air operation would take longer than the five
nights. The targets would be expanded. The Revolutionary Guard units
would be attacked since according to the argument they are the primary
force that keeps the current regime in power. There are other regime
protection units in Tehran. Most important, the U.S. operation would
move into targeted killing, seeking to eliminate the leadership of
Iran.

It sounds simple. Air planners always tell a good story. By the same
token, they almost always fall short of their promises, even in
strictly military terms. That was true in World War II. It was true in
Korea. It was true in Vietnam. It has just proved true with the
Israeli attacks on Hezbollah. No serious expert on Iran believes the
argument about enabling a regime change. On the contrary, whereas the
presumed goal is to weaken or disable the leadership and then replace
it with others who would improve relations between Iran and the United
States, it is far more likely that such strikes would strengthen the
clerical leadership and turn the United States into Iran's permanent
enemy.

Iran's Response

Having demonstrated that air strikes are unlikely either to eliminate
the nuclear program or to bring about the overthrow of the Islamic
regime in Iran, we must now turn to what, precisely, they would
achieve. It is important to remember that some of Iran's threats,
demonstrations of new weapons, and military exercises are designed to
have a deterrent effect. As such we should not deduce too much about
what Iran would do in the event of an attack on the basis of what it
might say and do in advance of an attack. A former CIA Middle East
Station Chief told me once that predicting the consequences of a
strategic event in the Middle East was as difficult as predicting how
an Alexander Calder mobile would come to rest after you flicked one of
its hanging pieces.

It is possible, however, to identify some high probability immediate
consequences.

The Iranians would likely look to target Israel as a response to a
U.S. strike, using Hezbollah as the primary vehicle for retaliation.
For Tehran, there is the added benefit that blaming Israel (even for a
U.S. strike) would play well at home, and probably throughout the
region.

Moqtada al-Sadr has said publicly that if the United States were to
attack Iran, he would target U.S. forces in Iraq.

Iran could channel more individuals and weapons into Iraq.
Specifically, Iran could upgrade technology among Shiite militias,
with weapons like the laser-guided anti-tank missiles Hezbollah had in
Lebanon. We might even see more direct operations like missile attacks
against U.S. forces.

Moqtada al-Sadr controls the large Facilities Protection Service
forces in Iraq. Some estimates put this force as large as 140,000.
Among other missions, they guard the oil pipelines. If Iran wants to
cut the flow of oil, Iraq is the best place to begin, and the means
are in place to take on the mission. The impact of severing Iraq's oil
supplies would be an immediate increase in its own oil revenue.

Iran is not going to wipe Israel from the map or force the United
States to leave Iraq with these operations. But in causing these
various complications, Iran can still achieve a degree of success. As
we recently witnessed in the clash between Hezbollah and Israel, Iran
can seem stronger just by virtue of making the United States and
Israel seem weaker.

Round Two

Once the nature of the Iranian retaliation becomes apparent, the
United States will not likely declare success and walk away from the
problem. Clearly, the pressure will be to expand the targets and
punish Iran even more. The government of Iran is fragile, the thinking
goes; it could even be on the verge of falling; it is time to "enable"
the Iranian people. The Iranians will react with their own horizontal
escalation. (See Table 2.)

Iran has been sending mixed signals about whether or not it would cut
its own oil production or attempt to restrict the flow of oil from the
Gulf. A strike of five nights might not push them to cut the flow of
oil. But continued operations probably would. Iran does have some
flexibility to do without oil revenues for a period because of
surpluses from currently high oil prices. In addition, it has plans
for rationing refined petroleum products that it must import.

Executing the oil option might not be limited to operations against
tankers moving in and out of the Gulf. Iran has the capability, and we
have seen some indications of the intent, to attack facilities of
other oil providers in the region.

It would be tougher for Iran and Hezbollah to attack UN forces in
Lebanon. If the UN forces were to become too aggressive in response to
Hezbollah attacks against Israel, they would most likely become
targets. In addition, at some point in the expanding conflict, Iran
might see a value to making the war about attempts at Western
domination of the region and not just about the United States and
Israel. In that case, a focused attack on something like the Italian
headquarters would resonate in the region.

It took a while for the nations of the region to react to the Israeli
attack into Lebanon. That most likely would be the case in the event
of a U.S. strike against Iran. As attacks continued and as the
television coverage intensified, however, we could see something
similar to the reactions to the Danish cartoons. We could see the
"Arab Street" asserting itself.

Syria and Iran signed a defense agreement on June 15. Under this
agreement Syrian forces would be brought into a fight if Iran were
attacked. Syrian President Bashar Assad might be a reluctant
participant, but as the conflict expands, he might not have a choice.

The Iranians could conduct targeted killing outside the region. They
have used this tactic in the past: in 1991, Shapour Bakhtiar, the
Shah's last prime minister, was decapitated in his apartment in Paris.

Continued air strikes and demonstrations could have a compounding
effect. Weak governments in the Muslim world could be threatened. The
governments of Pakistan, Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are
vulnerable.

                  Table 2. Consequences of an Attack

                                               Type of Operation
                                          Short Strike    Regime Change

Hezbollah attacks on Israel              High probability High probability
Attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq           High probability High probability
Sabotage pipelines in Iraq               High probability High probability
Street demonstrations on a wide scale            Possible High probability
Hezbollah attacks outside the region             Possible High probability
Iran stopping its own oil exports                Possible High probability
Iran blocking Gulf oil flow              High probability High probability
Iran attacking other regional oil facilities     Possible Possible
Iran suicide attacks                           Not likely Possible
Syria involved                                 Not likely Possible
Threats to regional governments                Not likely Possible

As an obvious consequence of the instability resulting from a U.S.
strike, the price of oil almost certainly will spike. The impact will
depend on how high and how long. The longer the conflict goes, the
higher the price. A former Kuwaiti oil minister privately suggested a
plateau of $125 per barrel. Confidential analysis by a major European
bank suggests it would level off at $130, and a very conservative
estimate would be over $200.

With prices surging to this level, third order consequences become
apparent. The most obvious would be a global, synchronized recession,
intensified by the existing U.S. trade and fiscal imbalances. Another
political consequence would be that oil exporting countries outside
the region would enjoy significant surges in revenue from higher
prices. As a result, countries such as Venezuela and Russia would
enjoy expanded influence while the West would be reeling from
recession.

I should note that in the preceding discussion of the cycle of action
and reaction, I have not mentioned large U.S. ground unit formations.
That is because I do not believe we will come to a point where that
option will make sense to policymakers. This is the one lesson the
administration seems to have learned from Iraq--occupation does not
work. And that realization brings us back to why the air strike option
has been so attractive to the administration from the beginning.

[Excerpted from The End of the "Summer of Diplomacy": Assessing U.S.
Military Options on Iran, a new report for The Century Foundation by
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. See original for links to full
report, press release.]

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 [NYTr] Iran: Nuclear "Crisis" - Sorting Fact from Fiction
 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:13:47 -0400 (EDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
What's Left - Oct 1, 2006
http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/10/iranian-nuclear-crisis-sorting-fact.html


The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Sorting Fact from Fiction

by Stephen Gowans

Iran is being portrayed by the US, other Western governments, Israel and
their mass media, as a threat to international peace and security. The
leadership of Iran, particularly the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is
said to be filled with an irrational, violent Hitler-like loathing of Jews,
expressed in Holocaust denial, mocking the suffering of its victims, and
the pursuit of nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. These portrayals
are based on exaggeration, innuendo, and, in some cases, the deliberate
twisting of the truth. The objective is to secure public consent for
another war of conquest on an economically nationalist, oil-rich country.
Iran's leadership is not a threat to international peace and security, does
not mock the Holocaust, and is not pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel
off the map. It's true that Iran's developing an independent nuclear power
industry would furnish the country with the potential to develop nuclear
weapons, but this amounts to nothing more than a defensive threat to a
small class of financiers, high-level executives and corporate lawyers
whose common interests lead them to rally around the idea that Iranian oil
should be under US control and made available to the project of enlarging
the capital of US oil companies.

Background

The United Nations Security Council (SC) passed a resolution on July 31,
2006 ordering Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium by the end of August.
Tehran declined, continuing to enrich uranium, despite the threat of
sanctions. The SC also directed all countries to block shipments to Iran of
any materials that could be used to enrich uranium or develop ballistic
missiles. This latter directive strengthened sanctions the United States
already had in place on companies supplying potential nuclear program or
missile-related goods to Iran, and buttressed existing US efforts to
isolate Iran financially by blocking its access to the US banking system
(much as Washington had done to north Korea.) Iran correctly pointed out
that inasmuch as its nuclear program operates within the limits of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the SC acted beyond its authority.
Iran's activities are legal and are not unique. How, then, is SC action
warranted?

Significantly, the resolution was issued concurrent with Israel's summer
2006 invasion of Lebanon, a conspicuous affront to the international peace
and security the SC is authorized to protect. Of the two events - Iran's
lawful enrichment of uranium under the supervision of UN inspectors, and
Israel's military assault across international borders - the latter clearly
fell within the SC's jurisdiction and the former not at all. Nevertheless,
for 38 days the SC failed to stay Israel's hand. By the time it acted, over
1,000 Lebanese civilians were dead, over 4,000 were wounded, one-quarter of
Lebanon's population was displaced, and 1,500 homes were destroyed.
Since compliance with an international treaty does not constitute a breach
of international peace and security, the SC's resolution must at least
implicitly refer to Iran's activities as being uniquely menacing, despite
their lawful character. From the perspective of the US government, the
menace is revealed in indirect clues that Iran's nuclear activities have a
military content, notwithstanding the finding of the IAEA, the body that
monitors compliance with the NPT, that there is no concrete evidence that
Iran's nuclear program is military in nature.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld might say. In this view, concrete evidence is too demanding
a standard for a post-9/11 world. If we wait for the evidence of a mushroom
cloud rising above New York City, it's too late. But by the same reasoning,
the US would be well-advised to launch a surprise nuclear strike on the UK.
The UK has a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal to wreak massive
devastation on the US, on a scale Iran and north Korea together, with al
Qaeda's assistance, couldn't remotely approach. True, there's not a speck
of evidence the UK plans to attack the US, but, to follow Rumsfeld's
reasoning, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do we wait until
mushroom clouds rise above a dozen US cities?

I wish to address two elements of the US argument about why Iran is a
threat. First, the question of what evidence exists, even if not concrete,
that Iran intends to turn its enrichment activities to military use. And
second, the nature of the threat Iran would pose if its nuclear activities
were carried forward to the establishment of a nuclear weapons capability.

The Evidence

Washington says there are two reasons to believe Iran is planning to
secretly build a nuclear arsenal. The first, advanced by US Vice-President
Dick Cheney, is that Iran has no need of nuclear power to supply its energy
needs. It is an oil-rich country that can easily rely on its petroleum
resources to generate electricity. Therefore, Iran's pursuit of civilian
nuclear power must be a cover for a military program.

To be sure, Iran is rich in oil, but all the same, imports gasoline. Having
oil in the ground and the capability to refine it are separate matters.
Iran has the raw materials (so long as they last), but not the means, in
sufficient quantities, to convert oil into the usable form it needs to meet
all its energy requirements. Its refineries produce 10.5 million gallons
per day, but the country uses 17 million gallons. The balance is imported.
[1]

Given that Iran's oil reserves are finite, it makes sense for Iran to
develop an independent civilian nuclear energy industry as a successor
energy source. Iran has rich stores of uranium and therefore the potential
to become self-sufficient in nuclear energy. The US-backed dictator Shah
Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's former ruler, recognized this as a prudent
strategy. Under the Shah, a consortium of US corporations was slated to
develop a giant nuclear industry, with Washington's blessing. At the time,
the American nuclear energy industry ran ads in the US touting the program
to pressure American legislators to follow the Shah's lead. Photos of a
regal Shah, resplendent in full ceremonial dress, appeared under the
headline, "Guess who's building nuclear power plants?" The text explained,
"The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one of the largest reservoirs of oil
in the world. Yet he's building two nuclear plants and planning two more to
provide electricity for his country. He knows the oil is running out - and
time with it."

The plans for US-built nuclear power plants in Iran were toppled in 1979,
when the Shah was forced into exile by Ayatollah Khomeini and his
revolutionaries. Washington imposed sanctions, and later Iran turned to
Russia to build a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Hence, as early as the
70s, Washington recognized a cogent economic case was to be made for
nuclear power in Iran.

NBC news anchor Brian Williams suggested another argument for why Iran's
pursuit of nuclear power must be motivated by military goals. [2] "Why keep
[missiles] in your arsenal if you don't someday hope to tip them with a
nuclear weapon?" Williams asked Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a
September 20, 2006 interview. The problem with this view is that it's based
on the logical error of concluding that if A implies B then B must imply A.
To see how Williams' reasoning goes awry, consider this: Lesbians are women
(nuclear warheads sit atop missiles) therefore all women are Lesbians
(therefore all missiles are intended to carry nuclear warheads.)

Washington says Iran's failure to report previous nuclear activities to the
IAEA is another reason to be suspicious. However, the monitoring agency
found no evidence Iran's previously undisclosed activities were related to
a nuclear weapons program [3]. Iran may have had a compelling case for
covering up its nuclear activities, fearing the US would move to block a
nuclear power industry as a means of checking the country's economic
development, a point I elaborate on below.

Ever since being called out, Tehran has fully cooperated with the IAEA,
even going so far as to accept, until recently, a more stringent inspection
protocol than other treaty signatories submit to, including the US. The
monitoring body says there's no evidence Iran's current enrichment
activities are weapons-related.

The Threat

By the reckoning of the US administration, there are two reasons to believe
an Iran possessed of rudimentary nuclear weapons would be a serious danger.
The first, revealed in statements that Iran has developed its rocket
technology to allow it to strike Israel and parts of Europe, is that Tehran
plans to launch a nuclear attack. Since this would be suicidal, it can be
dismissed fairly readily as preposterous, insofar as one assume Iran's
leadership is rational. (More on the idea it's not rational, in a moment.)
Iran could be crushed by the conventional forces of either Israel, Britain
or France alone, to say nothing of being wiped off the map should either
country choose to call upon its own nuclear arsenal to deliver a
retaliatory blow. Israel's cache of nuclear weapons, believed to total at
least 200 warheads (some say 400), is considerably larger than anything
Iran could produce for years and years, and France's and Britain's nuclear
forces are much larger still.

The second view is that Iran may not launch a strike itself, preferring
instead to use a proxy, such as Hezbollah, to attack Israel, or to use some
other non-state organization to create a nuclear 9/11 in a major American
city. This view is reminiscent of the spurious claim made by Washington
that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, an oft-repeated lie that even Bush has
recently distanced himself from. The claim, of course, has a conspicuous
value in justifying the US-British invasion of Iraq. Many Americans were
willing to back any measure to punish al Qaeda and its supporters for 9/11,
and the simple expedient of suggesting there was a link between Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein was sufficient to build public support for the
conquest of Iraq as a supposed blow to al Qaeda.

More recently, Washington portrayed Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers
as an action undertaken at the behest of Iran rather than as an independent
act Hezbollah had undertaken to press for the release of Lebanese captured
by Israel [4]. The aim was the same: to press the case for war against Iran
by drawing links between Iran and "terrorists." While Hezbollah originated
in Iran, and likely receives material support from the country, the US
State Department notes that "it also can and does act independently." [5]

This resonates with the view of the top US commander in the Middle East,
General John Abizaid, who believes the capture of Israeli soldiers
"probably...took place at a fairly low level from standing orders within
Hezbollah." General Wayne Downing, a former counter-terrorism adviser to
the White House, echoed Abizaid's view. "Is Iran pulling the strings? The
guys I'm talking to say `no'." [6] Even so, the Bush administration claimed
that Iran used its links to Hezbollah to fight a proxy war with Israel. But
Hezbollah had two reasons for engaging Israel that had nothing to do with
Iran: First, to acquire a bargaining chip to sue for the release of its
militants; second, to repel the Israeli invasion. Since the motives for
Hezbollah's behaviour in this instance are clear, there is no need to
invoke an external agency (Iran) to explain the organization's actions.

Iran, then, would not be a threat in the sense of posing an immediate
danger of a nuclear strike, or of arming sub-state groups with nuclear
weapons to be used in non-conventional ways against the US, Israel or other
US allies. Moreover, the very fact that a state possesses nuclear weapons
does not by itself make it an offensive threat, in the same way having
missiles does not necessarily mean they'll be tipped with nuclear warheads,
or being a woman necessarily means one's a Lesbian. Otherwise, Israel,
India and Pakistan, nuclear-weapons states, would be looming offensive
threats to the US, and France, Britain, Russia and China, which possess
substantial nuclear arsenals, would be even more so. This is not to say
that any of these countries might not, at some point, pose an offensive
nuclear threat to the US, but few Americans are lying awake at night
worrying about a nuclear strike by France. Why then does the idea resonate
that an Iran in possession of a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability is
an offensive threat to the US and its allies?

To pose a nuclear offensive threat, a country must not only have a nuclear
strike capability, it must also have some reason for using it in an
aggressive manner. But there are no solid, concrete, reasons offered for
why Iran would want to launch an offensive nuclear attack on the US, Europe
or Israel.

The Madman Theory

In the propaganda business, the rule of thumb, when all else fails, is to
trot out the madman theory - the idea that official enemies will behave in
recklessly bold ways because the leadership is irrational. The madman
theory resonates for two reasons. It's a sub-species of the great man
theory, the idea that history can be reduced to the genius or madness of a
few great men. And it's idealist - it attributes the behaviour of nations,
not only to great (or wicked) men, but to their psychology and ideas. Both
modes of thought are widely accepted and used by people in their everyday
lives to make sense of the world.

According to the madman theory, Ahmadinejad is mad, while the leaders of
France, Britain, India and so on, are not. That's why we should be afraid
of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, but reassured no harm will
come from France, Britain, India and other US allies, even though these
countries are able to destroy on an immense scale. Kim Jong Il, leader of
the DPRK, a country that may or may not have nuclear weapons, is also
portrayed as irrational. This makes north Korea appear to pose a credible
offensive threat to Japan and the US, when, in fact, it has, at best, a
rudimentary nuclear weapons capability and no ability to reliably deliver a
warhead over long distances.

Ahmadinejad's madness is presented as an irrational, violent,
anti-Semitism. He is, we're to believe, driven by a hatred of Jews, which,
focussed into an intense antipathy toward Israel, resolves itself into a
program of seeking to "wipe Israel off the map" by means of a nuclear
strike. An Ahmadinejad in command of a nuclear arsenal would be a clear
danger, a madman with plans of genocide - or so the argument goes.

Causal Attributions

The attribution of the behaviour of nations to the psychology of their
leaders is pervasive. Not only is it encouraged by government officials and
news media as a way of backing claims that certain foreign governments must
be brought down by war, it's currency on the political left is just as
strong. Not too long ago I overheard three Canadian women discussing world
politics, each expressing dismay at Washington's recurrent pattern of war
making, and of Canada's jumping headlong into the service of the US
conquest of Afghanistan by committing occupation troops to the Afghan
theatre. It was clear they rejected official explanations of why the US and
its subordinate Britain had waged war in recent years, on Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and Iraq, and of their own government for why it had sent
troops to Afghanistan. But they had found no alternative explanation. In
the end, they appealed to psychology, settling on "a culture of war" as the
explanation for Washington's imperialist foreign policy. It was clear,
however, that they were unhappy with the explanation.

Their unhappiness was justified. The idea that governments wage aggressive
wars because they're in the grips of a culture of war is problematic. The
explanation is circular. How do we know a government's leaders are in the
grips of a culture of war? Because they wage aggressive wars. Why do they
wage aggressive wars? Because they're in the grips of a culture of war. The
explanation goes round and round, never leaving its tightly enclosed,
self-contained system of internally-consistent logic. If it leaves a
feeling of dissatisfaction, it should.

The second problem is that even if we assume there's something called a
culture of war, where did it come from and how did it grow? It didn't just
materialize, springing fully formed from a vacuum. There must be some
reason it exists. For example, if we confine our attention to the US,
perhaps the country's politically powerful defense industry profits from
war, and has used its influence to make the case for a succession of
aggressive wars. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State in the Reagan
administration, lobbied strenuously for an invasion of Iraq. He's connected
to Bechtel, the giant engineering firm that stood to benefit from
reconstruction contracts awarded to repair the infrastructure US and
British bombs destroyed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe Shultz, and people
like him, who can profit from war, have worked hard to create a culture of
war to serve their own narrow interests. And what of US oil corporations?
Would it be going too far to suggest they have an interest in being able to
exploit Iraq's, Iran's and Sudan's oil on terms favourable to the interests
of their shareholders, and further, that they might use their enormous
political leverage to tilt public policy toward a program of regime-change
in economically nationalist oil-rich countries?

Explanations of this sort go a whole lot further than attributions of war
to either the psychology of the public (the culture of war) or the
psychology of leaders (he's mad, he hates Jews, he hates our freedoms, he
has a drive for war.) For one thing, appeals to psychology either go round
and round in circles and end up back where they started, or are deliberate
obfuscations, whose purpose is to build weak or absent threats, into big
threats. So, for example, in the face of the obvious difficulty of
explaining how a nuclear warhead-possessing Iran would constitute a grave
and immediate danger, given that the doctrine of mutually assured
destruction creates a formidable deterrent to Tehran launching a first
strike, the madman theory sets all doubts to rest. Sure, MAD works to deter
the use of nuclear weapons as a rational choice, but Ahmadinejad is not
rational. Time magazine summed this up by titling a September 25, 2006
article on the Iranian president, "A Date with A Dangerous Mind." The
Economist, for its part, once showed Kim Jong Il on its cover, a mushroom
cloud ominously rising behind him -- presumably a warning about what would
happen were the insane Korean allowed to linger too long as leader of the
"hermit kingdom."

Does Ahmadinejad have a dangerous mind? Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign
minister, thinks so. She does a good job of portraying Ahmadinejad and
other Iranian leaders as anti-Jewish hate mongers who are working
feverishly to build a nuclear bomb to incinerate Israel. "There is no
greater challenge to our values," she warns, "than that posed by the
leaders of Iran. They deny and mock the Holocaust. They speak proudly and
openly of their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And now, by their
actions, they pursue weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the
region and to threaten the world." [7]

Denying the Holocaust or Exposing its Exploitation?

In some respects there is considerable ambiguity about what Ahmadinejad's
views of the Holocaust are; in other respects, there is none. What's clear
is that Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust is exploited by Israel to
justify invading its neighbors and delivering injustice upon injustice to
the Palestinians.

"The Palestinian people, their lives are being destroyed today under the
pretext of the Holocaust. Their lands have been occupied, usurped. What is
their fault? What are they to be blamed for? Are they not human beings? Do
they have no rights? What role did they play in the Holocaust?" [8]
This is hardly a minority view in the Middle East, and it is not a view
without foundation. The Holocaust does not justify Zionism, the creation of
the Israeli state, the denial of Palestinian rights or the annexation by
Israel of foreign territory. In Ahmadinejad's view, the elevation of the
Holocaust to the status of sacred cow rings hollow, and points to ulterior
political motives. "In the Second World War, over 60 million people lost
their lives," he told NBC news anchor Brian Williams [9]. "They were all
human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed
have become so prominent and important?" Could the Holocaust have been
raised to prominence for a political purpose, he seems to ask? Virginia
Tilley points out that, "Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has
started to take hold in the Middle East, not because people hate Jews, but
because the narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to
`defend itself' by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East
publics are so used to the canards legitimizing colonial or imperial
takeovers that some wonder [whether the Holocaust] is just another myth."
[10]

Does Ahmadinejad wonder whether the Holocaust as just another myth?
Perhaps. But at times it seems he adopts a deliberate agnosticism about the
Nazis' attempts to exterminate European Jewry, to provoke a reaction, as if
to say, "It's your sacred cow, not mine, and I will not be manipulated by
it." Nowhere have I seen Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust outright, which
isn't to say he hasn't, only that I haven't seen it. Even so, interviewers
put questions to him as if there's no ambiguity about his views. "You
called the Holocaust a myth," Brian Williams told him [11]. Ahmadinejad's
invariable response to the charge he denies the Holocaust is to refer to
the illegitimacy of using the event as a justification for creating a
Jewish state in Palestine on the basis of the mass expulsion of Arabs and
of maintaining Israel by uniquely denying Palestinians the right of return.
Musayeb Naimi, editor of Al Wefaq, sums up Ahmadinejad's position this way:
"Either [the Holocaust] took place or it didn't. If it didn't take place,
then it is a fabrication. If it did, it wasn't the Arabs who did it; it was
the Europeans. Why then should the Palestinians pay the price of what the
Europeans did against the Jews?" [12]

In many of his statements Ahmadinejad accepts the Holocaust as a reality.
For example, in December, 2005 he asked, "Is the killing of innocent Jewish
people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans') support to the
occupiers of Jerusalem?" [13] Here he accepts the attempted extermination
of European Jewry as a fact. He goes on to argue, "If the Europeans are
honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in
Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists, and the Zionists can
establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will
support it." [14] This is a provocative statement, but it makes a point. It
is, however, hardly Holocaust-denial.

Mocking the Holocaust or Criticizing Israel?

Likewise, the claim that Ahmadinejad mocks the Holocaust is a deliberate
exaggeration, if not an outright twisting of the truth. The claim is a
reference to the Holocaust International Cartoon Contest, held at the
Palestinian Contemporary Art Museum in Tehran in August 2006. The purpose
of the contest was to expose Western hypocrisy for invoking freedom of
expression regarding the publication of anti-Islamic cartoons in the West,
while regarding Holocaust-revisionist statements as intolerable. The
contest was conceived soon after the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, ran
flagrantly racist cartoons mocking bearers of the Islamic faith. These
cartoons were defended by Western governments as a free speech issue. Yet
at the time champions of free speech were vigorously defending
Jyllands-Posten's right to mock Islam, British writer David Irving was
being sentenced to a jail term in Austria for a speech he had made years
earlier questioning the Holocaust, and the British parliament was debating
a law (since passed) that would deny freedom of speech to anyone who
"glorifies terrorism," that is, anyone who speaks favourably of the actions
of militant organizations the US, Britain and other Western countries call
terrorists. Iran's largest newspaper, Hamshari, cosponsor of the contest,
explained: "The serious question for Muslims is whether the West extends
freedom of expression to the crimes committed by the United States and
Israel, or even such as the Holocaust. Or is it freedom only for insulting
religious sanctities?" [15] Added Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, "In this freedom, casting doubt or negating the genocide of the
Jews is banned, but insulting the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims is
allowed." [16]

The cartoons displayed at the exhibit did not call the Holocaust into
question, present it as a myth, or mock its victims' suffering, but
explored the themes of Israeli brutality against the Palestinians, use of
the Holocaust to justify anti-Palestinian crimes, and parallels between
Israel and Nazi Germany. Among the drawings: A vampire wearing a Star of
David drinking the blood of Palestinians; Ariel Sharon in a Nazi uniform;
three army helmets together, two with swastikas and one with the Star of
David; a rabid dog with a Star of David on its side and the word Holocaust
around its collar; a dove prevented from flying because it is chained to a
Star of David; US president George Bush seated at a desk swatting doves; an
Israeli asleep with three Arab heads mounted to the wall above his bed; an
Israeli soldier pouring fuel into a tank from a gasoline can that reads
Holocaust on the side; a razor blade in the ground, representing the
illegal Israeli-built separation wall, bearing the word Holocaust; two
firefighters, each with Stars of David on their chests, using Palestinian
blood to extinguish flames issuing from the word Holocaust [17]. While the
director of the exhibit correctly pointed out to a New York Times reporter
that the drawings were anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish, the
newspaper nevertheless ran the story under the headline "Iran exhibits
anti-Jewish art." [18]

Incinerating Israel or Calling for the Reversal of Ethnic Cleansing?

Livni's claim that Ahmadinejad wants to incinerate Israel with nuclear
weapons, the spin put on his alleged "wipe Israel off the map" remark, is
equally baseless. According to Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the
University of Michigan, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe
Israel off the map, because no such idiom exists in Persian. He did say he
hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would
collapse." [19] Guardian newspaper columnist Jonathan Steele added: "The
Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist
leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem
must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had
vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to
the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future." [20]
Ahmadinejad explained:

"Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: We say that a
nation has been displaced from its own land, by those who are not original
inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have
occupied these homes. Our suggestion is that five million Palestinian
refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those
lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government." [21]
Were this to happen, Israel, as a Jewish state, would be metaphorically
wiped off the map, since a Jewish state would be rejected by Arab
Palestinians, who comprise the majority.

Livni would have struck closer to the truth had she said Ahmadinejad denies
the legitimacy of the Holocaust as justification for driving Palestinians
from their homes, and speaks openly of wanting to see a Jewish state that
has spread itself across the better part of Palestine by ethnic cleansing
and war, succeeded by a single Palestinian state encompassing all of
historic Palestine whose form and nature is decided by the current and
pre-Palestinian-diaspora residents. While these beliefs are unquestionably
repugnant to Livni and other Zionists, they are not so repugnant to most
other people, who could hardly be roused to support a war on Iran to deal
with a man whose views seem more humane, democratic and respectful of the
rights of others than anti-Semitic, dangerous and (to use Bush's term)
Islamo-fascist. On the contrary, most people would probably side with
Ahmadinejad on the question of Palestine, not Livni. That being the case,
public discourse must be weighted with bamboozling distortions to tilt
public sentiment against the Iranian leadership as a precursor to another
war of conquest on an economically nationalist oil-rich state.

Who Does an Economically Nationalist Iran Threaten?

This is not to say that Iran is not a threat, that an Iran with a civilian
nuclear energy industry would not be a larger threat, and that an Iran in
possession of nuclear weapons would not be a larger threat still. But the
question is: Who would Iran be a threat to? And what would the nature of
threat be? The answer to both questions can be found in the modern history
of Iran.

In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of Mohammed
Mossadegh, nationalized Iran's oil industry, then dominated by the
British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh's nationalist movement
was determined to bring Iran's oil resources under Iranian control, to be
used for the development of Iran, rather than to expand the capital of a
financial oligarchy resident in London. The US had other ideas.

The Second World War had left Britain, France, Germany, Japan and
particularly the Soviet Union, greatly weakened. But while widely
devastating elsewhere, the war had been a good war for the US. Lend-lease
orders swept away the mass unemployment of the 30s and filled the coffers
of US businesses.

After the war, US businesses pressed their government to scour the globe
for new investment opportunities. Iran represented just the kind of
attractive post-war outlet for surplus US capital businesses were looking
for. The problem was, Mossadegh and his nationalists stood in the way.
Springing to the aid of US corporations, Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of the
US president Theodore Roosevelt, and a senior CIA operative with the
agency's Middle East division, engineered a plot to have Mossadegh
dismissed from his post as prime minister and to bring back the self-exiled
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who could be relied on to accommodate the
profit-making interests of US capital. The coup succeeded. With Mossadegh
out of the way, Iran's doors were opened to the investment opportunities US
capitalists were eager to lay hold of.

In time, the Shah's rule became increasingly despotic and he was eventually
forced into exile, succeeded by revolutionaries led by the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Today, US oil companies have no presence in Iran. Major sectors
of the economy, including oil, telecommunications, transportation, as well
as banking and finance, are in state hands, as prescribed by the country's
constitution.

When Hell Freezes Over

The idea the US simply wants concrete assurances Iran won't use its
civilian nuclear power program to develop nuclear warheads is a fraud. It
wants to set back the clock to the time it had a compliant ruler in Iran
willing to pave the way for US corporations to do business in Iran on
profitable terms. In the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, Washington
"received a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United
States...including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of
Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant
groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian
government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Richard
Haas, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now
president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach
was swiftly rejected because in the administration `the bias was toward a
policy of regime change.'" [22]

The US has established new offices in the State Department and Pentagon to
organize the overthrow of the Iranian government from within. US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice asked the US Congress in February 2006 for $75
million to supplement $10 million already earmarked to finance the
activities of a fifth column of dissidents and to expand US government
propaganda broadcasts into the country [23]. The effect of openly financing
the activities of dissidents is to provoke a crackdown by Iranian
authorities, which can then be used as grist for the propaganda mill to
blacken the government's reputation further and to raise alarm about human
rights abuses. This adds another arrow in the quiver of reasons Iran must
be invaded. Perhaps most telling about Washington's indifference to Iran's
taking measures to satisfy concerns about proliferation is what a senior
Bush official refers to as the "when Hell freezes over clause." According
to this clause, even if Iran "has satisfied regulatory bodies that its
nuclear ambitions are peaceful" the US will allow Iran to enrich uranium on
its own soil only when Hell freezes over. [24]

The Iranian leadership appears to be fully aware of US intentions and the
reasons behind them. In the view of former Interior Minister, Ali Muhammad
Besharati: "If we backed down on the nuclear issue, the US would have found
fault with our medical doctors researching stem cells. What they would like
to see us do is plant corn, make tomato paste and bottle mineral water.
They do not want to see us high-tech." Besharati's "thinking reflects the
spirit of [the Iranian] leadership" "who see this not just as a battle over
nuclear weapons but a fight for survival against a far more powerful enemy
that has lumped them into an `axis of evil' and allocated millions of
dollars to oust the government." The leadership regards the fight as
"Tehran's frontline effort to block American influence in the region and to
never again allow Washington to have an upper hand in Iran." [25]

The Threat of Potential Self-Defense

The threat a nuclear weapons-armed Iran presents - and this assumes the
construction of a nuclear arsenal in an independent Iran is even a valid
future possibility - is what Edward Herman has called the threat of
potential self-defense [26]; the threat that Iran's assets can't be
plundered easily on behalf of the US corporate rich because Tehran might
have the means to put up a fight. Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is,
it cannot be denied, a threat; but not to ordinary people. It is a threat
to the minority of owners and high-level executives in the US who look to
Iran, and particularly its oil, as a field for profit-making opportunities,
and who, moreover, are perfectly willing to throw young, working class
kids, into the service of securing it for them through the sacrifice of
their bodies and lives if necessary. But the prospects for success against
a nuclear-armed Iran are not what the prospects for success were in
invading an effectively disarmed Iraq, and that venture has proved to be a
disaster for the US capitalist class.

In the past, it could have been said that US military interventions, even
if they didn't secure immediate benefits for US corporations, at least sent
a warning that communist, socialist and economically nationalist regimes
that seek to operate outside the imperialist system will pay a heavy price.
In this way, the absence of any immediate benefit would be more than
outweighed by the inhibitory effect the intervention would have on other
countries. But in the case of the war on Iraq, an entirely different
message has been sent, though not by design: if you don't have nuclear
weapons, build them to deter the US.

Of course, a full scale invasion of Iran is not a possibility today, or
even in the near future. US forces are stretched too thin by the demands of
the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. But what is possible is the use of
bunker busters, either conventional or nuclear, by the US or Israel or the
two working together, to destroy Iran's infant nuclear program. A strike on
the country's nuclear infrastructure would serve two goals: (i) it would
delay Iran's acquiring the capability of developing a deterrent nuclear
threat and so provide the US the breathing room it needs to recover from
its Iraq and Afghanistan operations and to marshal forces for a future
invasion (this may take quite some time); and (ii) it would set back the
development of a civilian nuclear power industry in Iran, thereby
inhibiting the country's economic development, assuring that when US forces
have been sufficiently built up and freed from other commitments that they
do not have to face a more formidable Iran, and - if economic warfare and
support for dissidents prove successful - a much weaker one.

Conclusion

There is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program and no evidence it
intends to build one. The only reason it might build one is to develop a
deterrent against a possible invasion by the US, and while the possibility
of a US invasion is often dismissed as not in the cards, the listing of
Iran as an "axis of evil" country; existing US aggressions against Iran in
the form of economic warfare and the funding of a fifth column of
dissidents committed to bringing down the government; Washington's track
record in engineering the ouster of Mossadegh and backing the Shah; and
invading a neighbouring economically nationalist oil-rich country on
contrived grounds, all say that an invasion, is, indeed, a hand Washington
might play at some point.

Even though there is no evidence Iran has nuclear weapons or has any plans
to develop them, a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an offensive threat to
the US and its allies, only a defensive threat to a small class of
financiers, high-level executives and corporate lawyers whose common
interests lead them to rally around the idea that Iranian oil should be
under US control and made available to the project of enlarging the capital
of US oil companies.

While Iran supports Hezbollah, even as the US supports Israel, Hezbollah is
not controlled by Tehran. Even so, were Hassan Nasrallah nothing but an
executor of directives formulated in Tehran, this would make no difference.
Hezbollah legitimately represents the interests of the people of southern
Lebanon against Israeli aggression and in the face of their abandonment by
the US-backed Siniora government in Beirut. Iran's connection to Hezbollah
is not, therefore, an embarrassment to be denied.

The president of Iran does not mock the Holocaust, but deplores its use by
Israel to justify Zionism, the creation of the Israeli state, and Israel's
continued ethnic cleansing, war-making and breaches of international law.
Ahmadinejad does not promote genocide against the Jews. Instead, he opposes
Zionism, and the legitimacy of a Jewish national state based on the
expulsion of Palestinians from their land. His opposition to Zionism is,
not surprisingly, deeply offensive to Zionists, but he does not propose to
carry out a genocide against Jews living in Israel. His proposal, that
Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes, and that a
referendum be organized among all residents of historic Palestine to decide
how and in what manner they should be governed, would surely lead to the
end of a Jewish national state, and its being succeeded by something
altogether different - but this hardly amounts to genocide.

Even if it were true that Ahmadinejad was prepared to consider a nuclear
strike on Israel to wipe out the Jews living there, this would hardly make
sense, since the Palestinians, whose cause he has taken up, would be close
enough to the blast to suffer grievously. What's more, Iran hasn't the
nuclear weapons to achieve this aim, but if it did manage to develop a few
warheads, the deterrent of Israel's 200 to 400 nuclear weapons would surely
hold Iran's leadership in check. To threaten Israel, Iran would have to
develop a larger arsenal than Israel could develop, with Israel's head
start and $3 billion in annual aid from the US - an unlikely prospect.
Iran poses no threat, either to the US or Israel, other than the threat of
potential self-defense. The claims that the country's leadership mocks the
Holocaust and seeks nuclear weapons to carry out a genocide against Jews is
pure nonsense, concocted, like the mythical stories of Saddam Hussein's
hidden weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda, to justify another
conquest of an economically nationalist oil-rich state.

End Notes

1. Washington Post, July 4, 2005.

2. Williams' argument appears to be a fall out of the practice of adopting
a theory as true without evidence, and then grasping at straws to support
it, something high-profile journalists are happy to do as their patriotic
duty. This was also the strategy that guided the Bush administration in the
days following September 11 in the search for a casus belli against Iraq.

3. Mazda Majidi, "Imperialists threaten Iran with war, sanctions over
nuclear energy," Socialism and Liberation, August 29, 2006,
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5560&news_iv_ctrl=1038

4. While Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers was framed in official
circles and by the mass media as a provocation worthy of war, little has
been said of the capture of Lebanese in Lebanon by Israeli forces during
Israel's decades-long occupation of the country. And yet these are the
conditions that gave rise to the Hezbollah raid to capture Israeli
soldiers, to offer in exchange for the release of Hezbollah militants. Nor
has much attention been paid to the repeated instances of Israeli forces
that remained in Lebanon after the UN-ordered cease-fire, capturing and
detaining Lebanese civilians, and in some cases transporting them to
Israel. See The New York Times, September 4, 2006; The Guardian, September
9, 2006.

5. Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2006.

6. New York Times, August 24, 2006.

7. Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2006.

8. Brian Williams' interview with Ahmadinejad, NBC, Sep 20, 2006.

9. Ibid.

10. "Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth," www.counterpunch.com, August 28,
2006. http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html

11. Brian Williams' interview.

12. New York Times, December 20, 2005.

13. Washington Post, December 9, 2005.

14. Ibid.

15. New York Times, February 8, 2006.

16. Ibid.

17. New York Times, August 25, 2006.

18. Ibid.

19. New York Times, June 11, 2006.

20. Ibid.

21. Time, September 25, 2006.

22. Washington Post, June 18, 2006.

23. Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2006.

24. New York Times, September 12, 2006.

25. New York Times, August 28, 2006.

26. Edward Herman, "The U.S. and Israel: Axis of Aggression, Torture,
Death, & Devastation," Z Magazine, September, 2006.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sep2006/herman0906.html

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 5 [NYTr] Times of London: US May Accept Iran "Nuclear Bomb"
 
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-filter-host: mx.junkemailfilter.net - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Mansoor - Oct 2, 2006

[Here is the latest article on Iranian's quest for nuclear energy rather 
than nuclear bomb. -Mansoor]

The Sunday Times of London - October 01, 2006
http://www.times.co.uk

US may accept Iranian nuclear bomb

by Sarah Baxter, Washington

AMERICA is going to have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, US 
intelligence analysts have concluded at a secret meeting near Washington.

Senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community 
were almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop 
Iran acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb, The Sunday Times has 
learnt.

Bombing Irans nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the 
intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking. We only 
have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the 
Iranian programme, said one source with knowledge of the meeting. Even 
if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldnt know how to.

The White Houses earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else 
failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence 
analysts that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At 
best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The 
collateral damage to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

Unless you can be 100% effective and set the programme back by two 
decades, youll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a 
result that is better than the current one, an intelligence analyst said.

General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has 
warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a 
surrogate terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on Americas 
regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Irans ability 
to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President 
George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Irans nuclear 
programme is beset with technical errors. He has been saying, Slow 
down, its not an immediate problem, said Patrick Clawson, an Iran 
expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on 
achieving a negotiated settlement with the help of the EU3 nations of 
Britain, France and Germany.

President Bush is not going to take military action against the advice 
of the secretary of state, US generals and the director of national 
intelligence, Clawson said.

British sources confirmed that the military option was receding. There 
are clear signs that the White House is keener on following a political 
approach, said a senior British source. Theres never been an appetite 
in the Pentagon for taking Iran on and the EU3 might get a deal that 
would bring the Iranians to the negotiating table in a reasonable fashion.

Despite reports that the Iranians were willing to suspend their 
programme secretly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defiantly 
announced that Irans atomic work will not stop for a single day.

Intelligence analysts concluded at last weeks meeting that there were 
no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of 
persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how  which it 
maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would 
cheat, another source said.

The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb 
unless theres some miracle, such as a major accident, a major defector 
or an orange revolution, the source added, referring to the peoples 
protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of these 
scenarios is considered likely.

In a sign that a military option remains theoretically on the table, a 
group of minesweepers that could be used to clear any potential Iranian 
oil blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have been given prepare to deploy 
orders, which could see them leaving port for the Gulf as early as today.

The biggest deterrent might come from the Israelis, not the Americans. 
Israeli defence sources are increasingly convinced that it will fall to 
them to stop a nuclear Iran. In their view Iran should not be allowed to 
get to the point of no return where it has the know-how to build a bomb.

The Israelis are going to have to make a decision earlier than we do, 
Clawson said. Thats a real problem for us.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran not to accept suspension: Elham 

  2006/10/02   
  
Government Spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday that Iran
would not accept suspension of uranium enrichment. 

Elham's remarks came as he addressed domestic and foreign
reporters at his weekly press conference.

 "The issue of suspension of enrichment is not the issue in
nuclear talks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly
stressed that Iran will not accept suspension and will not
surrender the nation's inalienable rights," Elham reiterated.

 He said the President has spelled out clearly Iran's stance on
the nuclear issue, including suspension of uranium enrichment,
and its right to access peaceful nuclear technology has the
support of many countries.

 M.H.Z   

  
  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP:  Bush, Putin to keep 'united position' on Iran - White House      

 Mon Oct 2, 1:13 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President 
George W. Bushand Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir 
Putinhave agreed to stick to "a united position" in the Iranian 
nuclear standoff, the White House said. 

 The two leaders, in a 17-minute telephone conversation on
Monday, "agreed on the need maintain a united position in
pressuring Iran" /> Iranto abandon its nuclear weapons program,"
said Bush spokesman Tony Snow. 

Bush and Putin also discussed "recent tensions" in
Russia-Georgian relations," Snow told reporters. 

The Kremlin said Putin had warned Bush of the danger of third
countries encouraging "destructive policies" in Georgia. 

In a telephone conversation Monday, Putin "underlined the
unacceptability and danger to the peace and stability of the
region of any actions by third countries that could be
interpreted by the Georgian leadership as encouraging their
destructive policies," the Kremlin said in a statement. 

The Russian warning came as relations between Russia and its
ex-Soviet neighbor Georgia deteriorated in a spying row. 

The Kremlin has long seen Washington's hand in Georgia's efforts
towards integration with the West and in particular its possible
accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO" />
NATO). 

Moscow is strongly opposed to any further enlargement of NATO
into former Soviet territory, particularly if it includes
strategically located Georgia. 

Putin has called last week's arrests of four Russian officers by
Georgia on spying charges "an act of state terrorism". 

In Monday's phone conversation, which was initiated by
Washington, the two also discussed Russia's bid to join the
World Trade Organization" /> World Trade Organizationand Iran's
nuclear programme, the statement said. 

On Iran "the importance was stressed of the need to continue
consultations, the main criteria of which should be the aim of
fulfilling non-proliferation tasks," the statement said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: 'Good progress' in drawing up Iran sanctions - US official -

 Mon Oct 2, 3:18 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US diplomats have made "good progress" in 
gaining allies' approval for a list of sanctions to be imposed on 
Iran" /> Iranif it fails to freeze its uranium enrichment 
activities, a senior US official said. 

 US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns has been negotiating
with his counterparts from the five permanent UN Security
Council members plus Germany on what sanctions to include in a
UN resolution if Iran pursues its nuclear program. 

Those talks have run in parallel with negotiations led by
European Union" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier
Solana aimed at convincing Iran to freeze uranium enrichment in
return for a package of economic and diplomatic rewards. 

Burns "has made pretty good progress in terms of lining up the
elements of a resolution with his political director
counterparts," said the senior State Department official on
condition of anonymity. 

"I don't think it would be particularly difficult, given the
progress they've made, to pull all this together" into a
resolution, he said. 

A timetable for pushing ahead with a sanctions resolution could
come out of a possible meeting later this week in Europe of
foreign ministers from the six nations dealing with the issue --
Britain, China, France, Russia, the US and Germany, he said. 

Iran ignored an August 31 deadline set by the UN Security
Council for halting enrichment, which can be used to make fuel
for nuclear power stations or to provide the core of atomic
weapons. 

The United States has pressed its Security Council allies to use
sanctions to increase the pressure on Tehran, but has met stiff
resistance, notably from Russia and China. 

At a meeting last month in New York, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceagreed to give Solana until
this week to negotiate a resolution of the standoff with Iran's
top nuclear envoy, Ali Larijani, but so far those talks have
yielded no results. 

Rice, who began a trip to the Middle East on Monday to discuss
the Iranian issue among other things, said she could meet with
her counterparts from the so-called P5-plus-1 countries later
this week to take stock of the negotiations. 

The senior State Department official said that meeting could
take place in Europe on Friday. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushand
Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinalso
discussed the Iranian nuclear issue by telephone on Monday and
agreed to stick to "a united position" on the matter, the White
House said. 

The United States is backing the use of progressive sanctions to
force Iran's hand, beginning with restrictions on sales of
dual-use equipment and technology which could help Tehran's
nuclear program, according to US and European officials. 

Other possible punitive measures include assets freezes and
travel bans targeting Iranians involved in the nuclear sector. 

The senior US official said that while "very good progress" had
been made in lining up "the basics" of a first round of
sanctions, it could take time to agree on the exact wording of a
new UN resolution actually imposing the measures. 

"As we know from past practice on this, getting 90 percent there
is great, getting the last ten percent sometimes takes longer
than you wish," he said. 

While Washington has no specific timetable for trying to get a
sanctions resolution adopted by the Security Council, he said,
time is running out. 

"The last few grains of sand in this hour glass seem to be
running through," he said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 UPI: Iran: Enrichment suspension out of question
     
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

10/2/2006 10:39:00 AM -0400

TEHRAN, Oct. 2 (UPI) -- Iran stressed Monday that suspending
uranium enrichment during nuclear negotiations with the West is
utterly out of the question. 

A day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to
expand uranium enrichment, government spokesman Ghulam Hussein
Elham told a press conference in Tehran that "the president has
repeated several times that we will not accept to suspend
enrichment and we will not give up any rights for people." 

"Enriching uranium during nuclear negotiations is simply out of
the question," Elham was quoted as saying by the official
Iranian News Agency, IRNA. 

In a related development, IRNA reported that Iran has become
self-sufficient in producing centrifuges for nuclear operated
power plants. 

It said experts will be replacing British and Korean made
centrifuges with locally produced ones in the various power
plants. 

On Sunday, Ahmadinejad told professors at Tehran University that
the government plans to produce more nuclear fuel to operate
power plants. 

He rejected demands by the United States and its allies to stop
enrichment, saying his country was not seeking nuclear weapons
but is committed to generating nuclear fuel for electricity. 

The process of uranium enrichment can be used to produce
electricity or build nuclear weapons depending on the level of
enrichment. The United States alleges that Iran is seeking to
build nuclear weapons, but Iran maintains that its program is
for peaceful purposes.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 10 UPI: Analysis: If and when Bush 'Iraqs' Iran

 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

10/2/2006 11:03:00 AM -0400
 By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE UPI Editor at Large

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (UPI) -- A strategic thinker who called all
the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation
Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes
against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says,
started a year ago when the United States began conducting
secret recon missions inside Iran. 

Sam Gardiner, 67, has taught strategy at the National War
College, Air War College and Naval War College. The retired Air
Force colonel recently published as a Century Foundation Report
"The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing the U.S.
Military Option on Iran." 

President Bush and his national security council believe seven
"key truths" that eliminate all but the military option,
according to Gardiner, who adds his own comments. 

1.	Iran is developing WMD -- "that is most likely true." 

2.	Iran is ignoring the international community -- "true." 

3.	Iran supports Hezbollah and terrorism -- "true." 

4.	Iran is increasingly inserting itself in Iraq and beginning
to get involved in Afghanistan -- "true." 

5.	The people of Iran want a regime change -- "most likely an
exaggeration." 

6.	Sanctions are not going to work -- "most likely true." 

7.	You cannot negotiate with these people -- "not proven." 

Gardiner says when Bush "Iraqs" Iran, air strikes will not be
limited to the country's widely scattered nuclear facilities,
but will also include military air bases (some of them only 15
minutes flying time from Baghdad); air defense command and
control; terrorist training camps; chemical facilities;
medium-range ballistic missiles; Gulf-threatening assets;
submarines; anti-ship missiles; and naval ships, including
small, fast minelayers. He reckons "an attack of relatively high
certainty on nuclear targets would require 400 aim points ... 75
of these would require penetrating weapons." Air target planners
believe this can be done after five nights of bombing. 

Vice President Dick Cheney is convinced "if there is even a 1
percent chance of a country passing WMD to a terrorist, the U.S.
must act," Gardiner writes, which means, "The Bush
administration finds itself obliged to reject non-military
options." Israeli pressure on Bush to act before he leaves the
White House is also part of the equation, he argues. But the
president has a larger agenda than simply retarding Iran's
nuclear ambitions. 

Iran's interference in Iraq is a major source of concern. It
continues to supply weapons, funding and training to insurgents
as well as militia armies in Iraq. Those who advocate attacking
Iran say this justifies U.S. retaliation. But Israel and the
Bush administration agree they cannot allow Iran to acquire the
knowledge to make a nuclear weapon and that Iran is near "the
point of no return." 

"The case against (Iran's) regime is so forceful, and so
multifaceted," Gardiner points out, "that it becomes clear the
goal is not simply to do away with the regime's enrichment
program ... but to do away with the regime itself." 

President George W. Bush, writes Gardiner, sees himself like
Winston Churchill standing against the appeasers, and "believes
the world will only appreciate him after he leaves office, talks
about the Middle East in messianic terms, and is said to have
told those close to him that he has got to attack Iran because
even if a Republican succeeds him ... he will not have the same
freedom of action that Bush enjoys." 

Gardiner reminds us air planners almost always fall short of
promises -- e.g., World War II, Korea, Vietnam and more recently
Israeli air attacks on Hezbollah. "No serious expert on Iran
believes the argument about enabling a regime change," he says,
and "it is far more likely such strikes would strengthen the
clerical leadership and turn the U.S. into Iran's permanent
enemy." Which is what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prays for
five times a day. 

Iran's retaliatory capabilities are both regional and global.
Hezbollah is the primary line of counter-attack, with terrorist
assets in Europe, Canada, the United States and Latin America.
Iraqi militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr has said publicly U.S.
forces would be targeted if Iran were attacked. Al-Sadr also
controls the large 140,000-strong Facilities Protection Service
forces that guard oil pipelines and other strategic objectives. 

No sooner than the first U.S. bomb impact in Iran, mines will be
sown in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the
world's oil consumption passes daily. Iran also has sleeper
cells among Shiite workers in Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields.
Oil would quickly skyrocket to $200 a barrel. 

With prices surging to this level, concludes Gardiner, a "global
synchronized recession, intensified by the existing U.S. trade
and fiscal imbalances," would soon follow. 

Syria and Iran signed a mutual defense agreement June 15 under
which Syrian forces would be involved if Iran were attacked.
Such a crisis could quickly escalate into a regional war. 

Unlike the six months of preparations for Operation Desert Field
and the deployments that preceded Iraqi Freedom, the Iran
buildup will "not be a major CNN event." They will take place
below the media's radar screen, such as moving Air Force tankers
to staging bases and the movement of additional Navy assets to
the region. "We can expect the number of administration
references to Iran to significantly increase," Gardiner wrote,
with four principal themes -- Iran's nuclear program, terrorism,
the threat to Israel's existence, and the Iran-al Qaida link. 

Congressional approval? When Democratic Congressmen offered an
amendment to the Defense bill in June that would have required
the president to get authorization before taking military
action, the amendment failed. A strike on Iran, as seen by the
White House, has already been authorized. It's part of the
global war on terrorism. So the strike on Iran could be ordered
any time in the next two years.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: EU Official Pushes Iran on Nuclear Plans

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday October 2, 2006 8:46 PM

AP Photo MSC102 

By PAUL AMES 

Associated Press Writer 

LEVI, Finland (AP) - The EU foreign policy chief said he was
resuming talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator and warned
Monday that the time for continuing negotiations on Tehran's
atomic program was limited. 

But Javier Solana denied he was running out of patience. 

``We don't have an infinite length of time in front of us,'' he
told reporters. ``I'm not tired and I'm patient because I think
that what we have at stake is very important.'' 

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a EU defense ministers
meeting, he said he would talk by telephone with Iranian
negotiator Ali Larijani later Monday. 

Solana has been leading negotiations with Larijani on behalf of
Britain, France, Germany, China, the United States and Russia,
which are seeking to persuade Iran to suspend work on processing
uranium in return for a package of incentives. 

``We have made progress on some elements but still what is
fundamental for us, which is the matter of suspension, has not
been finally agreed,'' Solana said. 

Iran's hardline president said Sunday his country was determined
to expand its uranium enrichment program, announcing a plan to
produce more nuclear fuel. He denied Iran was seeking to build
nuclear weapons and said the program was for generating
electricity. 

On Friday, the Bush administration repeated threats to seek U.N.
sanctions unless the negotiations end successfully. However,
Russia and China, which have veto rights at the Security
Council, are wary of sanctions. 

Igor Ivanov, the secretary of Russia's presidential Security
Council, was scheduled to travel to Iran for talks with Larijani
on Tuesday, Russian news agencies said Monday. 

The process of uranium enrichment can be used to produce
electricity or build nuclear weapons depending on the level of
enrichment. The U.S. alleges Iran is seeking to build nuclear
weapons, but Iran contends that its program is for peaceful
purposes. 

Iran defied a U.N. Security Council deadline calling on it to
suspend enrichment by Aug. 31 or face possible international
sanctions.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 Japan Times: Weakness prods Pyongyang
 
Monday, Oct. 2, 2006

By KEIZO NABESHIMA 

Though impoverished and starved, North Korea owns nuclear arms
and is developing long-range ballistic missiles, thus posing a
growing military threat to the Asia-Pacific region. 

As the regime of Kim Jong Il has invited sanctions from the
international community, it is becoming even more isolated.
Under the circumstances, North Korea's national goal, the
survival of the Kim regime, may be at risk. 

Ever since the issuance of joint statement a year ago from the
six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, North Korea
has boycotted resumption of the talks in protest of U.S.
financial sanctions. In July, North Korea conducted
ballistic-missile tests, prompting the United Nations Security
Council to adopt a resolution of condemnation. North Korea's
brinkmanship is bound to bring increasing pressure from Japan,
the United States and other nations. 

One reason Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who assumed power Sept.
26, is popular among the Japanese public is his hardline stance
against Pyongyang, which is responsible for the past abduction
of Japanese nationals. 

And Abe's confidence in his diplomatic skills is growing. As
chief Cabinet secretary under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi,
he coordinated with White House officials in adopting the U.N.
Security Council resolution against North Korea, and took the
initiative in imposing Japanese financial sanctions on North
Korea on Sept. 19. 

Crucial elements of Abe's "assertive diplomacy" are "national
interest and initiative." Before assuming power, he said it is
most important that Japanese diplomacy secure national interest
and play a leading role in multilateral negotiations. 

Depending on North Korean strategies, the Abe administration is
likely to put more emphasis on applying pressure -- such as
stronger sanctions -- than on attempting dialogue in its
dealings with the North. 

In late September, a high-ranking North Korean official is said
to have told a visiting U.S. expert that Pyongyang was planning
to start nuclear-fuel reprocessing operations before yearend to
extract plutonium for nuclear arms. It would do this by removing
spent nuclear-fuel rods from a 5,000-megawatt experimental
graphite-moderated nuclear reactor. In May 2005, North Korea
removed 8,000 used nuclear-fuel rods. 

According to South Korean intelligence sources, North Korea
could conduct nuclear tests anytime, subject to approval by Kim.
It is thought that North Korea's mentioning of its plan is aimed
at prompting the U.S. to start bilateral talks with the North. 

In September the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a
resolution urging North Korea to immediately return to the
six-nation talks and abandon its nuclear arms. This reflected
growing international concern that Pyongyang may be trying to
speed up its nuclear-arms development while it boycotts the
six-party talks. 

In a joint statement issued at the six-nation talks in September
2005, North Korea promised to abandon its nuclear arms and
nuclear programs and rejoin the nuclear nonproliferation treaty
soon. The U.S. confirmed it had no intention of attacking North
Korea, and Tokyo and Washington pledged efforts to normalize
relations with Pyongyang. 

However, resolving the North Korean crisis became deadlocked
when Pyongyang demanded that the U.S. lift financial sanctions
as a condition for resuming the six-nation talks, and insisted
on direct talks with Washington. Apparently the purpose of the
North Korean missile tests in July was to get the U.S. to agree
to direct talks. The international community, however, did not
react as North Korea had hoped. Although the U.N. Security
Council resolution was watered down to avoid a veto by China and
Russia, it was a bitter pill for North Korea. 

Following the resolution, the Group of Eight industrialized
nations' summit in July and a series of ministerial talks
related to the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations
adopted a number of resolutions against North Korea. 

The U.N. resolution demanded that North Korea freeze its missile
tests and that U.N. member nations halt transfers of
missile-related materials and technologies, as well as financial
assets, to North Korea. The comprehensive resolution also
demanded that North Korea return to the six-party talks and
abandon its nuclear programs. China failed to veto the
resolution because of the strong international criticism of
North Korea. 

Frustrated by the deadlocked six-party talks, the U.S. began to
focus on multilateral efforts to contain North Korea. By taking
advantage of the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in July in Kuala
Lumpur, the U.S. got the 10 ASEAN foreign ministers to confirm
the need for the implementation of the Security Council
resolution. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has urged his North Korean
counterpart, Paek Nam Sun, to attend the six-nation talks, but
the latter has declined, showing Beijing's limited influence on
Pyongyang these days. 

The U.S. tried to convene a second round of 10-nation talks on
the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, which opened in
September. China and Russia's refusal to attend dealt a blow to
U.S. hopes for multilateral dialogue. 

Furthermore, South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, who is pushing
an engagement policy with the North, expressed explicit
opposition to international sanctions based on the Security
Council resolution at a news conference following his talks with
President George W. Bush, indicating sharp differences between
Tokyo and Washington over sanctions against Pyongyang. 

It is now easy for Pyongyang to see the weaknesses of its
adversaries. As a freedom-loving nation, South Korea should
rebuild its alliances with Japan and the U.S. to deal with
security threats from the North. Keizo Nabeshima, former chief
editorial writer for Kyodo News, writes on political and
international affairs. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 
    
japantimes.co.jp. 
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: Inter-Korean military talks end without agreement 

 by Jun Kwanwoo Mon Oct 2, 7:52 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - Military officers from North and South Korea" /> 
South Koreahave held talks for the first time in almost five 
months but failed to agree on ways to ease tensions on the 
divided peninsula. 

 The South's team said Monday the communist state's July missile
tests were not directly discussed but that it had raised the
issue of heightened tensions in general. 

"There was no agreement ... but it was meaningful to resume the
suspended military talks," chief delegate Colonel Moon Sung-Mook
told reporters after the two-hour talks on the northern side of
the border village of Panmunjom. 

The North, he said, complained about anti-communist leaflets
being spread across the heavily fortified border and about the
behaviour of South Korean tourists and business visitors. 

"We raised the issues of guaranteeing military security for
inter-Korean economic cooperation projects, easing military
tensions and building trust," Moon said. 

"The North said it remained unchanged in pushing for the
military security guarantee for inter-Korean economic projects
but said it was more important for circumstances to mature." 

Explaining the "circumstances," Moon said the North wants the
South to take firmer action to stop the leaflets, spread by
balloons across the border's barbed wire, and to control its
visitors. 

"The North complained about our civic groups spreading leaflets
along the border, and also South Korean visitors bringing in
unauthorised goods and items and making unnecessary contacts
with North Koreans at Mount Kumgang and the Kaesong industrial
complex," said Colonel Moon. 

"We explained to them our efforts to prevent such incidents and
also asked them to understand the diversity of our society." 

The offensive items, he said, were cellphones, books,
newspapers, magazines and GPS equipment brought to Mount
Kumgang. 

Visitors to the east coast mountain resort are tightly
regulated. Kaesong in the west is an industrial zone being
developed by South Korean firms. 

Moon declined to say whether the talks could be considered
successful but said no date was set for the next round. 

It was the first military contact since general-level talks in
May to discuss ways to reduce tensions on the world's last Cold
War frontier. 

The North is involved in a standoff with the West over both its
missile and nuclear weapons programmes. 

Seoul has pursued a "sunshine policy" of engagement with its
neighbour, including a landmark 2000 summit, but this came under
strain after the July 5 missile tests. 

The South rejected a proposed July military meeting in protest
at the missile launches -- the first time since the summit that
it had refused dialogue -- but agreed to a North Korean call for
Monday's talks. 

It also suspended regular humanitarian aid following the
launches, which sparked UN Security Council condemnation and
weapons-related sanctions. 

North Korea" /> North Korea, which declared in February 2005
that it had built nuclear weapons, is also at odds with the
United States and its allies including Seoul over its nuclear
ambitions. 

It has boycotted six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear
weapons program since last November, in protest at US financial
sanctions. There have also been media reports it may be planning
a nuclear test. 

The last military talks in May bogged down over the North's
demand to redraw the disputed sea border and the South's call
for a security guarantee before a cross-border railway reopens. 

The North has never recognized the Northern Limit Line sea
border drawn at the end of the war. The South wants to maintain
the line but work out ways of preventing naval skirmishes near
it. 

Naval clashes in 1999 and 2002 left casualties on both sides.
Moon said they raised the sea border issue Monday but did not
specify the response. 

The two Koreas have been technically at war since the 1950-53
conflict ended in an armistice and not a peace treaty. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: China, North Korea make friendly gestures

  October 02, 2006 ¤Ñ Both Beijing and Pyongyang have sent
conciliatory signals in recent days, the most recent one coming
from the North's leader himself, the North's Korean Central News
Agency reported on Saturday. Kim Jong-il sent a letter to
Chinese President Hu Jintao congratulating him on the
anniversary of the establishment of Communist China. 

In his message, the reclusive North Korean leader pledged North
Korea's continued friendship. "It has been the consistent
position of our party and the government of the republic to
strengthen and develop our friendly North Korea-China
relationship," Mr. Kim said in the letter, according to the
North's official mouthpiece.

 Pyongyang's defiance to a direct call from Beijing in July not
to test fire missiles has put the traditionally strong
relationship on a strain. China voted for a UN resolution
adopted in response to the missile launch, which reportedly
angered Pyongyang.

 Last week, newly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Pyongyang Liu
Xiaoming, who took up his current position earlier this month,
paid a visit to the old family house of Kim Il Sung, the North's
former leader. At the his visit he stressed the importance of
the relationship between the two sides, saying it was the
Chinese communist party's strong desire to stay on that course. 
Beijing has also hosted the six-party talks aimed at getting
Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons. The North has
boycotted the talks over financial sanctions imposed by
Washington on a Macao-based bank under Chinese jurisdiction. 


by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 15 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Hits Doldrums
 
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:01:40 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP WD DV SC NU WT=20
POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Hits Doldrums
Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Oct 2 (IPS) - The controversial United States-India =94civilia=
n nuclear cooperation=94 agreement met with a major setback over the week=
end when the Senate formally went into recess without voting for a bill w=
hich would have granted the President George W. Bush the necessary powers=
  to enable the deal to be implemented.=20

The Indian government has been rattled by this development and is pinning=
  its hopes on a brief session of the Congress in mid-November, when it re=
convenes after elections to be held on Nov.7 to the entire House of Repre=
sentatives and one-third of all seats in the Senate.=20

Both the Bush administration and the Indian government had invested a gre=
at deal of effort into lobbying for a quick passage of the Bill (number S=
.3709) through the Senate. The House has already passed a broadly similar=
  legislation. The two chambers are later meant to reconcile the two legis=
lations and produce a single unified law.

This law would implicitly recognise India as a nuclear weapons-state and =
permit civilian nuclear commerce with it although India has not signed th=
e Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and has become a nuclear=
  power in violation of it.=20

However, the Senate bill first ran into numerous procedural complications=
  and then got tied up with extraneous or unrelated agendas of some Senato=
rs.=20

For instance, Senate minority leader Harry Reid of the Democratic Party m=
oved an amendment that would prevent all spent fuel coming to his native =
Nevada state for storage at the Yucca Mountain Repository. This would pre=
sumably include fuel burned in reactors supplied to India by the U.S. or =
=66rom plants which use materials traded under the India-U.S. nuclear coo=
peration deal.=20

On Saturday, the Democrats listed as many as 19 amendments to Bill S.3709=
  and rejected a proposal by Senate majority leader Bill Frist to have the=
  Bill passed in its present form through a =94unanimous consent=94 proced=
ure, with the promise of some changes to be considered and discussed late=
r.=20

Although the Democrats agreed to accord a high priority to the Bill in th=
e =94lame duck=94 Senate session coming up after November 13, there is no=
  guarantee that it will really be taken up for vote. The Democrats are ex=
pected to do better than the Republicans in the Senate elections and may =
not allow the new chamber to be convened till January.=20

=94All this is bad news for the deal=94,  M.V. Ramana, an independent nuc=
lear affairs expert based at Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Envi=
ronment and Development, Bangalore told IPS. =94But it's not terrible new=
s. There is still a good chance that the Senate resolution will eventuall=
y go through. But there is now a higher probability that more and more ne=
w conditions will be imposed, which limit the degree of cooperation permi=
tted under the deal or demand special assurances from India, which are no=
t reciprocally sought from the U.S.=94=20

If the deal cannot be approved by the present Congress, it will once agai=
n have to go through the entire process of drafting of separate resolutio=
ns for the two chambers of the new Congress and of securing agreement on =
them all over.=20

The more the number of conditions imposed on the deal, the more it will d=
iffer in content from the original agreements signed between Bush and Pri=
me Minister Manmohan Singh in Jul. 2005 and in Mar. 2006.=20

=94It's clear that the fate of the nuclear deal now depends on the arcane=
  processes and parochial concerns that mark U.S. domestic politics, rathe=
r than on the dynamics of the burgeoning India-United States strategic re=
lationship,=94 argues Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations =
and global policies at Delhi University. =94Various Senators' preferences=
  and sectional interests will influence the way the agreement is shaped. =
The initiative is no longer in India's hands.=94

The Indian government is particularly disappointed and nervous at the wee=
kend's result because it had made a strong pitch for the deal through its=
  top diplomat and special envoy Shyam Saran, and more recently, through D=
efence Minister Pranab Mukherjee.=20

Last week in the U.S., Mukherjee met various members of the India Caucus =
in Congress, as well as the Zionist group, the American Jewish Committee,=
  and influential representatives of the Indian-American community.=20

U.S. business groups, in particular the defence industry lobby and nuclea=
r power equipment manufacturers, have also been strongly pitching in for =
the nuclear deal, according to Subrata Ghoshroy of the MIT (Massachusetts=
  Institute of Technology) Centre for International Studies in the U.S. He=
  calls the deal a =94triumph of the business lobby=94. But the triumph ha=
s not yet been fully accomplished.

Had the Senate vote gone through before the recess, India would have been=
  in an advantageous position at consultations which are due later this mo=
nth in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. The deal must be approved by the 45-=
member NSG before it becomes effective. The International Atomic Energy A=
gency too must clear it.=20

There may be some opposition in the NSG to the agreement from the Nordic =
states, Ireland and New Zealand. China too is known to be uncomfortable w=
ith it, but is keeping its cards close to its chest.

Besides this uncertainty, and problems likely to be caused by a shift in =
the balance of power between the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Co=
ngress, the deal faces two obstacles: one in America, the other in India.=
=20

First, the Senate draft resolution explicitly prohibits the =94export or =
re-export to India of any equipment, materials, or technology related to =
the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel or the =
production of heavy water.=94 But the Indian nuclear lobby is extremely k=
een on the =94right=94 to reprocess spent fuel from power reactors, wheth=
er imported or domestic, so that it can extract plutonium from it.=20

India has drawn up super-ambitious plans to produce 275,000 Mw of  power =
(or more than double the Indian power generation capacity today from all =
sources combined) by the mid-21st century. This presumes the use of fast-=
breeders reactors based on the reprocessing of spent fuel.=20

India's Atomic Energy Commission chairman is on the record as saying that=
  he won't accept a deal which does not allow spent fuel reprocessing.=20

It is not clear how the Bush and Singh government will crack this nut. Th=
eir difficulties will grow if the Democrats emerge stronger in Congress i=
n the November elections. In that case, the influence of the traditional =
non-proliferation lobby will grow in the U.S., and the deal's passage wil=
l bear its impress.=20

The domestic Indian obstacle is the political opposition, especially the =
right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which rejects any shift away from the =
=94goalposts=94 set by the original Jul. 2005 agreement.=20

It will try to hold the Singh government down to its earlier commitments,=
  which call for =94full=94 unconditional nuclear cooperation. This is lik=
ely to narrow the government's room for manoeuvre and compromise.=20
*****
+Indo-US Nuclear Deal Tests Japan's Policies
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D34716)
+India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament=20
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D30776)
+Snags Surface in India-US Nuclear Deal=20
(http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3D32050)
(END/IPS/AP/WD/NU/DV/SC/WT/PB/RDR/06)=20



=20
=3D 10020542 ORP001
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 16 BBC: Musharraf nuclear claims attacked
 
Last Updated: Monday, 2 October 2006
 
By Gordon Corera Security correspondent, BBC News   

[Abdul Qadeer Khan  ]                           

Dr Khan's confessions sparked worldwide concern                                                               

The daughter of disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan has 
criticised claims made by President Pervez Musharraf in his 
autobiography. 

In her first statement since her father's arrest in 2004, Dina 
Khan said she wanted to set the record straight. 

She said suggestions that her father asked her to go public on 
Pakistan's nuclear secrets were "ludicrous". 

Dr Khan was put under house arrest after admitting passing 
nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya. 

	

	
                                                        Perhaps 
the hope is to have h rot quietly at home, forgotten by all Dina 
Khan Pakistan's cloistered scientist                                 

	 

In his book, President Musharraf said that Dr Khan sent a letter 
to his daughter, Dina, asking her to "go public on Pakistan's 
nuclear secrets" through British journalists. 

Now, Dina Khan has hit back. In a statement provided to the BBC, 
she says that Gen Musharraf's claims are "ludicrous". 

Instead, she claims that the letter was for her mother, Dr Khan's 
wife, and gave details of what had really happened. 

'Paying the price' 

Dr Khan's arrest followed a tense period in which US pressure on 
Pakistan to act against him was building. 

[The cover of President Pervez Musharraf's memoirs] Evidence of 
nuclear arms transfers to Iran would damage Musharraf

But moving against Dr Khan was tricky, not least because he 
remained intensely popular in parts of Pakistan thanks to his 
role in building Pakistan's own nuclear bomb. 

He also knew a lot of secrets about the country, including who at 
the top might have known about his illicit activities passing on 
technology. 

It has long been assumed that one of the reasons he has never 
been put on trial - or interrogated by the CIA - was because of 
who he might be able to implicate. 

Details of the letter to his daughter were intended to be 
released in the event of something happening to Dr Khan. 

"The letter gave his version of what actually transpired and 
requested my mother release those details in the event of my 
father being killed or made to disappear," Dina Khan said. 

She says the letter mentioned "people and places" but contained 
no nuclear blueprints or information. 

Dina Khan also says she was questioned by the British security 
service MI5 about the document but they were satisfied she had 
not committed any crimes and was not in possession of any 
important information. 

"The mistake my father made was in being far too vocal in his 
opinion about those in power, and as a result he is now paying 
the price," she writes. 

She says that her sister was forbidden from seeing her parents 
for a period of months, and that she was not allowed to travel to 
Pakistan for a year. 

"Our mail is opened, our mobiles are tapped and the house is 
bugged." 

'US pressure' 

When he was placed under house arrest, pressure had been building 
on Dr Khan for a number of months. 

[Pakistan's Shaheen 2 missile]                                  
Dr Khan shared nuclear technology with nations like Libya and 
Iran

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors who visited 
the Iranian enrichment plant of Natanz in February 2003 had 
realised that the machines used by Iran were of the same design 
that Dr Khan had worked on when he was a young scientist in 
Europe and which he had used to build Pakistan's own programme. 

At the same time, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had opened up 
a secret channel with MI6 to give up his nuclear programme which 
had been almost entirely provided by Dr Khan and his network. 

The US tried to put pressure on President Musharraf to put Dr 
Khan out of business in September 2003, when CIA director George 
Tenet confronted him in a New York hotel room with evidence of Dr 
Khan's activities, but Gen Musharraf still did not act and 
frustrations grew in Washington. 

In the end it took a phone call from then US Secretary of State 
Colin Powell in late January to seal Dr Khan's fate. 

Mr Powell warned Gen Musharraf that President Bush was about to 
give a speech and publicly name and shame Dr Khan. 

As a result, the scientist was brought before President Musharraf 
and forced to publicly confess. 

'Truth' 

The CIA have never been allowed to interrogate Dr Khan directly, 
something they would very much like to do since it is still 
unclear how much nuclear technology he actually passed on to 
Iran. 

In the case of Libya, Dr Khan provided an actual nuclear weapons 
design. 

Some in Washington believe similar information may have been 
provided to Iran, proving Iran was after the bomb and not just 
peaceful nuclear power as Tehran claims, but they have never been 
able to prove it. 

However, all questions for Dr Khan have to be filtered through 
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, and no-one 
is sure they are getting the real truth. 

Allowing the US access to Dr Khan would be very sensitive within 
Pakistan, where he still has many supporters, as well as 
potentially embarrassing for Gen Musharraf, who simply wants to 
move on from the issue. 

US officials say, though, that one of the reasons Pakistan will 
not be offered a civilian nuclear co-operation deal of the type 
negotiated with India is precisely because of Dr Khan. 

The scientist remains under house arrest in Islamabad. He was 
recently allowed out briefly for surgery for prostate cancer. 

Dina Khan ends her statement with a warning. 

"The investigation into the nuclear scandal was officially closed 
months ago, yet my father's situation remains unchanged. Perhaps 
the hope is to have him rot quietly at home, forgotten by all. 

"That will never happen. The truth will come out eventually, it 
always does."                                                    
*****************************************************************
 17 [NukeNet]NPR story on nuclear power
 
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:13:37 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

  Coalition for Peace and Justice; UNPLUG Salem Campaign, 321 Barr Ave, 
Linwood; NJ08221; 609-601-8583

----------
From: Odiejoe@aol.com [mailto:Odiejoe@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: NPR story on nuclear power



Dear Friends:  This week, National Public Radio will air a program "Nuclear 
Power: Clean, Efficient Energy or a Disaster-in-Waiting".  I hope you will 
tune in --- here are the stations that carry it (looks like those in NY 
City and Philadelphia are most in luck).  Best, Joe





Stations
Click a column header to sort the list on that term.

<http://www.justicetalking.org/tunein.asp?state=ALL&orderby=Name>Station

<http://www.justicetalking.org/tunein.asp?state=ALL&orderby=>City

Frequency

Broadcast Time

<http://www.kakm.org/>KSKA

Anchorage, AK

91.9 FM

Mon 9 am

<http://www.kbrw.org/>KBRW

Barrow, AK

91.1 FM

Sun 7 pm

<http://www.kchu.org/schedule/>KXGA

Glenallen, AK

90.5 FM

Wed 11 am

<http://www.khns.org/>KHNS

Haines, AK

102.3 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://www.kbbi.org/>KBBI

Homer, AK

890 AM

Sun 5 pm

<http://www.krbd.org/>KRBD

Ketchikan, AK

105.9 FM

Thu 4 am

<http://www.kchu.org/schedule/>KXKM

McCarthy, AK

89.7 FM

Wed 11 am

<http://www.kchu.org/schedule/>KCHU

Valdez, AK

770 AM

Wed 11 am

<http://www.kuaz.org/>KUAZ

Sierra Vista, AZ

89.1 FM

Sun 5 pm

<http://www.kuaz.org/>KUAZ

Tucson, AZ

1550 AM

Sun 5 pm

<http://www.kvpr.org/>KPRX

Bakersfield, CA

89.1 FM

Sat 6 pm

<http://www.kvpr.org/>KVPR

Fresno, CA

89.3 FM

Sat 6 pm

<http://www.kvcr.org/>KVCR

Hesperia, CA

88.1

Sun 2 pm, Mon 10 am

<http://www.kazu.org/>KAZU

Pacific Grove, CA

90.3 FM

Sun 8 pm

<http://www.kvcr.org/>KVCR

San Bernardino, CA

91.9 FM

Sun 2 pm, Mon 10 am

<http://www.kclu.org/>KCLU

Santa Barbara, CA

102.3 FM

Sun 7 pm

<http://www.kclu.org/>KCLU

Thousand Oaks, CA

88.3 FM

Thurs 2 pm, Sun 7 pm

<http://www.kclu.org/>KCLU

Ventura County, CA

88.3 FM

Sun 7 pm

<http://www.weta.org/fm>WETA

Washington, DC

90.9 FM

Sun 6 am

<http://www.wfsu.org/>WFSW

Panama City, FL

89.1 FM

Wed 12 noon

<http://www.wfsu.org/>WFSU

Tallahassee, FL

88.9 FM

Wed 1 pm

<http://www.wusf.usf.edu/>WUSF2

Tampa, FL

89.7

Sat 6 am

<http://www.kprg.org/>KPRG

Guam, GU

89.3 fm

Sat 1 am

<http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/index.html>KIPO

Honolulu, HI

89.3 FM

Fri 4 pm

<http://www.woi.org/>KWOI

[statewide], IA

640 AM

Sat 3 pm

<http://www.woi.org/>KWOI

Carroll, IA

90.7 FM

Sat 3 pm

<http://www.woi.org/>KTPR

Fort Dodge, IA

91.1 FM

Sat 3 pm

<http://wsui.uiowa.edu/>WSUI

Iowa City, IA

910 AM

Sun 9 pm

<http://www.woi.org/>KOWI

Lamoni, IA

97.9 FM

Sat 3 pm

<http://www.isu.edu/kisufm>KISU

Pocatello, ID

91.1 FM

Thu 6 pm

<http://www.wsiu.org/>WSIU

Carbondale, IL

91.9 FM

Sun 6 am, 3 pm

<http://www.wsiu.org/>WVSI

Mt. Vernon, IL

88.9 FM

Sun 6 am, 3 pm

<http://www.wsiu.org/>WUSI

Olney, IL

90.3 FM

Sun 6 am, 3 pm

<http://www.wvpe.org/>WVPE

Elkhart, IN

88.1 FM

Sat 7 am

<http://www.wboi.org/>WBOI

Fort Wayne, IN

89.1 FM

Sun 3 pm

<http://www.kmuw.org/>KMUW

Wichita, KS

89.1 FM

Sat 3 pm

<http://www.capeandislands.org/>WZAI

Brewster, MA

94.3 FM

sat 4 pm, sun 4 pm

<http://www.capeandislands.org/>WNAN

Nantucket, MA

91.1 FM

Sat 4 pm, Sun 4 am

<http://www.capeandislands.org/>WCAI

Woods Hole, MA

90.1 FM

Sat 4 pm, Sun 4 am

<http://www.wypr.org/>WYPR

Baltimore, MD

88.1 FM

Sun 2 pm

<http://www.wypr.org/>WJTM

Frederick, MD

88.1 FM

Sun 2 pm

<http://www.weta.org/fm/>WETH

Hagerstown, MD

89.1 FM

Sun 6 am

<http://publicradiodelmarva.net/>WSDL

Ocean City, MD

90.7 FM

Fri 8 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WCML

Alpena, MI

91.7 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WUCX

Bay City, MI

90.1 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://wkar.org/>WKAR

East Lansing, MI

870 AM

Sun 1 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WCMW

Harbor Springs, MI

103.9 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.interlochen.org/ipr/>WICA

Interlochen, MI

91.5 FM

Thu 9 am

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WCMU

Mt. Pleasant, MI

89.5 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WCMB

Oscoda, MI

95.7 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WCMZ

Sault Ste.Marie, MI

98.3 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.wcmu.org/radio.html>WWCM

Standish, MI

96.9 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.krnm.org/>KRNM

Saipan, Marianas Is., MP

88.1 FM

Wed 8 pm, Sun 10 am

<http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/>KEMC

Billings, MT

91.7 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/>KBMC

Bozeman, MT

102.1 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/>KNMC

Havre, MT

90.1 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/>KECC

Miles City, MT

90.7 FM

Thu 7 pm

<http://www.kios.org/>KIOS

Omaha, NE

91.5 FM

Fri 12 noon

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJN

Atlantic City, NJ

89.7 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJS

Berlin, NJ

88.1 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJB

Bridgeton, NJ

89.3 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJZ

Cape May Courthouse, NJ

90.3 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJM

Manahawkin, NJ

89.9 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJP

Sussex, NJ

88.5 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://njn.njit.edu/radio>WNJT

Trenton, NJ

88.1 FM

Sun 4 pm

<http://www.kanw.com/>KANW

Albuquerque, NM

89.1 FM

Tue 9 am

<http://www.nativeamericanpublicradio.com/>KTDB

Pine Hill, NM

89.7 FM

Sat 6 PM

<http://www.kanw.com/>KNLK

Santa Rosa, NM

91.9 FM

Tue 9 am

<http://www.wskg.com/>WSQX

Binghamton, NY

91.5 FM

Tue 1 pm

<http://www.wnye.org/>WNYE

New York, NY

91.5 FM

Mon, Wed 4 pm

<http://www.wxxi.org/>WXXI

Rochester, NY

AM 1370

Sun 5 am

<http://www.wksu.org/>WKSU2

Akron, OH

89.7

Sun 1 pm

<http://woub.org/radio/skdam.html>WOUB

Athens, OH

1340 AM

Thu 6 pm, Sun 9 am

<http://www.wyso.org/>WYSO

Yellow Springs, OH

91.3 FM

Mon 11 pm

<http://www.wysu.org/>WYSU

Youngstown, OH

88.5 FM

Sat 4 pm

<http://www.kwgs.org/>KWGS

Tulsa, OK

89.5 FM

Thu 8 pm

<http://www.whyy.org/>WHYY

Philadelphia, PA

91 FM

Mon 10 pm

<http://www.susqu.edu/orgs/wqsu-fm/main.htm>WQSU

Selinsgrove, PA

88.9 FM

Sun 8 pm

<http://www.wpln.org/>WPLN

Madison, TN

1430 AM

Sun 12 pm

<http://kamu-fm.tamu.edu/>KAMU

College Station, TX

90.9 FM

Sat 11 am

<http://tpr.org/>KSTX

San Antonio, TX

89.1 FM

Mon 7 pm

<http://www.kwbu.org/>KWBU

Waco, TX

103.3 FM

Sat 1 pm, Sun 7 pm

<http://upr.org/>KUSR

Logan, UT

89.5 FM

Thu 8 pm

<http://upr.org/>KUSU

Logan, UT

91.5 FM

Thu 8 pm

<http://www.kcpw.org/>KCPW

Salt Lake City, UT

1010 AM

Sun 11 am

<http://www.kcpw.org/>KCPW

Salt Lake City, UT

105.3 FM

Sun 11 am

<http://www.kcpw.org/>KCPW

Salt Lake City, UT

88.3 FM

Sun 11 am

<http://www.radioiq.org/>WFFC

Charlottesville, VA

91.5 FM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://www.radioiq.org/>WWVT

Christiansburg, VA

1260 AM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://www.radioiq.org/>WFFC

Ferrum, VA

89.9 FM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://http:/www.radioiq.org/>WFFC

Lynchburg, VA

89.5 FM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://http:/www.radioiq.org/>WFFC

New River Valley, VA

1260 AM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://www.wrir.org/>WRIR

Richmond, VA

97.3 FM

Tue 10 am

<http://www.radioiq.org/>WFFC

Roanoake, VA

89.7 FM

Sat 9 am, Sun 3 pm

<http://www.radioiq.org/>WISE

Wise , VA

90.5 FM

Sat 9 am

<http://www.kaosradio.org/>KAOS

Olympia, WA

89.3 FM

Tue 12 noon

<http://www.kuow.org/kuow2/>KUOW2

Seattle, WA

94.9 FM

Sun 8 pm

<http://www.kpbx.org/>KSFC

Spokane, WA

91.9 FM

Sat 1 pm, Wed 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WAUA

Beckley, WV

89.5 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVEP

Buckhannon, WV

88.9 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVPW

Charleston, WV

88.5 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVPN

Elkins, WV

88.5 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVWV

Huntington, WV

89.9 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVPG

Martinsburg, WV

90.3 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVPB

Matewan, WV

91.7 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVPM

Parkersburg, WV

90.9 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.wvpubrad.org/>WVNP

Wheeling, WV

89.9 FM

Tue 8 pm

<http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/>KYPR

Gillette, WY

88.9 FM

Thu 7 pm


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 Tritium's in water under TMI, study says
 
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:13:49 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>

» More From The Patriot-News
LONDONDERRY TWP.



Tritium's in water under TMI, study says


Officials: Low levels pose no threat to public

Saturday, September 30, 2006


BY GARRY LENTON

Of The Patriot-News

An environmental study at Three Mile Island confirmed that small amounts of 
tritium, a low-level radioactive form of hydrogen, are in groundwater 
beneath the nuclear power plant.

But the study found the amount was far below the federal standard for 
drinking water, and there was no evidence the contamination was affecting 
the Susquehanna River or posing a risk to public health.

The report did note that the groundwater was carrying the tritium to the 
Susquehanna, but concluded that the small amount of contaminant was being 
safely diluted by the river water to undetectable levels.

Tritium was found in 42 of 66 water samples taken from more than 60 test 
wells around the plant.

The report traced the contamination to four leaks that have occurred at the 
plant over the last 20 years, the most recent in June.

"We have completed the most extensive tritium sample effort ever conducted 
at TMI," said TMI Site Vice President Rusty West. "The results show that 
the TMI station is operating in a manner that protects public health and 
safety."

Exelon Nuclear, which owns TMI, Peach Bottom, Limerick and seven other 
nuclear plants in the U.S., ordered the inspections of systems that carry 
tritium-laced water in February.

Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is a byproduct of the nuclear 
reaction that also occurs naturally in water. In large doses, it has been 
linked to cancer.

TMI officials have been monitoring tritium since shortly after the 1979 
accident that destroyed the Unit 2 reactor. There are 63 monitoring wells 
on the island; nearly half of them are new.

Tritium leaks have become a much publicized problem for the nuclear 
industry in recent years, particularly Exelon. The company is in litigation 
over tritium contamination at its plant in Braidwood, Ill. In the last 
year, leaks have also been reported at Dresden, Ill., also owned by Exelon; 
Callaway, Mo.; San Onofre, Calif.; and Kewaunee, Wis.

"This is, unfortunately, a predictable problem at aging nuclear power 
plants," said Eric Epstein, chairman of the watchdog group Three Mile 
Island Alert.

In January, a coalition of public interest and watchdog groups, including 
TMIA, asked the NRC to require the industry to monitor more aggressively 
for tritium.

"Our concern is that the tritium may have migrated off of the island in 
areas we have yet to monitor," Epstein said.

Higher-than-usual tritium levels were found in a test well at TMI last 
fall. The amounts never exceeded 19,000 picocuries per liter of water, 
according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. The U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency allows up to 20,000 picocuries per liter in 
drinking water. There is no standard for groundwater.

The EPA describes tritium as one of the least dangerous radioactive 
substances because it emits weak radiation and usually leaves the body 
within a month.

GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 [NukeNet] Indian Country Today reporter censored & terminated
 
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:13:51 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Brenda Norrell wrote much about Ward Valley all throughout that struggle 
and has written wonderful pieces about all of the nuclear injustice on 
Indian lands throughout the west.  She has also been a voice of fairness, 
reason and truth in all areas regarding Indian Country.  Please contact ICT 
and let them know they should not have fired this wonderful journalist.  Molly

September 28,2006

Indian Country reporter censored & terminated.
TAKE ACTION NOW!

Journalist Brenda Norrell has been fired by the newspaper Indian Country 
Today after years of undergoing their censorship of what she writes in 
support of indigenous peoples. Brenda is a long-time friend & ally to 
people especially throughout American Indian nations, giving voice to the 
Dineh people of Big Mountain, AZ who are resisting forced relocation, and 
destruction of their homeland through strip-mining by Peabody Coal.

"These true stories being written about community based issues are a threat 
to the federal government as well as the tribal governments, who are only 
interested in upholding non-traditional tribal codes that accommodate and 
facilitate the exploitations and occupations of our homelands. There are 
less and less stories of real struggle and real warriors reported, and 
instead we have the implanted ideas and agendas of the corporate media. The 
real stories of injustice and resistance need to be heard." -Bahe Katenay, 
Big Mountain, AZ.

It is important to not allow this kind of discrimination to continue,
especially at a paper that purports to support indigenous rights. Brenda 
states that "The censoring of vital issues reflects what news reporters are 
enduring all over America." Brenda has always been there for the people; 
it's time that we show our support for her!!

Please send letters to Indian Country Today expressing your outrage at the 
censorship of crucial facts and issues, and of an outstanding journalist!
(CONTACT INFORMATION SUPPLIED BELOW.)

Perhaps we should consider organizing a boycott of the paper the paper if 
there is no accountability and an end to the censorship!
Thank you,
~BMIS
------------

 From Brenda:
Censorship, the other genocide, killing of the spirit

Hello,
I was just terminated by Indian Country Today. Since I began this
effort as a news reporter in Indian country 23 years ago in pursuit of 
justice and truth, I feel I owe the readers an apology for allowing ICT to 
censor the truth in articles I have written. I did protest the censorship, 
but no retractions were published.

Officially, my position is being eliminated on Friday. This comes
after I repeatedly complained of censorship at the newspaper. During the 
past month these issues were censored:

--Censored: After all reporters were told to write about the bird flu, I 
wrote about how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is profiteering by 
millions from the sale of the drug Tamiflu, receiving profits from a 
company where he holds shares. The article included information on the 
earlier attempts of companies to profiteer from the sale of ribavirin 
during the Navajo hantavirus outbreak. My article was censored in ICT and 
turned into an advertisement for the medication Tamiflu.

--Raytheon Missiles on Navajo farm (NAPI) in the recent NAPI/Cuban contract 
story; I was told not to include in the article the fact that Raytheon is 
located on the Navajo farm and is responsible for spills leading to cancer 
in South Tucson, where Chicanos and Indians live. Raytheon produces 
missiles for the Department of Defense.

--Tohono O'odham teen ran over by Border Patrol, recent visit to the site 
of Bennett Patricio Jr.'s death with Amnesty International; we were 
followed by undercover agents on tribal land Also, these are some of the 
articles censored since 2004:

--The fact that Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell is Portuguese and grew up in 
California. His mother is full-blooded Portuguese and his story changed 
about his father through the years. One Northern Cheyenne medicine man 
asked ICT who Campbell is. Campbell first claimed to have some Apache blood 
and later changed it Northern Cheyenne. The Denver Post reported
that Campbell is at least 7/8th non-Indian. Campbell did not respond for a 
request to comment.

--Louise Benally of Big Mountain, comments comparing the Long Walk and 
imprisonment in Bosque Redondo to the atrocities in Iraq (this deleted from 
a published article)

--Denial of prison rights to Leonard Peltier in an article on Indian
prison rights

--The Montana governor's criticisms of the war in Iraq during his
formal address at NCAI's annual convention in 2005

--The handcuffing of Tohono O'odham Ofelia Rivas and attempts to silence 
her by a non-Indian police officer of the Tohono O'odham Nation

--Comments by Bahe Katenay of Big Mountain on how the Navajo sacred place 
of Creation in Dinetah, near Bloomfield, NM, in the Four Corners area, is 
inundated with oil and gas wells and pollution from the power plants on 
tribal land.

The ongoing censorship is a violation of the public trust.

This is the second time I've been terminated at ICT since the
newspaper was purchased by the Oneida Nation. I was already in
bankruptcy because of the first time they terminated me in 2001 (for 
refusing to relocate, even though no male reporters were required to relocate.)

To my knowledge, all female reporters who have not resigned have been 
terminated. To my knowledge, none of the male reporters have ever been 
terminated since the Oneida Nation purchased the newspaper.

However, the bigger issue is censorship. The censoring of vital
issues reflects what news reporters are enduring all over America. They are 
forced into silence because of the necessity of work. However, since 
ICT/Oneida Nation has already forced me into bankruptcy, I can share a 
little of the truth. One of those truths is that Indian gaming, at times, 
offers the illusion of wealth.

There are two Indian editors that deserve a great deal of praise for what 
they have done over the past decades, Navajo Times managing editor Duane 
Beyal and Indian Country Today founder, Lakota Tim Giago. During the many 
years I worked for these two editors, I was never censored.

When other publications refused to publish voices of Indian people opposing 
the war in Iraq, the Navajo Times published those. When other publications 
censored an article on Indians targeted by police in South Dakota, Lakota 
Journal published it.

Those are just two examples. Both Beyal and Giago have championed the 
pursuit of truth and never attempted to censor Indian peoples' voices. I 
hope all Indian people will put pressure on Indian Country Today concerning 
the censorship. There is a select agenda being published in the name of 
"Indian Country," which does more to advance the interests of the Oneida 
Nation and Indian gaming.

At ICT, I was repeatedly told to halt writing articles about
"grassroots people and the genocide of American Indians," by one of the 
non-Indian managing editors.

Also, I hope people will question ICT hiring non-Indian managing
editors with no prior experience in Indian issues or Indian country, and 
little experience in journalism. The managing editors are the ones actually 
in the New York ICT office, chosing content and putting the paper out. For 
years there has been a series of non-Indian managing editors with no prior 
experience in Indian country. The censorship and errors have increased.

It is easy to look at ICT and see what the agenda is and what is being 
censored. There's certainly no articles on Leonard Peltier or how Arizona 
Indian tribal members are living in poverty while the casino gaming 
management makes a fortune. (One Tohono O'odham casino manager made 
$800,000, according to a recent mainstream news article.) Of course, I will 
continue to write for other Indian media, provide information to radio 
stations and write for the UN Observer and International Report at the Hague.

It is sad that at such a crucial time, while so many reporters are
being censored by corporations and the Bush administration, that Indian 
Country Today has taken all of these extreme acts of censorship. This 
censorship of Indian voices constitutes another form of genocide, a killing 
of the spirit of the people.

Best, Brenda Norrell

Brenda Norrell
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=b_norrell%40yahoo.com>b_norrell@yahoo. 
com

------------ ---

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY:

Print Edition Editor
Contact for issues relating to the web articles, staff and print
edition of
ICT. Email: 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=_editor%40indiancountry.com>_editor@indiancount 
ry.com

Editorial Fax: 1.315.829.8393

Current Subscribers & Vendors: 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=ssharkey%40indiancountry.com>ssharkey@indiancoun 
try.com

Address:
3059 Seneca Turnpike
Canastota, NY 13032

------------ ----
About ICT, in their own words:
"Since 1981, Indian Country Today has been a persuasive voice in American 
Indian journalism, leading the way with accurate and timely reporting, 
incisive analysis and pointed commentary. Indian Country Today publishes 
more original journalistic content on American Indian issues than any other 
news source.

Our success is due to the professionalism and dedication of our staff 
journalists based in key regional locations across North America. Whether 
sounding an alarm from the corridors of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, 
D.C., or conveying the pounding energy of a Southern plains pow wow, Indian 
Country Today's gifted news team finds the essence of what's happening in 
Indian country and carries it faithfully to our readers. In 1998, Four 
Directions Media, Inc., owned and operated by the Oneida
Nation of New York, purchased Indian Country Today and established 
corporate headquarters in New York State. As we enter our third decade of 
reporting, we have added the viewpoints of correspondents, guest columnists 
and photographers to our established journalistic core.

Our subscribers in North America and abroad, including most Tribal leaders, 
U.S. senators and representatives, officials in the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, lawyers, educators, students, business professionals, and local 
and state politicians, rely on Indian Country Today for a American Indian 
perspective of unparalleled clarity, consistency, credibility, and focus."

<http://www.blackmesais.org/>http://www.blackmes ais.org


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tori Woodard is a dear friend of mine who now lives in China. She just got 
back from a 30-day trip through Mongolia. The following quote is from an 
email to me after visiting a temple -

"After we look at some particularly frightening gods, Muugii asks me
what my religion is. I shrug and say I don't have one. Her response
surprises me: "Then you're free!"

Mongolians understand freedom."

Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524


Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. 
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>Great 
rates starting at 1¢/min.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: NRC to Conduct Special Inspection at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
 
News Release - Region IV - 2006-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-022           
October 2, 2006 CONTACT:     Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 
E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a special
inspection to evaluate problems related to the emergency diesel
generators at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, located
50 miles west of Phoenix, Ariz. 

NRC is taking this action following the failure of a Unit 3
emergency diesel generator to activate during testing on July 25
and Sept. 22. NRC requires the emergency diesel generators be
tested monthly to ensure they are capable of performing their
safety function. The generators produce electricity for safety
systems and components in the event of a loss of offsite power
during an emergency. A preliminary review by Arizona Public
Service Co., which operates Palo Verde, suggests there may be a
problem with a component that is part of an electrical relay
used to activate the generators. 

APS has taken corrective action to ensure the emergency diesel
generators will work, said Region IV Administrator Bruce S.
Mallett. But we felt it appropriate to take a deeper look at
this issue through a special inspection. 

The special inspection will evaluate the adequacy of the
licensees response to the situation, the root cause of the
problem, corrective actions, and determine if there are generic
implications for other nuclear power plants. 

The NRCs special inspection team, consisting of two inspectors
from the NRCs Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, is expected
to begin its review tomorrow. 

The team will spend about a week on site and prepare a written
report that will be issued about four weeks after the inspection
is completed. The report will be publicly available on the
agencys web site and through its Electronic Reading Room at:
http://www.nrc.gov as an Agencywide Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS) document. Help in using ADAMS is
available through the NRC Public Document Room by calling
1-800-397-4209.   
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NRC news releases are available through a free list serve
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are
posted to NRC's Web site.   



  


 	Last revised Monday, October 02, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 21 The NewStandard: Senators Move to Rush Yucca Nuke Dump - 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act  Nuclear Regulatory Commission

How Much Nuclear Waste Is In The United States? Dept. of Energy

Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the
2005 Energy Bill&quot; Public Citizen

src="http://peoplesnetworks.net/images/icon_acrobat.png" alt="PDF 
File - requires Adobe Acrobat - click to obtain" title="PDF File 
- requires Adobe Acrobat - click to obtain" border="0" />                                                                                                                                                           
[Document] &quot;Principles for Safeguarding Nuclear Waste at 
Reactors&quot; Public Citizen
Launch Effort To Secure Spent &quot; Congressmember Hinchey

Markey and other Members of Congress Join with Safe Energy
Groups in Call&quot; Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Catherine Komp is a staff journalist.

by Catherine Komp

With no long-term solution for the US nuclear waste problem in
sight, activists prefer reinforced, on-site storage rather than
distant, centralized dumping.

Oct. 2

Critics of congressional proposals to address the mounting 
problem of storing radioactive nuclear waste say lawmakers are 
ignoring science and jeopardizing public health and safety by 
proposing to push nuclear waste onto a controversial Nevada site 
that remains far from approval.

Sign up to receive NewStandard headlines and extras by e-mail 
weekday mornings! Your privacy is strictly respected.

Before Congress adjourned last week, Senator Pete Domenici 
(R–New Mexico) introduced the "Nuclear Waste Acceleration to 
Yucca" bill, which would permit disposal of nuclear fuel at Yucca 
Mountain as early as 2010. 

Critics see Domenici’s move as an attempt to skirt the 
established process for waste-storage approval, which they have 
managed to stall, citing environmental and safety concerns. "[I]t 
is not a site that can be licensed given reasonable standards for 
health and public safety," said Michele Boyd, legislative counsel 
with Public Citizen. 

Domenici’s bill, co-sponsored by Senator Larry Craig
(R–Idaho), would also amend the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
– the bill requiring the US government to start disposing of
waste by 1998 – to eliminate the cap on the amount of waste
that can be stored at Yucca Mountain. Currently, the statutory
limit is 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste for
the first permanent nuclear storage facility built in the United
States. 

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), 53,440 metric tons
of reactor and "defense-related" radioactive waste is currently
awaiting a permanent storage solution. The agency estimates that
amount will rise to 119,000 metric tons by 2035.
                                                
Domenici’s bill would also eliminate the cap on the amount of 
waste that can be stored at Yucca Mountain.

Another provision in the bill would permit the DOE to move spent
fuel to Yucca Mountain and begin construction on the waste
facility before the site is licensed as a permanent repository
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

"This bill does all these things to put pressure on opening up
Yucca Mountain when the basic science of the program is really
questionable," Boyd told The NewStandard. 

The Yucca Mountain site has been mired in controversy since
Congress approved it in 2002. Critics have questioned the
government’s scientific analysis of the site after the DOE
released official e-mails suggesting US Geological Survey
scientists were falsifying and manipulating data to move the
project forward. Last December, the Department suspended some of
the safety and engineering work contractor Bechtel was
conducting on the site after whistleblowers revealed the company
was engaging in questionable scientific analysis.

Domenici, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, is also under fire for a provision he attached to the
FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that would create
interim storage sites, also called Consolidation and Preparation
(CAP) facilities, for nuclear waste in dozens of states.

According the DOE, 53,440 metric tons of reactor and
"defense-related" radioactive waste is currently awaiting a
permanent storage solution. The agency estimates that amount
will rise to 119,000 metric tons by 2035. 				

A coalition of ten state attorneys general sent a letter to
Domenici and co-sponsor Harry Reid (D–Nevada), lambasting the
proposal. Their missive said the bill would give the DOE
"fast-tracked" and "unchecked power" to stick their states with
unwanted waste sites. A TNS analysis of the provision confirms
it would authorize the DOE to designate sites for storage of
nuclear waste in each of the 31 states that house nuclear
reactors "in consultation with" state governors. 

Senator Reid, an opponent of the Yucca Mountain site, is
supporting Domenici’s interim storage site proposal as a way
to keep the waste out of Nevada. 

Ann Alexander, environmental counsel to Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan, said the provision is unclear about
states’ prerogative to influence such plans. Madigan told TNS
that the bill’s "silence" on the topic of states’
sovereignty constitutes its "real danger." She noted that the
legislation empowers the DOE to choose federal or purchased
property and establish a site. 

Alexander said the provision could trump residential zoning laws
or state environmental regulations. 

"If there were some endangered or threatened species, it’s not
all clear under this law that the restrictions that would apply
when such a species is present on a site would in any way
prevent construction" of a waste site," she said. 

Alexander said they do not take a position on sending waste to
Yucca Mountain "except to say that the law does require that a
long-term repository be found" by the federal government. 

State leaders also criticize the short timetable for choosing
interim sites – only nine months – and the unaddressed
dangers of transporting radioactive waste, including accidents
and the potential for terrorist attacks.
                              
"These principles for safeguarding nuclear waste … are not a 
permanent solution for the waste," said Boyd. "But what we are 
saying is it’s addressing the real problem, and the real 
problem is security."
				
"The proposal would, given its truncated time frame, effectively
require that shipments commence before any of these issues are
sufficiently evaluated," wrote the Attorneys General. "The
proposal does not contain even basic measures to address the
major transportation-safety issues entailed in moving nuclear
waste, such as emergency-response preparation, accident
prevention, security and public education." 

Critics also accuse Domenici of hindering public debate about
the controversial proposal by attaching it to an appropriations
bill that offers no opportunity for public hearings or input. 

Public-interest groups also suggest the push for interim storage
and to move waste quickly to Yucca Mountain is driven by the
nuclear power industry. They argue that if the government
creates a "solution" for the industry’s waste, companies can
speed up the licensing process for new nuclear-power plants.
Congress and the Bush Administration, a strong proponent of
nuclear power, have authorized billions of dollars in subsidies
for the nuclear industry in recent energy appropriations bills. 

But without a long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste,
groups say, the government should not be facilitating the
generation of more nuclear waste. Boyd with Public Citizen, an
organization that advocates for the phase-out of nuclear power,
says right now the focus should be on protecting the public from
the health, safety and security threats posed by storage of
nuclear waste at current sites. 

Boyd said the investigations and audits following the allegedly
flawed and manipulated data from government scientists and
contractors has prolonged finding a long-term solution, adding
that the decision to establish Yucca Mountain as a repository
was a "political decision, not a scientific one." 

"These principles for safeguarding nuclear waste… are not a
permanent solution for the waste," said Boyd. "But what we are
saying is it’s addressing the real problem, and the real
problem is security." 

Public Citizen and more than 100 public-interest and
environmental groups are advocating for "hardened, on-site
storage," or HOSS, at current reactors, in which waste is stored
in highly reinforced dry casks. The coalition presented a
proposal to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
last month that calls for better protection and placement for
pools of spent nuclear fuel, more funding to monitor and review
sites and a prohibition against reprocessing nuclear waste. 

Though no states have yet endorsed HOSS, several members of
Congress have voiced their support of this method of storing
waste, which advocates say is the best way to secure the
radioactive material against accidents and attacks. Congress
members Edward Markey (D–Massachusetts), Maurice Hinchey
(D–New York) and Eliot Engel (D–New York) are urging
Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue mandates
requiring HOSS at the 103 reactor sites across the country. 			
			 			 		 	 		 	 	 	 	 	 		 			© 2006 <i>The NewStandard</i>.
All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher
that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content.
Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The
NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or
display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For
more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the
TNS reprint policy.  

*****************************************************************
 22 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear chief speaks on Tianwan NPP construction
 
02/ 10/ 2006

LIANYUNGANG (China), October 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will start
building the third and fourth power units of the Tianwan nuclear
power plant in China after the first and second units are
launched, the country's nuclear chief said Monday.

 Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly,
Atomstroiexport, has been building the Tianwan NPP, which uses
improved VVER-1000 reactors and K-100-6/3000 turbo-generators,
under the terms of a Russian-Chinese agreement signed in 1992. 

"The protocol signed at a session of the Russian-Chinese
sub-commission Friday envisions that after work is completed on
the first and second units, work will begin on the third and
fourth power units of the Tianwan NPP," Sergei Kiriyenko, who
took part in a meeting to discuss the construction process, said.

 Kiriyenko said that in terms of a combination of active and
passive security systems, the plant was the world's safest.

 Atomstroiexport vice president Yevgeny Reshetnikov said Friday:
"Russian specialists will be able to meet the previously agreed
date for the handover of the first power unit of the Tianwan NPP
by November 2006. By October 10 they will be ready to operate
the first unit at 75% of capacity, and we are currently waiting
for the Chinese side to authorize that."

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 23 The Mercury: Study: Tritium levels safe at power plant
             
Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

10/02/2006

LIMERICK -- The Limerick Nuclear Generating Station is not 
actively leaking radioactive tritium into the groundwater or 
surface water, according to the final results of a study 
announced Thursday by Exelon Nuclear.                                                         

The final results confirm preliminary results released July 31.

The study is part of a company-wide assessment of potential
tritium leaks at all 11 of Exelon’s nuclear plants across the
country, which began in February. Tritium is a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen and can be found in the environment as a
chemical or a compound mixed with air or, most frequently,
water, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. It is produced in higher concentrations in
water used in nuclear power production and its release is
regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"Slightly elevated levels of tritium" were found in six water
samples taken from on-site wells at Limerick as well as in one
surface water sample. However, the company release said those
higher levels are the result of "historic releases."

Exelon spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski described the "historic
releases" as four "unplanned liquid releases" of tritium that
took place "over the past 20 years." She said the spills had all
occurred "in isolated areas on the plant property where you
don’t normally find tritium" and had all been reported to the
NRC and to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection.

All the spills were "within our permitted discharge levels" and
there were no fines or violations associated with them, said
Rapczynski.

The level of radiation in the samples ranged from a low of 222
pico-curies per liter to a high of 1,500 pico-curies per liter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s EPA safe water
drinking standard for tritium is 20,000 pico-curies per liter.

Last year, however, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences
released a study that concluded that even low-levels of ionizing
radiation, of which tritium is one potential source, pose a
health risk if exposure occurs over a long period of time.

The tests at the Limerick plant were conducted in nine new
wells, seven existing wells and 12 surface water locations at
the plant. Each sample was analyzed by an independent laboratory.

"The news here is good," said Rapczynski. "We examined all of
our systems that carry tritiated water and we found what we had
expected, that none of them are leaking any tritiated water, and
whatever escaped in the past is well below the safe drinking
water standard set by the U.S. EPA."

"The results from this systemic assessment can reassure our
neighbors that we have continued our pledge to only operate in a
safe, clean and reliable manner," plant manager Chris Mudrick
said in the company’s prepared release.

"Moreover, the enhanced detection techniques we have implemented
will help ensure the future safe operations of Limerick
Generating Station," he said.

Rapczynski said the Limerick plant releases "highly diluted"
tritiated water into the Schuylkill River, a drinking water
source for more than 1.5 million Americans. She said tests taken
downstream of the release point show the level of tritium in the
water matches the level in samples from upstream.

The results at the Limerick plant mirror those at the 11 other
Exelon plants, for which results were also released Thursday.
According to a company release, the studies show "there are no
active leaks of tritium at any of the generating plants."

Which is not to say there haven’t been in the past.

The release makes note of the "historical release" at the
Braidwood Generating Station in Illinois. In that case, a leak
of tritiated water occurred over the course of four years,
leading to a warning to Exelon from the NRC and a lawsuit by the
Illinois attorney general.

In its notice of violation, the NRC cited Exelon’s "multiple
failures to properly evaluate the radiological impacts" of the
releases.

The Braidwood leak also triggered an advisory by the NRC, issued
July 10, noting that tritium leaks had been discovered at five
U.S. nuclear power plants -- three of them owned by Exelon.

On July 13, the DEP issued a notice suggesting all nuclear power
plants take measures to ensure tritium is not being released
improperly from the plants. 

©The Mercury 2006                                       

Reader Comments

Monday October 02, 2006 

Pros and Cons of Power PlantsStudy: Tritium levels safe at power 
plant By: Monica E. Kirchner

Power plants are one thing that everyone knows about. You rarely
hear about the behind the scenes occurrences at these plants
however. If you were to go up to about 10 people on the street
and ask them what happened at all 11 of Exelon’s nuclear plants
starting in February of this year, I guarantee that only one or
two out of the ten will know. Beginning in February of this
year, all eleven of Exelon’s nuclear plants were found to be
leaking tritium. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen
and can be found in the environment as a chemical or a compound
mixed with air or, most frequently, water (more info). All tests
that were run on the polluted water showed that the levels of
tritium were harmless.

Nuclear Power Plants of any sort are extremely dangerous to the
environment and to every person living on the planet. In this
example, we all got lucky. The levels of tritium were harmless,
to a point. The real question is, however, what happens when
next time the levels are harmful. Then we have a real problem.
People becoming sick or deathly ill, mutations in
generation-to-generation, and other problems such as problems
with the environment. What happens when those levels of nuclear
chemicals become so high in our ground water, or it leaks into
our well water, that it does do damage? Then these nuclear power
plants will be doing far more damage than good. For instance,
when there was the almost-meltdown of Three Mile Island, the
world was in an uproar. Panic stricken people fled the area to
places they hoped would be safe, but the truth was that no
matter where they went, it wouldn’t be safe. That one meltdown
of that one little plant could devastate the entire globe. The
release of the toxins into the environment could go across the
globe in a matter of ways. A few things that could happen would
be that the chemicals would seep down into our ground water and
be distributed to many households, businesses, etc. Another way,
possibly even more devastating would be through rain. Everyone
has heard of Acid Rain, well this would be acid rain to the
extreme. Instead of measuring acidity, we would be trying to
figure out how to measure levels of nuclear chemicals in the
rain. Nuclear Power Plants are un-safe, hazardous to the
environment and the entire globe, and something that more people
should know about and hear about on a regular basis.

On the other hand, Nuclear Power Plants, as dangerous as they
can be, are great economically. In the long run, and possibly in
the short, Nuclear Power Plants provide cheap and easy to afford
energy for everyone. If it weren’t for the N.P.P.s, many people
could not afford to heat or cool their homes. Prices these days
have risen dramatically, but the use of these plants helps to
bring those prices down to a level that even the below average
American can afford. N.P.P.s are popping up all around the
world, providing energy for people of all shapes, sizes, ages,
races, and religions. They are a great thing for the world to
have when it comes to cheaper electricity and heating needs. 

However, looking at both the negatives and the positives of this
issue, I have come to favor one. I believe that even though
these N.P.P. are bringing us cheaper electricity, the cons
outweigh the pros. When I think about it, I would much rather
pay higher amounts of money for heating or cooling, or
electricity that have the chance of some deadly chemical(s)
leaking out of the plant and polluting the world. I would much
rather know that my health isn’t at stake, and the health of my
possible future children and grandchildren isn’t at stake
either. The leaks at these power plants, however minor they
were, still shows that the power plants aren’t one hundred
percent safe and that they cannot always keep these toxic
chemicals from seeping out into the environment. It just goes to
show that there is a good chance for more leaks in the future,
and that they could be worse than the ones that have occurred in
all of the Exelon’s plants around the country. 
Monica E. Kirchner, Lebanon, Pennsylvania

 ©2006 Pottstown Mercury - a Journal Register Property. All
Rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC Public Meeting Scheduled for Oct. 6th to Discuss Indian Point Nuclear Plant’s
Alert and Notification System

News Release - Region I - 2006-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-054                          
October 2, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

Current performance issues involving the Indian Point nuclear
power plants emergency notification system will be the topic of
an NRC public meeting scheduled for Friday, Oct. 6. The meeting,
which will be between NRC and Entergy management, will begin at
1 p.m. at Crystal Bay on the Hudson  Charles Point Marina, 5
John Walsh Blvd. in Peekskill, N.Y. (Directions are available
at: http://www.crystal-bay.com/location.html.) 

Following the meeting, which will be open to public observation,
NRC staff will be available to answer questions regarding the
subject. 

Entergy Nuclear Northeast operates Indian Point, located in
Buchanan, N.Y. Like other U.S. commercial nuclear power plants,
Indian Point is required to have an alert and notification
system within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the
facility. The system is designed to alert the public in the
unlikely event that there is an event at the plant, so that they
can listen to the emergency broadcast stations in their area for
information and instructions. 

In recent years, Indian Points siren system has experienced a
number of failures. More recently, there have been three
occasions when the system was unavailable due to hardware and/or
human performance problems. The purpose of the Oct. 6th meeting
is to discuss the companys corrective actions to address the
systems ongoing performance issues; steps being taken by the
company to avoid similar problems with the new system it is
installing; and the status of the installation of that new
system. 

In response to an NRC order issued last January that implements
requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Entergy is
replacing its current emergency notification system. Among other
things, the order requires that the new system feature back-up
power. Entergy is required to satisfy the requirements of the
order by Jan. 30, 2007.   
  
NRC news releases are available through a free list serve 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC 
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail 
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 
posted to NRC's Web site.   

 	Last revised Monday, October 02, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Procedures for Meetings
 
                        FR Doc E6-16136 
[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)] 
[Notices] [Page 58015-58016] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02oc06-124]                         
 
Background This notice describes procedures to be followed with 
respect to meetings conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's (NRC's) Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 
(ACRS) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 
These procedures are set forth so that they may be incorporated 
by reference in future notices for individual meetings.
 
The ACRS is a statutory group established by Congress to review 
and report on nuclear safety matters and applications for the 
licensing of nuclear facilities. The Committee's reports become a 
part of the public record.
 
The ACRS meetings are conducted in accordance with FACA.
 
They are normally open to the public and provide opportunities 
for oral or written statements from members of the public to be 
considered as part of the Committee's information gathering 
process. ACRS reviews do not normally encompass matters 
pertaining to environmental impacts other than those related to 
radiological safety.
 
The ACRS meetings are not adjudicatory hearings such as those 
conducted by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel as 
part of the Commission's licensing process.
 
General Rules Regarding ACRS Full Committee Meetings An agenda 
will be published in the Federal Register for each full Committee 
meeting. There may be a need to make adjustments to the agenda to 
facilitate the conduct of the meeting. The Chairman of the 
Committee is empowered to make such adjustments to conduct the 
meeting in a manner that, in his/her judgment, will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business, including making provisions to 
continue the discussion of matters not completed on the scheduled 
day on another meeting day. Persons planning to attend the 
meeting may contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) 
specified in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting to 
be advised of any changes to the agenda that may have occurred.
 
The following requirements shall apply to public participation in 
ACRS full Committee meetings: (a) Persons who plan to submit 
written comments at the meeting should provide 35 copies to the 
DFO at the beginning of the meeting. Persons who cannot attend 
the meeting but wish to
 
[[Page 58016]] submit written comments regarding the agenda items 
may do so by sending a readily reproducible copy addressed to the 
DFO specified in the Federal Register Notice, care of the 
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Comments should be 
limited to items being considered by the Committee. Comments 
should be in the possession of the DFO five days prior to the 
meeting to allow time for reproduction and distribution.
 
(b) Persons desiring to make oral statements at the meeting 
should make a request to do so to the DFO. If possible, the 
request should be made five days before the meeting, identifying 
the topic(s) on which oral statements will be made and the amount 
of time needed for presentation so that orderly arrangements can 
be made. The Committee will hear oral statements on topics being 
reviewed at an appropriate time during the meeting as scheduled 
by the Chairman.
 
(c) Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the 
agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and 
the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by 
contacting the DFO.
 
(d) The use of still, motion picture, and television cameras may 
be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by 
the Chairman and subject to the condition that the use of such 
equipment will not interfere with the conduct of the meeting. The 
DFO will have to be notified prior to the meeting and will 
authorize the use of such equipment after consultation with the 
Chairman. The use of such equipment will be restricted as is 
necessary to protect proprietary or privileged information that 
may be in documents, folders, etc., in the meeting room. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those 
portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
 
(e) A transcript will be kept for certain open portions of the 
meeting and will be available in the NRC Public Document Room 
(PDR), One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852-2738. A copy of the certified minutes of the 
meeting will be available at the same location three months 
following the meeting. Copies may be obtained upon payment of 
appropriate reproduction charges. ACRS meeting agenda, 
transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC 
Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, by calling the PDR at 
1-800-394-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System 
(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is 
accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS 
oc-collections/ (ACRS schedules and agendas).
 
(f) Video teleconferencing service is available for observing 
open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service 
for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS 
Audio Visual Technician, (301-415-8066) between 7:30 a.m. and 
3:45 p.m. Eastern Time at least 10 days before the meeting to 
ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or 
organizations requesting this service will be responsible for 
telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and 
facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing 
link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
ACRS Subcommittee Meetings In accordance with the revised FACA, 
the agency is no longer required to apply the FACA requirements 
to meetings conducted by the Subcommittees of the NRC Advisory 
Committees, if the Subcommittee's recommendations would be 
independently reviewed by its parent Committee.
 
The ACRS, however, chose to conduct its Subcommittee meetings in 
accordance with the procedures noted above for ACRS full 
Committee meetings, as appropriate, to facilitate public 
participation, and to provide a forum for stakeholders to express 
their views on regulatory matters being considered by the ACRS. 
When Subcommittee meetings are held at locations other than at 
NRC facilities, reproduction facilities may not be available at a 
reasonable cost. Accordingly, 50 copies of the materials to be 
used during the meeting should be provided for distribution at 
such meetings.
 
Special Provisions When Proprietary Sessions Are To Be Held If it 
is necessary to hold closed sessions for the purpose of 
discussing matters involving proprietary information, persons 
with agreements permitting access to such information may attend 
those portions of the ACRS meetings where this material is being 
discussed upon confirmation that such agreements are effective 
and related to the material being discussed.
 
The DFO should be informed of such an agreement at least five 
working days prior to the meeting so that it can be confirmed, 
and a determination can be made regarding the applicability of 
the agreement to the material that will be discussed during the 
meeting. The minimum information provided should include 
information regarding the date of the agreement, the scope of 
material included in the agreement, the project or projects 
involved, and the names and titles of the persons signing the 
agreement. Additional information may be requested to identify 
the specific agreement involved. A copy of the executed agreement 
should be provided to the DFO prior to the beginning of the 
meeting for admittance to the closed session.
 
Dated: September 26, 2006.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-16136 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, et al.; Vogtle Electric 
 
                        FR Doc E6-16137 
[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)] 
[Notices] [Page 58014-58015] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02oc06-123]                         
 
Generating Plant, Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 54, section 
54.17(c), for Facility Operating License No. NFP-81, issued to 
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (the licensee), for 
operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2 (Vogtle 
Unit 2), located in Burke County, Georgia. Therefore, as required 
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment 
and finding of no significant impact.
 
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action 
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the 
requirement of 10 CFR 54.17(c), which specifies that an applicant 
(for the purposes of license renewal, the licensee is the 
applicant) may apply for a renewed operating license no earlier 
than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license 
currently in effect.
 
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for an exemption dated May 22, 2006.
 
 
[[Page 58015]] The Need for the Proposed Action In accordance 
with 10 CFR 54.17(c), the earliest date that the applicant could 
apply for a renewed operating license for Vogtle Unit 2 would be 
February 9, 2009. The licensee plans to apply for license renewal 
for Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on June 28, 2007. Vogtle Unit 1 will 
have accumulated 20 years operating experience by June 28, 2007 
and will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c). The proposed 
exemption for Unit 2 is required to allow the licensee to apply 
for the renewal of both Vogtle operating licenses concurrently. 
The request seeks only schedular relaxation without any other 
substantive reliefs.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has 
completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes 
that the issuance of the proposed exemption will not have a 
significant environmental impact. The proposed schedular 
exemption pertains solely to the future submission of an 
application to renew the Vogtle 2 operating license. It causes no 
changes to the current design or operation of Vogtle 2 and 
imparts no prejudice in the future review of the application for 
license renewal.
 
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in 
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the 
licensee approving the exemption to the regulation.
 
The proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being 
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. 
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent 
released off site. There is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
 
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' 
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change 
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
 
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use 
of any different resources than those previously considered in 
the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Vogtle Unit 2, 
NUREG-1087, ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the 
Operation of the VEGP [Vogtle Electric Generating Plant], Units 1 
and 2,'' dated December 1985.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated 
policy, on August 4, 2006, the staff consulted with the Georgia 
State official, Mr. Jim Hardeman of the Department of Natural 
Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No 
Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, 
the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated May 22, 2006. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th 
day of September 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Christopher Gratton, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
II-1,Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-16137 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: PPL Susquehanna, LLC.; Notice of Receipt and Availability of 
 
                        FR Doc E6-16138 
[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)] 
[Notices] [Page 58014] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02oc06-122]                         
 
Application for Renewal of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, 
Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 
for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated 
September 13, 2006, from PPL Susquehanna, LLC., filed pursuant to 
Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR part 
54), to renew the operating license (NPF-14 and NPF-22) for the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. Renewal of the 
license would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for 
an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the 
current operating license. The current operating license for the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (NPF- 14 and 
NPF-22) expires on July 17, 2022 and March 23, 2024 respectively. 
The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 are boiling 
water reactors designed by General Electric. The units are 
located in Berwick, PA. The acceptability of the tendered 
application for docketing, and other matters including an 
opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of 
subsequent Federal Register notices.
 
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20582, or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room under Accession Number ML062630217. The ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC's Web site at  
In addition, the application is available at .
 
, on the NRC's Web page, while the application is under review.
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
A copy of the license renewal application for the Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 is also available to local 
residents near the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station at the 
Berwick Public Library, 205 Chestnut Street Berwick, PA 18603.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-16138 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 28 IPS: POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Hits Doldrums

Inter Press Service News Agency     

Tuesday, October 03, 2006   03:43 GMT       

Praful Bidwai
 
NEW DELHI, Oct 2 (IPS) - The controversial United States-India
"civilian nuclear cooperation" agreement met with a major
setback over the weekend when the Senate formally went into
recess without voting for a bill which would have granted the
President George W. Bush the necessary powers to enable the deal
to be implemented. 

The Indian government has been rattled by this development and
is pinning its hopes on a brief session of the Congress in
mid-November, when it reconvenes after elections to be held on
Nov.7 to the entire House of Representatives and one-third of
all seats in the Senate. 

Both the Bush administration and the Indian government had
invested a great deal of effort into lobbying for a quick
passage of the Bill (number S.3709) through the Senate. The
House has already passed a broadly similar legislation. The two
chambers are later meant to reconcile the two legislations and
produce a single unified law.

 This law would implicitly recognise India as a nuclear
weapons-state and permit civilian nuclear commerce with it
although India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and has become a nuclear power in violation
of it. 

However, the Senate bill first ran into numerous procedural
complications and then got tied up with extraneous or unrelated
agendas of some Senators. 

For instance, Senate minority leader Harry Reid of the
Democratic Party moved an amendment that would prevent all spent
fuel coming to his native Nevada state for storage at the Yucca
Mountain Repository. This would presumably include fuel burned
in reactors supplied to India by the U.S. or from plants which
use materials traded under the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation
deal. 

On Saturday, the Democrats listed as many as 19 amendments to
Bill S.3709 and rejected a proposal by Senate majority leader
Bill Frist to have the Bill passed in its present form through a
"unanimous consent" procedure, with the promise of some changes
to be considered and discussed later. 

Although the Democrats agreed to accord a high priority to the
Bill in the "lame duck" Senate session coming up after November
13, there is no guarantee that it will really be taken up for
vote. The Democrats are expected to do better than the
Republicans in the Senate elections and may not allow the new
chamber to be convened till January. 

"All this is bad news for the deal", M.V. Ramana, an independent
nuclear affairs expert based at Centre for Interdisciplinary
Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore told IPS. "But
it's not terrible news. There is still a good chance that the
Senate resolution will eventually go through. But there is now a
higher probability that more and more new conditions will be
imposed, which limit the degree of cooperation permitted under
the deal or demand special assurances from India, which are not
reciprocally sought from the U.S." 

If the deal cannot be approved by the present Congress, it will
once again have to go through the entire process of drafting of
separate resolutions for the two chambers of the new Congress
and of securing agreement on them all over. 

The more the number of conditions imposed on the deal, the more
it will differ in content from the original agreements signed
between Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Jul. 2005 and
in Mar. 2006. 

"It's clear that the fate of the nuclear deal now depends on the
arcane processes and parochial concerns that mark U.S. domestic
politics, rather than on the dynamics of the burgeoning
India-United States strategic relationship," argues Achin
Vanaik, professor of international relations and global policies
at Delhi University. "Various Senators' preferences and
sectional interests will influence the way the agreement is
shaped. The initiative is no longer in India's hands."

 The Indian government is particularly disappointed and nervous
at the weekend's result because it had made a strong pitch for
the deal through its top diplomat and special envoy Shyam Saran,
and more recently, through Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee. 

Last week in the U.S., Mukherjee met various members of the
India Caucus in Congress, as well as the Zionist group, the
American Jewish Committee, and influential representatives of
the Indian-American community. 

U.S. business groups, in particular the defence industry lobby
and nuclear power equipment manufacturers, have also been
strongly pitching in for the nuclear deal, according to Subrata
Ghoshroy of the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Centre for International Studies in the U.S. He calls the deal a
"triumph of the business lobby". But the triumph has not yet
been fully accomplished.

 Had the Senate vote gone through before the recess, India would
have been in an advantageous position at consultations which are
due later this month in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. The deal
must be approved by the 45-member NSG before it becomes
effective. The International Atomic Energy Agency too must clear
it. 

There may be some opposition in the NSG to the agreement from
the Nordic states, Ireland and New Zealand. China too is known
to be uncomfortable with it, but is keeping its cards close to
its chest.

 Besides this uncertainty, and problems likely to be caused by a
shift in the balance of power between the Democrats and
Republicans in the U.S. Congress, the deal faces two obstacles:
one in America, the other in India. 

First, the Senate draft resolution explicitly prohibits the
"export or re-export to India of any equipment, materials, or
technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel or the production of heavy
water." But the Indian nuclear lobby is extremely keen on the
"right" to reprocess spent fuel from power reactors, whether
imported or domestic, so that it can extract plutonium from it. 

India has drawn up super-ambitious plans to produce 275,000 Mw
of power (or more than double the Indian power generation
capacity today from all sources combined) by the mid-21st
century. This presumes the use of fast-breeders reactors based
on the reprocessing of spent fuel. 

India's Atomic Energy Commission chairman is on the record as
saying that he won't accept a deal which does not allow spent
fuel reprocessing. 

It is not clear how the Bush and Singh government will crack
this nut. Their difficulties will grow if the Democrats emerge
stronger in Congress in the November elections. In that case,
the influence of the traditional non-proliferation lobby will
grow in the U.S., and the deal's passage will bear its impress. 

The domestic Indian obstacle is the political opposition,
especially the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which rejects
any shift away from the "goalposts" set by the original Jul.
2005 agreement. 

It will try to hold the Singh government down to its earlier
commitments, which call for "full" unconditional nuclear
cooperation. This is likely to narrow the government's room for
manoeuvre and compromise. (END/2006) 

  Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 29 KARE 11 TV: Commission approves Xcel's nuclear waste plan for Monticello 

kare11.com :: 

In contrast to stormy meetings of the past on nuclear waste 
issues, it took less than an hour at a quiet gathering of state 
regulators for Xcel Energy Inc. to win approval for expanded 
storage of spent fuel at its Monticello plant.

Unless lawmakers intervene early next year, Thursday's decision 
will become final in June, authorizing Xcel to store highly 
radioactive nuclear waste in above-ground containers outside its 
Monticello nuclear plant.

The decision was made before a smattering of lobbyists, utility 
executives and environmental watchdogs, a far cry from the noisy 
hearings and protests of 1994 and 2003 when Xcel sought to expand 
storage at its other nuclear plant, Prairie Island.

One difference is that this time, the decision was made by the 
PUC instead of the Legislature. In 2003, lawmakers handed off 
conditional authority for such issues to the commission, which 
otherwise regulates electric, natural gas and telephone service. 
Critics said the PUC was a less challenging arena than the 
Legislature.

Xcel wants to store waste in up to 30 steel-and-concrete 
containers as part of its application for a 20-year license 
extension at Monticello, northwest of the Twin Cities. Xcel plans 
to start building the storage area next summer, and to begin 
filling the containers in 2008.

The Minneapolis-based utility said keeping the plant open is the 
best option for supplying low-priced electricity and for avoiding 
air pollution from burning coal or natural gas. Monticello's 
radioactive waste will stay there until well after a permanent 
repository, proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nev., becomes available.

"Under any scenario, it's going to be a substantial amount of 
time before all the spent fuel could be moved," said Jim Alders, 
Xcel's manager of regulatory projects.

Beth Goodpaster, an attorney with the Minnesota Center for 
Environmental Advocacy, lamented the lack of discussion about the 
long-term hazards of nuclear waste.

One PUC member, former state Rep. Tom Pugh, suggested that 
legislators might take up the issue next winter. But another, 
former state Rep. LeRoy Koppendrayer, stressed the industry's 
safety record. He said endorsing Xcel's plan was the correct 
decision. (Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights 
Reserved.) Last Updated: 9/29/2006 11:43:51 AM        

©1998-2006 KARE-11 All Rights Reserved   		 	
*****************************************************************
 30 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Gov. signs Blakeslee's energy bill

10/02/2006 | 

Asks state to examine future of nuclear power

 David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill by Assemblyman Sam
Blakeslee that requires the state to examine the future of
nuclear power. 

The bill is the first legislative action by the state on nuclear
power in 20 years. It requires that the state Energy Commission
look at the cost to the state of the federal government’s
failure to open an underground nuclear storage facility at Yucca
Mountain as well as develop strategies to replace Diablo Canyon
nuclear power plant’s electricity if it were lost due to a
catastrophic earthquake. 

Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, said the bill is "critical to
ensure that the people of our state – and most importantly those
who live in nuclear communities like mine – do not bear
potentially significant impacts that may result from unfunded
long-term storage." 

Pacific Gas and Electric is building an aboveground storage
facility for Diablo Canyon’s nuclear waste. 

– David Sneed 
*****************************************************************
 31 Deseret News: University of Utah gets grant to fight 'dirty bombs'
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, October 2, 2006                                  

University of Utah gets grant to fight 'dirty bombs'                    
Researchers are developing drugs against radioactivity
                      
By Lois M. Collins Deseret Morning News                                          

The University of Utah will receive $665,000 to help find drugs 
to eliminate or reduce health effects of a radioactive or nuclear 
"dirty bomb" attack.

       The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
has awarded grants totaling $4 million to five different
research organizations, including the U.

       The goal of the research is to identify and promote
development of products that would help the human body get rid
of radioactive atoms.

       Those products could be included in national stockpiles
for rapid distribution in case of such an event. The grants are
awarded under "Project Bioshield," enacted to help federal
agencies speed research on medical countermeasures to protect
citizens against chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear
attack.

       In such an attack, radioactive material might be
ingested, inhaled or absorbed and the body could excrete it or
it could get into the bones, organs and other tissues, according
to a news release announcing the grants. If that could be
countered by products that bind the radioactive atoms or remove
them from the body, lives could be saved. And while the national
stockpile already has some anti-radiation treatments available,
they want to add new treatments that work against a broader
range of radioactive material and that can be rapidly
distributed.

       The U. already has patents on several series of drugs
shown to be effective against nuclear exposure, said Scott
Miller, professor of radiology and nuclear engineering at the U.
and principal investigator.

       He said it would be used to take the drugs they've
developed and "move them toward the FDA approval pathway."

       When the U. researchers first started working on
developing anti-radiation compounds, they were thinking of the
need in case of nuclear accidents and worker exposures or
because of environmental metals like lead or mercury that could
be dangerous to humans. Dirty bombs never crossed their minds,
Miller said.

       It's an important project for the people who live in
Utah, he said, where there's a long history of exposures to both
radiation and metals — for example, he said, the Nevada test
site and uranium mines dumping into the environment.

       "What we want to do now is begin to look at a greater
number of types of materials that might be used in a dirty
bomb," said Miller. "We need to determine how effective our
drugs are against these other materials and a broader range of
metals."

       Efficacy is the focus of the first stages of testing,
Miller said.

       It's a "rapid development" 18-month project. "We're under
a lot of pressure to identify compounds, what they can be used
for and get them into development quickly," he said.

       Two researchers in the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory each received grants that together total about $1.32
million. The other grants go to the University of Florida,
Gainesville, $1 million; and University of California/Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, $998,325.

E-mail: lois@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 32 reviewjournal.com: Scientists ponder future of Yucca Mountain dust
 
Oct. 02, 2006

Predictions made on repository performance       

Scientists huddled in Las Vegas last week to discuss what could 
happen hundreds or thousands of years after dust settles on Yucca 
Mountain's nuclear waste containers. 

While there is still much work to do, consultants to federal 
agencies found that corrosion on waste containers stemming from 
dust and water infiltrating the volcanic-rock ridge won't be 
significant for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of 
years. 

State consultants, however, who examined 2,000-year-old mud
brick ovens and 3,500-year-old tunnel deposits in Egypt's harsh
desert environment say there's not enough accurate data for
computer models to make such predictions. In essence, scientists
for Nevada contend their federal counterparts are making too
many assumptions on how ideal conditions are going to be. 

"What we have is garbage going in ... and garbage going out,"
said Maury Morgenstein, geologist and president of Geosciences
Management Institute Inc., a Nevada contractor, referring to the
data on which the government is basing its conclusions. 

To make predictions on how the planned repository, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, will perform in the future in light of
NRC guidelines, the scientists are attempting to answer a number
of questions. 

Will ingredients in the dust such as salts of chloride, nitrate,
sodium and potassium, mix with water vapor to form substances in
sufficient amount that corrode the metal-alloy shell surrounding
the steel-encased packages of deadly, used nuclear fuel? 

What role will heat generated by the decaying waste play in the
process and will nitrate, for example, slow down the corrosion
rate? 

The answers will weigh in the NRC's review of the repository's
design when the Department of Energy submits a license
application that's expected before June 30, 2008. 

Lietai Yang, a senior research engineer for the Center for
Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, said his
team's work shows the potential for dust mixtures corroding the
protective, nickel-chromium Alloy-22 shell around the disposal
containers could be higher than once thought above 320 degrees
Fahrenheit. That temperature for the waste container will occur
first about a century after the repository is loaded, the doors
are shut and the ventilation fans are turned off. 

The temperature will continue to rise for another few centuries
then drop back to 320 degrees with dust corrosion occurring
during that period of several hundred years, followed by brine
corrosion up to several thousand years. 

In the dust phase, the corrosion rate is 10 times higher than it
is as a vapor, Yang said. 

John Walton, a civil engineering professor at the University of
Texas-El Paso and consultant to Nye County, noted that the dust
samples that scientists are studying might not be representative
of those in the future. 

His conclusion: "The corrosion environment is dynamic, periodic
and poorly understood." 

After showing slides of a trip to El Hibeth, Egypt, Morgenstein
said, "I don't think the question is what does dust look like
now, the question really is what will dust look like in the
future?" 

Chris Kouts, director of the Office of Waste Management for the
Department of Energy's civilian radioactive waste branch in
Washington, said vendors soon will be asked to submit designs
for the waste-package system and canisters that will be sealed
at reactor sites with spent fuel assemblies inside them. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 33 The Rebel Yell: Article: Nuclear waste discussed
 
Current: 10/02/2006             Viewing: 10/02/2006                                           

By: Brian Ahern

In a dimly lit, sparsely populated conference hall in the Clark 
County Library on Thursday, the Southern Nevada Chapter of the 
National Organization for Women (NOW) held its monthly meeting. 
With less than ten people in attendance the audience may have 
been small, but the ideas presented and the assertions made were 
far from modest.

Peggy Maze Johnson, Executive Director of Citizen Alert, was the 
night's guest speaker and the tone of the evening quickly became 
focused on nuclear power, waste and alternative sources of 
energy.

Citizen Alert is an organization focused on uniting Nevada to 
overcome environmental and public health threats faced by the 
state.

"I don't think you can be against the Yucca Mountain project 
without being against nuclear power altogether," Johnson said.

She continued, saying that many of the common perceptions 
supporting nuclear power are not true.

"We were being led down this little path," Johnson said. "Nuclear 
power is not clean and it is not safe."

Johnson then placed nuclear power plants in her sights.

"If we're going to say that we can't have nuclear waste, then we 
have to say that we can't have nuclear power plants," Johnson 
said. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters were used as 
examples of the inherent problems involved with nuclear energy 
and power plants. "We want to build more and more of these 
things, but we don't even know how to build them."

For Johnson, too much is being done to develop nuclear energy, 
while renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power 
are being largely underdeveloped. She criticized UNLV, 
acknowledging UNLV's increasing presence in the field of nuclear 
energy research and grants from the federal government.

"The university needs to start looking more at renewables, not 
reprocessing of nuclear waste," Johnson said.

Although Johnson was speaking at a NOW event, very little of what 
she said addressed the agenda of her audience directly. The 
scattered attention she did give to the interests of the group 
came in the form of generalities.

"I believe that it's women who are looking beyond our 
generation," Johnson said.

As with most speeches given close to elections, the night soon 
turned political. "It's not an endorsement," Johnson said, "but 
Dina (Titus) has been the only Nevada politician for years who 
has been a paid member of Citizen Alert ... she is at the 
forefront of renewable resources."

As her speech came toward its end, Johnson reminded her audience 
what was at stake and what they needed to do.

"This is war folks," Johnson said, urging those in attendance to 
take part in her crusade. "We have to be extremely vigilant."

After the speech, the few attendees gathered around a table 
exhibiting merchandise for Democratic candidates running for a 
Nevada office in the quickly-approaching election. They handled 
stickers, buttons and t-shirts while NOW chapter president Jeri 
Ivens gazed around the room.

"Next time I'll bring coffee and donuts," she said.                                                     

Copyright © 2000-2006 The Rebel Yell | Privacy Policy | Terms
*****************************************************************
 34 Deseret News: Is tailings work slow?
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, October 2, 2006                                  

Matheson says yes; cleanup chief says no                                                         

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News                                          

Rep. Jim Matheson says he is greatly concerned about lack of 
progress in removing a uranium-mill tailings pile in Moab, but 
the chief of the project maintains the U.S. Department of Energy 
has been working hard on it.

['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic       

The comments by the Utah Democrat come in a letter he sent 
Thursday to Samuel Bodman, the department's secretary. The letter 
was forwarded to the Deseret Morning News by Matheson's office.

       Donald Metzler, the department's project manager, could
not be reached immediately for comment.

       Matheson wrote that over the past several months, the
department "has repeatedly extended the timeline for issuing
contracting requirements without clearly explaining the
rationale for this delay."

       He said he found that worrisome, since the project must
be fully budgeted and staffed in the 2008 fiscal year in order
to meet the department's "own 2012 timeframe" to remove and
relocate the pile.

       Congress indicated that it supports the pile's removal
and the remediation of the site, "and time is of the essence,"
Matheson added.

       "In 2006, intense summer thunderstorms twice resulted in
flash flooding that eroded the hillside adjacent to the tailings
site and the top of the pile itself, possibly endangering the
stability of the tailings," he wrote. He expressed concern that
a flood could wash radioactive tailings into the nearby Colorado
River.

       In a recent interview, Metzler said the project needs "to
bring down a new remedial-action contractor." The current
contractor helped the department prepare an environmental-impact
statement and do site maintenance and some water cleanup.

       "We've been working hard all this year with headquarters
to procure a new contractor," Metzler said. The department hopes
to bring in the new contractor in the fall to begin work "so we
can start moving the tailings."

       He said the situation is, "so far, so good. The Secretary
of Energy has given this project a lot of attention."

       The pile amounts to 16 million tons of tailings, by far
the largest that the department has tried to relocate, according
to Metzler. The tailings are to be moved 30 miles, mostly by
rail, to the vicinity of Crescent Junction, Colo. The department
has about 100 people in Moab and Crescent Junction working on
the project.

       "The Secretary of Energy is fully committed to moving
these tailings," he added.

       Some contaminated material was moved onto the pile,
shrinking the contaminated area, he said. The project has been
bringing in offices, showers and a break room to the work sites
at Moab and Crescent Junction.

       "We've been cleaning up groundwater. We're now starting
our fifth year of groundwater cleanup," he said.

       The department is pumping groundwater contaminated with
high ammonia content, pouring it onto the top of the pile, and
catching water in a four-acre, lined pond, where it evaporates.
That helps prevent thousands of pounds of ammonia and uranium
from entering the Colorado River, he added.

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 35 AU ABC: Soil testing prompts uranium mine fears. 

02/10/2006. ABC News Online

There is growing concern among landowners on South Australia's
Fleurieu Peninsula that their properties may become the site of
a uranium mine.

 About 30 residents near Yankallila have recently been issued
notices by the exploration company Marathon Resources about its
intention to conduct soil tests on their properties.

 State Liberal MP Michael Pengilly's electorate of Finiss covers
the region.

 He says the company appears to have taken a confrontational
approach.

 "In other areas where this has taken place, which is quite
legal I might add, they've had public information nights to let
people know what they're going to do but this just seems to have
been very sort of clumsy," he said.

 The Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Paul Holloway,
says although Marathon Resources has a licence to explore the
region, it is "highly unlikely" that uranium mining would ever
take place. 

*****************************************************************
 36 DOE: U.S. Department of Energy and NTI Announce Key Nonproliferation Project with Kazakhstan
 
  September 29, 2006
 
Agreement Reached To Downblend HEU and Convert Reactor 

WASHINGTON, D.C.  The U.S. Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Threat Initiative (NTI) today announced that they have reached
an important agreement-in-principle with the Government of
Kazakhstan to move forward with the down-blending of highly
enriched uranium (HEU) currently stored at Kazakhstans
Institute of Nuclear Physics.  The agreement also calls for the
conversion of the VVR-K research reactor to operate on low
enriched uranium fuel instead of HEU, which can be used in
nuclear weapons. The agreement is an important step forward in
fulfilling Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayevs pledge
late last year to rid his country of its HEU. 

This agreement represents another example of the kind of
productive cooperation the United States and Kazakhstan have
shared in furthering nuclear nonproliferation, said U.S.
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman.  Our cooperative efforts
support the Bush Administrations Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism, recently announced by Presidents Bush and
Putin." 

The project will be administered through the Department of
Energys National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 
NNSAs Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) will work with
Kazakhstan to make arrangements for the down-blending of the HEU
at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan and to initiate
conversion of the VVR-K reactor.  GTRI will contribute at least
$4 million to this important threat reduction initiative. 

NTI played a key role in the agreement being reached by
committing up to $1.3 million for a new reactor control and
protection system to improve reactor safety and a beryllium
reflector to enhance reactor performance. 

Kazakhstan and the United States are to be commended for the
foresight and creativity needed to make this agreement a
reality, said former Senator Sam Nunn, the co-chair of NTI. 
This project is an example of how governments, the private
sector, and international organizations can work together to
find innovative and effective solutions to make the world safer.
 NTI is proud to have played a role in making it happen.  Under
President Nazarbayevs leadership, Kazakhstan led the way in
getting rid of all its nuclear weapons after the break-up of the
Soviet Union and is once again showing the world a safer path by
converting its weapons-usable highly enriched uranium to low
enriched uranium. 

This nonproliferation cooperative project with Kazakhstan is
critical to our efforts to eliminate excess amounts of
potentially dangerous material around the world.  Only through
cooperation with the international community can we reduce the
threat of nuclear terrorism, said NNSA Administrator Linton F.
Brooks. 

Todays agreement follows a May 2006 agreement between the
governments of Kazakhstan and the U.S. related to NNSAs Second
Line of Defense program.  Under that program, U.S. and
Kazakhstan officials are working together to install radiation
detection and integrated communications equipment at strategic
border crossings in Kazakhstan to identify and deter illicit
nuclear and radiological materials. 

NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to
reducing the global threats from nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons and is governed by an international Board
co-chaired by philanthropist Ted Turner and former Senator Sam
Nunn. 

The mission of GTRI is to identify, secure, recover and/or
facilitate the final disposition of high-risk vulnerable nuclear
and radiological materials around the world as quickly as
possible.  To date, approximately 230 kilograms of HEU have been
returned to the Russian Federation from vulnerable sites around
the world and 43 research reactors worldwide have been converted
from operating on HEU. 

Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous
agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for
enhancing national security through the military application of
nuclear science.  NNSA maintains and enhances the safety,
security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce
global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the
U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and
responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  Visit http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/for more information. 

Media contact(s): Bryan Wilkes, (202) 586-7371 Cathy Gwin, (202) 
454-7706     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
   
*****************************************************************
 37 SF New Mexican: DOE: Energy Department: Sandia project unneeded

Mon Oct 2, 2006 6:21 pm

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - Sandia National Laboratories failed to back up 
the need for a $60 million project to refurbish an aging motor on 
a nuclear weapon, the U.S. Department of Energy's inspector 
general says.

Sandia is refurbishing the spin rocket motor, which provides the
thrust to arm the B61 nuclear weapon. The first unit is to be
finished in December.

The DOE's Office of Inspector General, in an audit of the
program released last week, recommended the National Nuclear
Security Administration make sure future weapons refurbishing
projects are based on rigorous tests, that other options are
identified and that supporting information is validated.

The NNSA, in a response included in the report, disagreed with
the findings, although it generally accepted the recommendations.

"We absolutely disagree with the inspector general on this,"
Bryan Wilkes, an NNSA spokesman in Washington, said Monday.

Doug Mangum, Sandia's systems engineering manager for the B61,
also disagreed with the report.

"I think we went through a very detailed review of the need for
replacement, and determined ... that the project needed to be
done. You don't wait for it to fail to replace it," he said.

Mangum said Sandia had both performance and aging concerns with
the motor.

The audit came after questions were raised about the DOE's
decision to proceed with the project.

"While we recognize that the age of the spin rocket motor in and
of itself may have provided a reasonable basis to be concerned
about the performance of the existing motor, the project was
approved before problems were fully investigated ... and before
the cost impact of various options was fully evaluated,"
according to the report on the DOE's Web site.

Glenn Kuswa and Dyan Clements, Sandia employees responsible for
identifying problems in aging bomb parts, filed complaints
alleging they were pressured to help sell the project, despite
data they said showed the program was not justified, the
Albuquerque Journal reported in a copyright story Monday.

Kuswa's complaint said he was told in fall 2002 that "management
was prepared to make heads roll" if he and his colleagues did
not come up with data to quickly sell the replacement program to
the federal government.

The surveillance program where Kuswa and Clements worked
monitors aging weapons, while a separate group designs
replacements when problems are found.

The inspector general said the NNSA received permission in
December 2001 from a nuclear weapons committee to study the
feasibility and cost of motor replacement options.

The committee approved the development of a new motor in April
2003 based on Sandia's conclusion that the old motors did not
perform to specifications in tests between 1997 and 2002 because
of "detrimental aging." Some versions of the motor had been used
for 30 years.

The lab gave the NNSA a list of 20 anomalies in the motors.

However, an analysis found 17 of the anomalies did not represent
failures and thus did not fully support the lab's assertion that
a new motor was needed, the inspector general said. The report
also said some issues apparently were resolved before Sandia
briefed the committee.

It also contended the DOE did not have conclusive information on
the cause and impact of test anomalies or information on the
cost of other options. It said Sandia did not fully support its
cost estimates and assumptions to support developing a new motor
rather than refurbishing the old one.

And it said the NNSA did not adequately validate key lab
information before approving the project.

The NNSA said the project was approved through a joint
NNSA-Department of Defense process that included aging studies
and analysis and peer review.

"There was sufficient concern with aging in combination with
spin rocket motor margins to justify the prudent course to
replace the motor," the NNSA said in a July 24 memo to George W.
Collard, assistant inspector for performance audits.

"When it comes to components that do not have a clear limit
life, it is often very difficult to accurately predict when the
component will start to fail due to aging," the memo said.

The NNSA said options and their cost were evaluated and that
reviews concluded the project was warranted.

Mangum said Sandia presented "a strong technical basis" for the
project and defended its need to multiple agencies.

"We provided the IG a lot of information that doesn't appear to
have made it into the report or have been given due
consideration," he said.

___

On the Net:

DOE report: http://www.ig.energy.gov		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 38 Knox News: Move of bomb-grade uranium saves millions

By By News Sentinel staff 

October 2, 2006

OAK RIDGE — Relocating stocks of bomb-grade uranium will save the 
government millions of dollars in security costs, federal 
officials said today. 

Ted Sherry, the Oak Ridge head of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, said removing the highly enriched uranium from 
Building 9204-4 — also known as Beta-4 — means officials won’t 
have to improve the security there to meet new requirements. 

The reduced security needs at Beta-4 will save $17 million in the 
short term and about $137 million between now and 2018, when a 
new Uranium Processing Facility comes online. At that time, all 
of the plant’s enriched uranium will be stored at two facilities. 

"By moving out of the Beta-4 facility, we have been able
redeploy our protective force personnel and thus reduce the
amount of overtime in performing the security mission at Y-12,"
Sherry said in a statement released to the news media. 

The NNSA would not specify how much uranium was moved, but
Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the transfer
involved more than 600 items in 240 containers. 

The amount of highly enriched uranium in storage at Y-12 is
classified. 

Butch Clements, the plant’s security chief, recently said that
the Oak Ridge facility had reduced its uranium storage sites by
30 percent. That means the plant doesn’t have to apply maximum
security to as many facilities, he said. 

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 39 Knox News: Footnote in history
                                                                        
Once a stop on itineraries of dignitaries, Oak Ridge Research 
Reactor awaits demise

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

October 2, 2006

OAK RIDGE - Kings, queens and presidents-to-be. They all visited
the Oak Ridge Research Reactor in the nuclear heyday of the
1950s and '60s. 

"It was the starlight of the world," said Gary Coleman, who 
watched as the reactor was built in 1957, worked there as an 
operator and supervisor for many years and was the facility's 
manager when it was shut down in 1987. 

JFK stopped there. So did LBJ and Gerald Ford. All before they 
reached the presidency. 

"We had tours there constantly," Coleman said. "That was a
showplace, and they really showed it off. They brought people in
constantly." 

Today the reactor, known familiarly as the ORR, remains almost
intact. It was defueled in 1989, and a few items were later
removed or relocated for safety reasons. But the control room is
much as it was, lights still flickering on the panel. The
reactor pool is filled with 125,000 gallons of de-mineralized
water, which circulates there to provide shielding for highly
radioactive components stored in the depths. 

Unlike its next-door neighbor, the Graphite Reactor, which was
the world's first continuously operated reactor, the ORR will
not become a history museum. 

The reactor currently is scheduled for demolition in 2013, and
that may come sooner if money is available. 

Walter Perry, a spokesman for the Department of Energy,
confirmed that the reactor is part of the Integrated Facilities
Disposition Program - a $1.5 billion proposal that is being
pushed by DOE's Oak Ridge office. That plan would accelerate the
dismantling of dozens of old nuclear facilities at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex. 

The agreement with environmental regulators calls for removal of
structures "at or below grade, depending on cost effectiveness
and extent of soil contamination." The rubble and contaminated
debris would be transported to the government's nuclear landfill
in Oak Ridge. 

Until then, the reactor will linger in state. The annual
maintenance cost is about $135,000, a small fraction of the $2
billion the government spends in Oak Ridge. 

"Processes and procedures are in place to maintain the building
in a safe and stable condition until final decommissioning,"
said Dennis Hill of Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Department of
Energy's cleanup manager. 

John Ettien, the manager of maintenance and surveillance, said
there are weekly, monthly and quarterly checks to evaluate
conditions inside the three-story, 37,000-square-foot reactor
building. Water levels in the 30-foot-deep reactor pool are
continuously monitored, and alarms would sound in the event of a
leak, he said. 

An analytical team from Mississippi State University recently
conducted tests of the aluminum plates that line the reactor
pool to assess the amount of corrosion, which was deemed
acceptable, said Darrell Dillinger, the facility manager. 

Taking down the 50-year-old reactor building and several others
nearby will support an ambitious modernization program at ORNL
and seriously alter the look of what's called the central
campus, the section of the lab that dates to the World War II
Manhattan Project. 

Wiping ORR from the map will be a sad event for nuclear diehards
who remember when the laboratory operated half a dozen reactors
of varying sizes and types. 

"It was something else. We did a lot of good work. We were
constantly producing isotopes for medical research and
experiments and helped a lot of people, saved their lives,"
Coleman said. 

He holds a personal attachment to the ORR. "It was part of my
life. I raised my family from that place. I've got three
children and all went through college. That place paid for it." 

Of all the facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, maybe
none presented a more compelling photo opportunity - especially
during those early Cold War years when nuclear was new and very
exciting. 

The most famous pictures are those of the Kennedys. JFK was
still a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, a
not-yet-announced candidate for the presidency, but he and his
stunning wife, Jackie, were photographed like royalty during
their 1959 visit to the nuclear reactor. 

"We talked with them," said Sam Hurt, a supervisor at the time.
"They went out to the poolside at the Oak Ridge Research
Reactor. We had a special ladder to get them up on the bridge,
so they could see what was going on. We didn't break any rules,
but we bent them a little bit, I think, for that sort of
occasion." 

Hurt added: "They were as nice a people as I've ever met. We
appreciated having visitors of that caliber." 

Coleman said the parade of VIPs and world leaders became almost
commonplace. "We had them all the time, so it wasn't no big
deal." 

But he especially remembers Queen Frederika of Greece, who did
her nuclear tour in 1958. He said she looked the part of
royalty. 

"She had on all them jewels and all that pomp and circumstance,"
he said. 

Other royal visitors included King Leopold of Belgium, King
Hussein of Jordan and King Adulyadej of Thailand. 

Indira Nehru, who later became Indira Gandhi and prime minister
of India, visited the ORR in 1963. Important delegations from
around the world came to Oak Ridge to see nuclear power
first-hand and grasp the possibilities for peaceful uses of the
atom. 

The ORR's last mission was in support of nuclear
non-proliferation. 

The reactor was designed to use highly enriched uranium as fuel,
the same stuff that is used to make nuclear weapons. In 1987 the
reactor's fuel elements were gradually shifted to a low-enriched
uranium and tested to see how it performed. The results from
that experiment were used to help convert other reactors around
the world, thus reducing the amount of materials that could
potentially be diverted to weapons use. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

The Oak Ridge Research Reactor was defueled in 1989 pending its 
final decommissioning. The reactor pool is 11 feet by 60 feet and 
contains 125,000 gallons of de-mineralized water to provide a top 
shield for the activated components remaining at the bottom of 
the pool.                                                                                                                                                                                         
 	 		 			 		 			 			 
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************