***************************************************************** 10/16/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.245 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Nuclear Strike on Iran Still on the Agenda 2 Nuclear Strike on Iran Is Still on the Agenda 3 AFP: EU to admit Iran nuclear talks have failed 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Ahmadinejad reaffirms IRI stance 5 AFP: Iran may face same fate as North Korea - Rice - 6 UPI: Iran's president firm on nuclear policy 7 [NYTr] US Tries to Minimize Discord over Korea Sanctions 8 [NYTr] Do We Bomb Iran to Teach N Korea a Lesson? 9 [NYTr] Region fears US military reaction more than nuclear DPRK 10 Nuclear Test Confirmed 11 [NYTr] DPRK Nukes: Here's a Novel Idea - Why Doesn't the US Ratify N 12 Korea Herald: Flurry of diplomatic missions follow U.N. resolution 1 13 Korea Herald: China inspects N.K. cargo 14 Korea Herald: 'Six-way talks won't end sanctions' 15 Korea Herald: Korean tanks useless in nuke warfare: lawmaker 16 Korea Herald: Dealing with nuclear N. Korea 17 Guardian Unlimited: Australia Bans NKorean Ships From Ports 18 Korea Herald: Satellite fails to capture N.K. nuke test 19 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Seoul's dilemma 20 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: UN resolution bans travel, weapons trade, lux 21 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects U.N. Stance on North Korea 22 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: N.Korea Sanctions Serve As Warning 23 Korea Times: US Reviews War Plan on N. Korea 24 Korea Times: Top Diplomats to Discuss Nuke Solution in Seoul 25 AFP: Australia bans NKorean ships from its ports - FM - 26 Guardian Unlimited: China Boosts N. Korea Border Inspections 27 AFP: US faces reluctance on NKorea sanctions 28 AFP: US confirms North Korean nuclear test 29 AFP: Rice rallies partners on NKorea sanctions 30 AFP: Japan may shift warships from Indian Ocean to NKorea 31 AFP: SKorean leader under fire over handling of North 32 AFP: Rice reminds partners of 'obligations' on North Korea sanctions 33 AFP: China clamping down on North Korean border - White House - 34 Japan Times: LDP policy chief calls for debate on nuke option 35 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Expects China's Backing on N. Korea 36 UPI: Walker's World: Ban's tough U.N. start 37 UPI: 2nd nuke test will build resolve - Snow 38 UPI: No enforcement yet of North Korea ban 39 AFP: Thirty new countries could acquire nuclear weapon - IAEA chief 40 UPI: REALPOLITIK: Raising the stakes NUCLEAR REACTORS 41 US: Jim Bell: Nuclear Power One of 42 US: NRC: NRC to Send Special Inspection Team to Surry Nuclear Plant 43 The Australian: Nuclear power plants in a decade 44 The Australian: Nuclear power possible 'within decade' 45 The Australian: Climate solution 'must include nuclear power' 46 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Implementation of Reactor Overs 47 London Times: Cracks appear at British Energy plant as Blair opens g 48 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear reactor '10 years away' - 49 AU ABC: Resources Minister endorses nuclear option 50 US: The NewStandard: Nuke Watchdog Urges New Look at Whistleblower C 51 RIA Novosti: Court against returning Adamov case for further investi 52 West Australian: PM, Downer support nuclear power 53 US: CT Business News Journal: The Fly in the Energy Ointment 54 Xinhua: Russian company plans floating nuclear plant 55 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 56 IHT: Czech nuclear power plant off the grid because of minor malfunc 57 Janesville Gazette : Workers begin to dismantle closed Genoa nuke pl 58 ANTARA News: Indonesia, Russia studying deal on floating nuclear pow 59 AU ABC: Nuclear debate a diversionary tactic - ALP. 60 ABC: PM, Resources Minister endorse nuclear power 61 US: UPI: Texas reactor's nuke fuel reduced 62 UPI: Bush calls Singh to discusses nuclear deal NUCLEAR SECURITY 63 Guardian Unlimited: Gorbachev: Nukes Could Keep Spreading 64 Guardian Unlimited: 30 More Countries Could Have Nukes Soon NUCLEAR SAFETY 65 [NukeNet] The Children of the World Don't Deserve This 66 [NukeNet] Global Impact of Radiation - 1945-2003 67 US: Leaf Chronicle: 'Birdcage' cases slow for some 68 SNA: Bulgaria: Workers Stumble Upon Radioactive Cylinder in Bulgaria NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 69 [NukeNet] Scotland: Cardboard boxes used to tra nsport 70 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear firm to be fined over leak 71 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield operator fined 500,000 72 BBC: Sellafield firm fined over 73 BBC NEWS: Leaks knock British Energy shares 74 US: Platts: Utilities may appeal spent fuel damages award 75 US: CourierPost: Newfield cleanup estimate in doubt 76 This is London: Sellafield 'left to leak for eight months' 77 Whitehaven News: BNG fined £500,000 for radioactive leak PEACE 78 US: NewsAshland.com: Hiroshima, Nagasaki: An International Exhibit US DEPT. OF ENERGY 79 [NukeNet] Y-12 confirms fire in uranium warehouse 80 KnoxNews: Special controls accompany plant experiments 81 KnoxNews: Scientists learning about genes through work with plants 82 Knox News: Oak Ridge facility to expand for security contract 83 SF Chron: Appeals court questions Livermore biodefense lab 84 Oak Ridger: Report: Guns cant fit through Y-12 barriers 85 KnoxNews: Nuclear Fuel workers vote to end strike 86 KnoxNews: Report: Poor security at Y-12, ORNL ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Nuclear Strike on Iran Still on the Agenda Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:21:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit [See origial article for embedded links in addition to the cited references in the End Notes. - NY Transfer] antiWar.com - Oct 16, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=9868 Nuclear Strike on Iran Is Still on the Agenda What will Congress do? by Jorge Hirsch The Bush administration has radically redefined America's nuclear use policy [1], [2]: U.S. nuclear weapons are no longer regarded as qualitatively different from conventional weapons. Many actions of the administration in recent years strongly suggest that an imminent U.S. nuclear use is being planned for, and this was confirmed by Bush's explicit refusal to rule out a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran. We have all been put on notice. The fact that North Korea is now a nuclear country does not change the agenda quite the contrary. There were fears that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in the Iraq attack [1], [2], fears that did not materialize. Hence some will argue that the current fears of a nuclear strike against Iran may not materialize either. Some will argue that there were many other occasions in the past 60 years when the U.S. appeared to come close to using nuclear weapons and did not [1], [2], that the threshold for using nuclear weapons always was and remains extraordinarily high, and that the nuclear "saber-rattling" is just trickery to scare our opponents ( "madman theory"). These arguments are wrong. The U.S. is closer than it has been since Nagasaki to using nuclear weapons again. This year, for the first time in its history, the American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement of deep concern on this matter: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for preemptive counter-proliferation purposes." In the case of Iraq, our adversary was so weak that there was no way the use of nuclear weapons could have been justified in the eyes of the world. Iran is different: it possesses missiles that could strike U.S. forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, as well as Israeli cities. Iran also has a large conventional army. The 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be at great risk if there is a war with Iran, and Americans will support a nuclear strike on Iran once the administration creates a situation where it can argue that such action will save a large number of American lives. In previous U.S. wars, nuclear weapons were not used because of an unacceptably high risk of triggering a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union or China [1], [2], [3]. Because North Korea appears to have a nuclear deterrent, and because of the risk that China could get involved, there is no danger that the U.S. will attack North Korea. In fact, Bush will use the fact that North Korea has joined the nuclear club, and charges that he was not "tough enough" on North Korea, as justification for attacking Iran before it too joins the club. Never mind the fact that, unlike North Korea, Iran has stated no intention to follow that path, nor is there any evidence that it is doing so. The nuclearization of North Korea will be used by the administration as an argument for nuking Iran, which may be why the administration did everything it could to encourage it. No nuclear country is likely to intervene when the U.S. uses nuclear weapons against Iran, so there is no military deterrent. The U.S. has now achieved vast nuclear superiority and is about to demonstrate to the world that its $5 trillion nuclear arsenal is not "unusable." It is ignoring the fact that crossing the nuclear threshold in a war against Iran will trigger a chain reaction that in the coming years could lead to global nuclear war and widespread destruction of life on the planet. The U.S. Nuclear Posture The Bush administration has made sweeping changes in the nuclear policy of the United States during the past five years, without consulting Congress or the American people [1], [2], [3]. Under the name of "New Triad," the key concept is "integration" of conventional and nuclear forces. Don't be fooled by the rhetorical cover that some missions previously assigned to nuclear forces will be taken over by conventional forces. What it really means is "a seamless web of capabilities": there is no longer a sharp line, a sharp distinction, between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Why should there be such a sharp line? Because, as a new Web site from the Department of Defense kindly explains, "weight for weight, the energy produced by a nuclear explosion is millions of times more powerful than a conventional explosion." Consequently, it shouldn't be difficult to understand, even for a Yale C-student, a nuclear conflict that gets out of hand will take many more lives than a conventional conflict. The last global conventional conflict took over 50 million lives. What is the benefit in making such policy declarations? The U.S. has never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons, and it carries a cost to remind other countries of this fact, since it provides an incentive for others to develop a nuclear capability. There is no reason to announce such ominous policy changes, unless the intention is to put them into practice, as when Bush announced in 2002 that "the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively" in preparation for the "preemptive" attack on Iraq. The aforementioned Department of Defense Web site on "nuclear matters" states that "there are a number of arms control agreements restricting the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, but there is no conventional or customary international law that prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict." That statement defines the "rules" by which the U.S. government plays. No matter that it ignores (and the Web site's list of "arms control agreements" also doesn't mention) the "negative security assurance" issued by the U.S. in 1978 and reaffirmed in 1995 promising not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states. Nor that it ignores the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice. The changes in policy have been openly declared in order to gauge public opinion, and to prepare the public for the implementation of this policy. Because reaction to these radical statements [1], [2], [3], [4] unfortunately has been rather muted, the administration will be able to claim that the American people by and large have embraced the new nuclear doctrine of "integration" of nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities" and approve of the use of nuclear weapons when they provide "the most efficient use of force." The Rumsfeld Transformation The changes in nuclear doctrine did not occur in a vacuum. They were accompanied by a strong push by the White House to develop new and more usable nuclear weapons [.pdf], and they are intimately tied to Rumsfeld's "transformation" of the military [1]. The overarching goal of this transformation is "downsizing" [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. What Rumsfeld did as CEO of Searle, he set out to do for the U.S. military. As Time magazine reported in its Aug. 20, 1945, issue right after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "One hundred and twenty-three planes, each bearing a single atomic bomb, would carry as much destructive power as all the bombs (2,453,595 tons) dropped by the Allies on Europe during the war." And this was before hydrogen bombs. To the extent that the U.S. military will be able to replace conventional weapons by nuclear weapons to carry out its missions, it will have achieved the ultimate "downsizing." That is the key to Rumsfeld's "transformation of the military"; everything else is window-dressing. The principal vehicle to achieve this transformation is the radical redefinition of the mission of STRATCOM, one of the nine U.S. Unified Combatant Commands. Before Rumsfeld, STRATCOM's sole mission was nuclear deterrence, and if necessary, the use of nuclear weapons. Since 2001, "USSTRATCOM's nuclear focus broadened considerably with the latest Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)." Now it is a "global integrator charged with the missions of full-spectrum global strike," and provides "a range of options, both nuclear and non-nuclear, relevant to the threat and military operations" [.pdf]. And it is in particular "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." A supporting role will be played by the expanded USSOCOM, U.S. Special Operations Command, providing Rumsfeld with convenient "intelligence" and covert operations capabilities. The new nuclear doctrine is the software, the new STRATCOM is the hardware, and Rumsfeld is the driver for the "downsizing" program that is about to be launched. Brace yourself. There have been many voices across the political spectrum calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for the botched Iraq war [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], yet he "retains the full confidence" of Bush. Why? Because Rumsfeld cannot be fired until he demolishes the "nuclear taboo," by detonating a small tactical nuclear weapon against an enemy. The U.S. military is reluctant to even consider the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, because it would provoke "an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki." Only after a small tactical nuclear weapons strike against Natanz or another Iranian facility will this barrier fall, and Rumsfeld's transformation will be a fait accompli. Why is "downsizing" the military so important to the PNAC crowd? Because the American public has no stomach for a draft nor large losses of American military personnel. If it becomes possible to wage war "on the cheap," without the loss of American life, and in the process we can lower the price of oil and spread "liberty" across the world, opposition will be muted. Public opinion on the Iraq war was not turned by the enormous number of Iraqi lives lost (of which there isn't even an effort to keep a count); it is only affected by the number of American lives lost. How It Will Happen "The decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required," according to NSC 30 from 1948. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the chain of command flows from the president through the secretary of defense to the geographic combatant commanders. If Gen. John Abizaid (CENTCOM commander) or Gen. James Cartwright (STRATCOM commander) asks authorization from President Bush to use nuclear weapons, following the guidelines in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, what will Bush's response be? As he often repeats, "I'm going to be listening to the people that know what they're talking about, and that's the commanders on the ground in Iraq. They'll make the decisions." The commanders on the ground will be driven by what they perceive to be the immediate military necessity, without regard to the larger issues such as the survival of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Congress will not be asked in advance to authorize the Iran war. Congress has already declared, in passing H.R. 6198, that Iran should be held accountable "for its threatening behavior" (which merely consists in Iran's refusal to give up its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). The Iran war is likely to start with selected bombing of a few Iranian facilities. Recall that on Oct. 3, 2002, over five months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we learned that "Coalition forces this morning struck an Iraqi air defense center after a coalition plane in the area dropping leaflets was fired upon, defense officials said." On Dec. 16, 1998, Clinton informed the American people, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." These operations, like many others, were done without congressional authorization. Bush will threaten Iran with a massive attack if it responds to such a bombing. Iran will certainly respond, and Bush will proclaim that this constitutes Iranian "aggression" against the U.S., and that Iran has "chosen" war. It will be less farfetched than in the case of Iraq, where Bush stated shortly before the U.S. invasion "war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice" (speech of March 6, 2003), and as the U.S. was about to attack on March 17, 2003, "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war." Once war with Iran has started, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their hand-picked nuclear advisers will find plenty of convenient "surprising military developments" to seize on to "justify" the use of nuclear weapons. Consequences The nuclear weapons that the administration is planning to use against Iran are low-yield earth penetrating weapons expected to cause "reduced collateral damage." Their real purpose is not to destroy facilities that are too deep underground to be destroyed by conventional weapons: it is primarily to erase the nuclear taboo, and secondarily to shock-and-awe Iran into surrender. The potentially disastrous consequences of this action cannot be overestimated. Once the U.S. has used its nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear signatory of the NPT, the NPT will fall apart. Many more countries will strive to develop and test nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly, as North Korea has just done. With no nuclear taboo left, many more countries will feel entitled to use their nuclear weapons against nuclear and non-nuclear adversaries. Military conflicts inevitably lead to escalation, and they usually end only when one side prevails. That is not how a global nuclear conflict will end. If the U.S. attacks Iran and does not use nuclear weapons, it will incur military losses that will vastly outweigh any benefits of such a war. If there is no Iran war, the Bush presidency will be remembered predominantly for the disastrous Iraq war. Crossing the nuclear threshold will overshadow all the other events of the Bush presidency. To the (however unlikely) extent that it results in an advantage to America, Bush's achievement could conceivably be hailed by future generations. The "rational" choice for the administration is clear. Like desperate gamblers in a losing streak, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. Congress The president can legally order the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance without asking Congress. However, Congress could block the authority of the president to order the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries by passing legislation under Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution to "make rules for the government and regulation" of the armed forces. If Congress passed such a law (see an example here), it would in practice also impede a conventional attack on Iran. Congress may also find other ways to derail a presidential push toward using nuclear weapons, for example by demanding that the administration publicly disclose plans or preparatory moves such as the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf. Only Democratic Congress members have, however weakly, questioned the wisdom of the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies [1], [2], [3]. No Republicans in Congress have done so, nor have they questioned the fact that the nuclear option against Iran is "on the table." This is not to say that Republican members of Congress would necessarily approve of the use of nuclear weapons against Iran; in fact, many if not most are likely to oppose it. And some Democratic members of Congress may be more hawkish than Republicans in regard to Iran [1], [2], [3]. However, the principle of "party discipline" applies to both Republicans and Democrats, and the administration that is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran is Republican. In the current Congress, as reported by the nonpartisan Hill Monitor Web site, Republican senators voted for the White House position 92.57 percent of the time, Democratic senators only 54.56 percent. In the House, the respective numbers are 88.50 percent and 40.99 percent. On the October 2002 vote requested by the White House authorizing the Iraq attack, a single Republican senator opposed it, versus 21 Democrats; in the House, only six Republicans opposed it, versus 126 Democrats. A U.S. attack on Iran will lead to the use of nuclear weapons and will be disastrous for America. It is the path that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, on the advice of Kissinger [1], [2], are hell-bent on pursuing. Whether the military would refuse to carry out immoral orders is uncertain at best. Congress has a role to play, perhaps the most important one in its history. End Notes: [1] http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2003prepcom/10SenatorsLetter.htm [2] http://www.house.gov/tauscher/Press2005/12-05-05.htm [3] http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1720&Itemid=58 [4] http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/n06042004_200406045.html [5] http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030407fa_fact1 [6] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209529,00.html [7] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/08/03/iraq-roundup.html [Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the Univ of California San Diego] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear Strike on Iran Is Still on the Agenda Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:06:59 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=9868 October 16, 2006 Nuclear Strike on Iran Is Still on the Agenda What will Congress do? by Jorge Hirsch The Bush administration has radically redefined America's nuclear use policy [1], [2]: U.S. nuclear weapons are no longer regarded as qualitatively different from conventional weapons. Many actions of the administration in recent years strongly suggest that an imminent U.S. nuclear use is being planned for, and this was confirmed by Bush's explicit refusal to rule out a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran. We have all been put on notice. The fact that North Korea is now a nuclear country does not change the agenda quite the contrary. There were fears that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in the Iraq attack [1], [2], fears that did not materialize. Hence some will argue that the current fears of a nuclear strike against Iran may not materialize either. Some will argue that there were many other occasions in the past 60 years when the U.S. appeared to come close to using nuclear weapons and did not [1], [2], that the threshold for using nuclear weapons always was and remains extraordinarily high, and that the nuclear "saber-rattling" is just trickery to scare our opponents ( "madman theory"). These arguments are wrong. The U.S. is closer than it has been since Nagasaki to using nuclear weapons again. This year, for the first time in its history, the American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement of deep concern on this matter: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for preemptive counter-proliferation purposes." In the case of Iraq, our adversary was so weak that there was no way the use of nuclear weapons could have been justified in the eyes of the world. Iran is different: it possesses missiles that could strike U.S. forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, as well as Israeli cities. Iran also has a large conventional army. The 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be at great risk if there is a war with Iran, and Americans will support a nuclear strike on Iran once the administration creates a situation where it can argue that such action will save a large number of American lives. In previous U.S. wars, nuclear weapons were not used because of an unacceptably high risk of triggering a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union or China [1], [2], [3]. Because North Korea appears to have a nuclear deterrent, and because of the risk that China could get involved, there is no danger that the U.S. will attack North Korea. In fact, Bush will use the fact that North Korea has joined the nuclear club, and charges that he was not "tough enough" on North Korea, as justification for attacking Iran before it too joins the club. Never mind the fact that, unlike North Korea, Iran has stated no intention to follow that path, nor is there any evidence that it is doing so. The nuclearization of North Korea will be used by the administration as an argument for nuking Iran, which may be why the administration did everything it could to encourage it. No nuclear country is likely to intervene when the U.S. uses nuclear weapons against Iran, so there is no military deterrent. The U.S. has now achieved vast nuclear superiority and is about to demonstrate to the world that its $5 trillion nuclear arsenal is not "unusable." It is ignoring the fact that crossing the nuclear threshold in a war against Iran will trigger a chain reaction that in the coming years could lead to global nuclear war and widespread destruction of life on the planet. The U.S. Nuclear Posture The Bush administration has made sweeping changes in the nuclear policy of the United States during the past five years, without consulting Congress or the American people [1], [2], [3]. Under the name of "New Triad," the key concept is "integration" of conventional and nuclear forces. Don't be fooled by the rhetorical cover that some missions previously assigned to nuclear forces will be taken over by conventional forces. What it really means is "a seamless web of capabilities": there is no longer a sharp line, a sharp distinction, between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Why should there be such a sharp line? Because, as a new Web site from the Department of Defense kindly explains, "weight for weight, the energy produced by a nuclear explosion is millions of times more powerful than a conventional explosion." Consequently, it shouldn't be difficult to understand, even for a Yale C-student, a nuclear conflict that gets out of hand will take many more lives than a conventional conflict. The last global conventional conflict took over 50 million lives. What is the benefit in making such policy declarations? The U.S. has never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons, and it carries a cost to remind other countries of this fact, since it provides an incentive for others to develop a nuclear capability. There is no reason to announce such ominous policy changes, unless the intention is to put them into practice, as when Bush announced in 2002 that "the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively" in preparation for the "preemptive" attack on Iraq. The aforementioned Department of Defense Web site on "nuclear matters" states that "there are a number of arms control agreements restricting the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, but there is no conventional or customary international law that prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict." That statement defines the "rules" by which the U.S. government plays. No matter that it ignores (and the Web site's list of "arms control agreements" also doesn't mention) the "negative security assurance" issued by the U.S. in 1978 and reaffirmed in 1995 promising not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states. Nor that it ignores the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice. The changes in policy have been openly declared in order to gauge public opinion, and to prepare the public for the implementation of this policy. Because reaction to these radical statements [1], [2], [3], [4] unfortunately has been rather muted, the administration will be able to claim that the American people by and large have embraced the new nuclear doctrine of "integration" of nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities" and approve of the use of nuclear weapons when they provide "the most efficient use of force." The Rumsfeld Transformation The changes in nuclear doctrine did not occur in a vacuum. They were accompanied by a strong push by the White House to develop new and more usable nuclear weapons [.pdf], and they are intimately tied to Rumsfeld's "transformation" of the military [1]. The overarching goal of this transformation is "downsizing" [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. What Rumsfeld did as CEO of Searle, he set out to do for the U.S. military. As Time magazine reported in its Aug. 20, 1945, issue right after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "One hundred and twenty-three planes, each bearing a single atomic bomb, would carry as much destructive power as all the bombs (2,453,595 tons) dropped by the Allies on Europe during the war." And this was before hydrogen bombs. To the extent that the U.S. military will be able to replace conventional weapons by nuclear weapons to carry out its missions, it will have achieved the ultimate "downsizing." That is the key to Rumsfeld's "transformation of the military"; everything else is window-dressing. The principal vehicle to achieve this transformation is the radical redefinition of the mission of STRATCOM, one of the nine U.S. Unified Combatant Commands. Before Rumsfeld, STRATCOM's sole mission was nuclear deterrence, and if necessary, the use of nuclear weapons. Since 2001, "USSTRATCOM's nuclear focus broadened considerably with the latest Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)." Now it is a "global integrator charged with the missions of full-spectrum global strike," and provides "a range of options, both nuclear and non-nuclear, relevant to the threat and military operations" [.pdf]. And it is in particular "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." A supporting role will be played by the expanded USSOCOM, U.S. Special Operations Command, providing Rumsfeld with convenient "intelligence" and covert operations capabilities. The new nuclear doctrine is the software, the new STRATCOM is the hardware, and Rumsfeld is the driver for the "downsizing" program that is about to be launched. Brace yourself. There have been many voices across the political spectrum calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for the botched Iraq war [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], yet he "retains the full confidence" of Bush. Why? Because Rumsfeld cannot be fired until he demolishes the "nuclear taboo," by detonating a small tactical nuclear weapon against an enemy. The U.S. military is reluctant to even consider the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, because it would provoke "an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki." Only after a small tactical nuclear weapons strike against Natanz or another Iranian facility will this barrier fall, and Rumsfeld's transformation will be a fait accompli. Why is "downsizing" the military so important to the PNAC crowd? Because the American public has no stomach for a draft nor large losses of American military personnel. If it becomes possible to wage war "on the cheap," without the loss of American life, and in the process we can lower the price of oil and spread "liberty" across the world, opposition will be muted. Public opinion on the Iraq war was not turned by the enormous number of Iraqi lives lost (of which there isn't even an effort to keep a count); it is only affected by the number of American lives lost. How It Will Happen "The decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required," according to NSC 30 from 1948. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the chain of command flows from the president through the secretary of defense to the geographic combatant commanders. If Gen. John Abizaid (CENTCOM commander) or Gen. James Cartwright (STRATCOM commander) asks authorization from President Bush to use nuclear weapons, following the guidelines in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, what will Bush's response be? As he often repeats, "I'm going to be listening to the people that know what they're talking about, and that's the commanders on the ground in Iraq. They'll make the decisions." The commanders on the ground will be driven by what they perceive to be the immediate military necessity, without regard to the larger issues such as the survival of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Congress will not be asked in advance to authorize the Iran war. Congress has already declared, in passing H.R. 6198, that Iran should be held accountable "for its threatening behavior" (which merely consists in Iran's refusal to give up its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). The Iran war is likely to start with selected bombing of a few Iranian facilities. Recall that on Oct. 3, 2002, over five months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we learned that "Coalition forces this morning struck an Iraqi air defense center after a coalition plane in the area dropping leaflets was fired upon, defense officials said." On Dec. 16, 1998, Clinton informed the American people, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." These operations, like many others, were done without congressional authorization. Bush will threaten Iran with a massive attack if it responds to such a bombing. Iran will certainly respond, and Bush will proclaim that this constitutes Iranian "aggression" against the U.S., and that Iran has "chosen" war. It will be less farfetched than in the case of Iraq, where Bush stated shortly before the U.S. invasion "war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice" (speech of March 6, 2003), and as the U.S. was about to attack on March 17, 2003, "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war." Once war with Iran has started, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their hand-picked nuclear advisers will find plenty of convenient "surprising military developments" to seize on to "justify" the use of nuclear weapons. Consequences The nuclear weapons that the administration is planning to use against Iran are low-yield earth penetrating weapons expected to cause "reduced collateral damage." Their real purpose is not to destroy facilities that are too deep underground to be destroyed by conventional weapons: it is primarily to erase the nuclear taboo, and secondarily to shock-and-awe Iran into surrender. The potentially disastrous consequences of this action cannot be overestimated. Once the U.S. has used its nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear signatory of the NPT, the NPT will fall apart. Many more countries will strive to develop and test nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly, as North Korea has just done. With no nuclear taboo left, many more countries will feel entitled to use their nuclear weapons against nuclear and non-nuclear adversaries. Military conflicts inevitably lead to escalation, and they usually end only when one side prevails. That is not how a global nuclear conflict will end. If the U.S. attacks Iran and does not use nuclear weapons, it will incur military losses that will vastly outweigh any benefits of such a war. If there is no Iran war, the Bush presidency will be remembered predominantly for the disastrous Iraq war. Crossing the nuclear threshold will overshadow all the other events of the Bush presidency. To the (however unlikely) extent that it results in an advantage to America, Bush's achievement could conceivably be hailed by future generations. The "rational" choice for the administration is clear. Like desperate gamblers in a losing streak, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. Congress The president can legally order the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance without asking Congress. However, Congress could block the authority of the president to order the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries by passing legislation under Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution to "make rules for the government and regulation" of the armed forces. If Congress passed such a law (see an example here), it would in practice also impede a conventional attack on Iran. Congress may also find other ways to derail a presidential push toward using nuclear weapons, for example by demanding that the administration publicly disclose plans or preparatory moves such as the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf. Only Democratic Congress members have, however weakly, questioned the wisdom of the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies [1], [2], [3]. No Republicans in Congress have done so, nor have they questioned the fact that the nuclear option against Iran is "on the table." This is not to say that Republican members of Congress would necessarily approve of the use of nuclear weapons against Iran; in fact, many if not most are likely to oppose it. And some Democratic members of Congress may be more hawkish than Republicans in regard to Iran [1], [2], [3]. However, the principle of "party discipline" applies to both Republicans and Democrats, and the administration that is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran is Republican. In the current Congress, as reported by the nonpartisan Hill Monitor Web site, Republican senators voted for the White House position 92.57 percent of the time, Democratic senators only 54.56 percent. In the House, the respective numbers are 88.50 percent and 40.99 percent. On the October 2002 vote requested by the White House authorizing the Iraq attack, a single Republican senator opposed it, versus 21 Democrats; in the House, only six Republicans opposed it, versus 126 Democrats. A U.S. attack on Iran will lead to the use of nuclear weapons and will be disastrous for America. It is the path that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, on the advice of Kissinger [1], [2], are hell-bent on pursuing. Whether the military would refuse to carry out immoral orders is uncertain at best. Congress has a role to play, perhaps the most important one in its history. ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: EU to admit Iran nuclear talks have failed Monday October 16, 05:50 [Javier Solana holds his hands up during a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels] LUXEMBOURG (AFP) - The European Union will acknowledge Tuesday that nuclear talks with Iran have failed and support a return to the UN Security Council to prepare sanctions, according to a draft document seen by AFP. Draft conclusions from Tuesday's meeting of European foreign ministers said that the Union now believes that "Iran's continuation of enrichment-related activities has left the EU no choice" but to return to the United Nations. The ministers express "deep concern" that Iran has not yet suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as required by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the UN nuclear watchdog -- and a UN resolution. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has led EU talks aimed at encouraging Iran to accept political and economic incentives in exchange for suspending uranium enrichment and will brief the ministers at their meeting in Luxembourg. An EU diplomat said that there would be no discussion on what form any UN sanctions might take. Major world powers have been debating sanctions to slap on Iran for ignoring an August 31 UN deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, which Washington and others fear could be subverted to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. AFP ***************************************************************** 4 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Ahmadinejad reaffirms IRI stance 2006/10/16 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that the Iranian nation will not give up one iota of its nuclear right and will continue in the path it has chosen. President Ahmadinejad made the remarks while addressing guests at an Iftar (fast breaking) dinner held at Narmak mosque. "The Iranian nation has resisted these bullying powers over the past 27 years (since the Islamic Revolution's victory in 1979). The enemies continue to threaten the Iranian people but cannot intimidate them," he said. He cited resistance against arrogant powers and creation of an ideal society as the two important goals of the Iranian nation at this current juncture. Ahmadinejad urged the people to help build an Islamic society with justice as one of its cornerstones, saying that in a society where members are treated fairly talent and unity will flourish. SM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran may face same fate as North Korea - Rice - Mon Oct 16, 4:53 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricewarned Iran" /> Iranthat it could face sanctions and international isloation over its nuclear program such as those faced by North Korea" /> North Korea. "I expect the Security Council to begin work this week on an Iran sanctions resolution," Rice told reporters. "So the Iranian government should consider the course that it is on, which could lead simply to further isolation." The UN Security Council unanimously voted for wide ranging sanctions against North Korea over its defiant nuclear test last week. The United States is gathering international support to also punish Iran for defying a UN Security Council decision calling on the Islamic republic to halt uranium enrichment, a process that could lead to nuclear bomb-making. After four rounds of unsuccessful talks aimed at securing an enrichment suspension, the European Union" /> European Unionis set to return the Iranian nuclear file to the UN Security Council Tuesday for possible enforcement action. "The greatest challenge to the nonproliferation regime comes from countries that violate their pledges to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North Korean regime is one such case, but also so is Iran," Rice said. The Islamic republic is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iranian government, she said, had been watching the developments surrounding the North Korean case and "it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation." But Iran says it will buckle under pressure. "Pressure and threats against Iran's nuclear program will not affect Iran in any way," the student news agency ISNA quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying. Uranium enrichment lies at the heart of Western concerns over Iran's nuclear program. The process can be used to make the fuel for civil reactors but in highly extended form can also produce the fissile core of an atom bomb. Iran insists its nuclear program is solely for civilian energy purposes, but Tehran's arch-foe Israel" /> Israeland the United States suspect the real aim is a covert weapons program. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Iran's president firm on nuclear policy United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/16/2006 12:16:00 PM -0400 TEHRAN, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country will not give up "one iota of its nuclear right," the official Islamic Republic News agency reports. Speaking at a mosque during the Iftar feast which marked the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Ahmadinejad said Iran would continue "in the path it has chosen," the report said. Iran is under pressure from Western nations to end its uranium enrichment program. Iran insists the program is only for peaceful purposes. "The Iranian nation has resisted these bullying powers over the past 27 years (since the 1979 Islamic revolution)," the president said. "The enemies continue to threaten the Iranian people but cannot intimidate them," IRNA reported. He said resistance against "arrogant powers" and the creation of an ideal society are Iran's twin goals. He asked his people to build an Islamic society with justice as one of its cornerstones, the report said. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] US Tries to Minimize Discord over Korea Sanctions Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:59:39 -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 AFP via Yahoo - Oct 16,2006 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061015/1/442f0.html US Tries to Minimize Discord over Korea Sanctions by Agence France Presse The United States sought to play down signs of discord with China over how to enforce UN sanctions imposed on North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. A day after the UN Security Council voted unanimously to slap weapons and financial sanctions against North Korea for its declared nuclear test, questions loomed about whether the measures would be fully enforced amid reservations from China. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted China would work to enforce the sanctions against North Korea despite Beijing's stated objections to cargo inspections. "China is signed on to a resolution that pledges cooperation in stopping the proliferation trade with North Korea," Rice said on the Fox News Sunday program. "I'm quite certain that China has no interest in seeing the proliferation of dangerous materials from North Korea," she said. Rice, who was due to meet Asian leaders starting Tuesday to discuss the enforcement of the sanctions, acknowledged that there were "many details to be worked out, particularly about how this embargo and interdiction might work." The blunt-speaking US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said Beijing bore a "heavy responsibility" to carry out the sanctions. "The burden is on China to comply with the resolution," Bolton said on CNN's Late Edition. The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Saturday bans trade with North Korea in dangerous weapons, bars the export of heavy conventional weapons to the Stalinist state, calls for a freeze on financial assets and imposes a travel ban on those linked to the country's nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs. The most hotly contested measure was the call for cargo inspections, which aims to prevent the cash-strapped North Korean regime from selling material for an atomic bomb to terrorists or rogue states. Bolton said the measure could be carried out mainly by inspecting North Korean cargo once it reached foreign shores but he did not rule out risky high-seas search operations. China, Pyongyang's main trade partner and which shares a long land border with North Korea, said immediately after the vote that it would not carry out intrusive inspections Washington says are called for in the resolution. In a Sunday statement, the Chinese foreign ministry said the UN resolution demonstrated international resolve while offering a way to defuse the crisis peacefully. "We advocate that the UN Security Council's action has to show the firm position of the international community, but on the other hand it also should be conducive towards resolving the problems through peaceful dialogue," said ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. Russia has shared China's reluctance to back punishing sanctions favored by Japan and the United States. Moscow described the negotiations before the vote as "tense" and had favored time limits on any sanctions. In a concession, the United States agreed to drop any reference to a threat of military force. While it remained unclear how the sanctions would be carried out, China and other world powers were in agreement in condemning North Korea for its nuclear test and its boycott of negotiations. The resolution urged Pyongyang to give up its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in a verifiable manner and return to international negotiations that it has boycotted for nearly a year. In Seoul, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev said the North Koreans had appeared willing to return to the bargaining table in talks last week. "The North Korean side several times returned to the point that the six-sided process should continue," said Alexeyev, according to Russian news agencies. The Russian met Sunday with Chun Yung-Woo, South Korea's main nuclear negotiator, who said it was too early to be confident the talks could be revived. "We have to see how North Korea will respond to the sanctions. After then, we can confidently talk about the diplomatic process," Chun said. North Korea's UN ambassador Pak Gil Yon angrily rejected the Council action. "It is gangster-like for the Security Council to have adopted today a coercive resolution," Pak said after the vote before walking out of the hall. One of the world's most impoverished and isolated nations, communist North Korea has insisted that it needs nuclear arms to deter an attack by the United States, which it says is plotting to topple the regime. The six-nation talks -- involving China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea, and the US -- appeared to have won agreement from Pyongyang last year to give up its nuclear ambitions. But the talks fell apart when the North withdrew after Washington imposed sanctions on a Macau bank that it said was laundering money from North Korea. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 [NYTr] Do We Bomb Iran to Teach N Korea a Lesson? Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:03:06 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Op-Ed news - Oct 15, 2006 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_061015_let_s_bomb_iran_now_.htm North Korea Tests a Nuke. So Let's Bomb Iran. "A loud noise at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." -Knox by Ron Fullwood When Bush was asked in a Rose Garden news conference this month whether his administration was to blame for North Korea get nuclear weapons while he bogged our troops down in Iraq, "North Korea," Bush pointed out, "had been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time, long before I came into office," he explained. "Accountability," Bush argued then, "lies with North Korea, not in Washington." That's the same tack Bush took in his radio address this week as he defensively spelled out his objections to North Korea's apparent test of their nukes; telling Americans and the world how he now intended to respond, and conveniently dodging blame for his five years of inaction while North Korea built bombs. Bush had his own little summary of the history, as he saw it, behind the development and escalation of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, which began with a predictable feint from responsibility and ended with a "dog ate his homework" defense: "After I came to office (in 2001)," he said, "we discovered that North Korea had been violating this agreement... my administration confronted the North Korea regime with this evidence in 2002... the North Koreans subsequently walked away from the 1994 agreement... we brought together other nations in the region in an effort to resolve the situation through multilateral diplomacy (ditching unilateral talks)... and, unfortunately, North Korea failed to act on its commitment." From the time Bush ascended to office in 2001, to the end of 2006, Bush sat on his hands as North Korea built up its nuclear arsenal. Bush expected everyone else in the world except his administration to talk to North Korea because he wasn't interested, despite the fact that he has based his entire missile-defense posture around the possibility of a nuclear attack from rogue states like North Korea. Bush invaded and occupied Afghanistan, invaded and occupied Iraq, fostered and facilitated Israel's invasion of Lebanon, yet, failed to directly confront the one nation which is actively threatening the U.S. and the world, and which appears to be in possession of the nuclear means to carry out the threat; unlike the other hapless victims of his Mideast coups. Bush was asked in 2002 why he was going after Saddam who had no WMDs, and not doing anything to North Korea for walking away from their 1994 agreement. Why, Bush was asked, should we be more worried about Saddam Hussein, who has no nuclear weapons, than Kim Jong-il, who is unstable and does have nuclear weapons? "First of all," Bush told reporters, "I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon." "Secondly," Bush said, "the international community has been trying to resolve the situation in Iraq through diplomacy for 11 years..." Eleven years?! Is that how long North Korea thought they had in 2002 before Bush would get serious? No wonder Kim Jong-il assumed he was free to continue building his arsenal. Bush has been so hot on using our military to defend against these other imagined threats to our security that it would seem a 'slam-dunk' that North Korea would get the military works from the invader-in chief. But, all Bush can manage to do and say as Kim Jong-il plays chicken this time, is to hide behind his "partners in the region" and threaten the regime, again, with "serious repercussions." Where does Bush see his responsibility in delivering those repercussions he has promised; the repercussions that were due North Korea from the moment he "came to office" and discovered they were in violation? What did he do when he discovered they were in violation of the 1994 bilateral agreement? By his own explanation, Bush waited a year, until 2002, to "confront North Korea with the evidence." He then, simply, allowed North Korea to walk away from the treaty. Bush's response to the rogue regime was to step back even further from directly confronting Kim Jong-il, and leave that job to China and others as he hid behind his carefully constructed wall of the 'six-party talks' and ducked accountability for allowing the certain violations to continue unabated. Bush is still committed to outsourcing responsibility to the rest of the world for following through on his many ultimatums to North Korea, his swaggering declarations that NK wouldn't be allowed to build their weapons with impunity. The "serious repercussions" he says North Korea are due will apparently not come in the form of the 'shock and awe' that he insisted Iraq deserved for Saddam's intransigence in making the details of his arsenal available to U.N. inspectors. In the case of North Korea, for Bush, repercussions are to be "negotiated with those in the region." Bush is vowing to "pursue a diplomatic solution" to Kim Jong-il's intransigence. It's in sharp contrast with the fervor and zeal in which encouraged the nation and the world to join him in as he rushed to invade and occupy Iraq. It shouldn't be seen as so far fetched to suggest that Bush doesn't give a wit at all about North Korea's apparent massing and testing of their nuclear arsenal. Bush waited and watched as Kim Jong-il built up his nuclear arsenal, all the while insisting that we direct the bulk of our defenses to Iraq, where there was no threat at all to our nation. Afghanistan gets only a miserly fraction of the forces Bush put in Iraq as bin-Laden and his accomplices find refuge in the mountains which border Pakistan. How can anyone look at the way Bush has committed our forces and conclude that he's at all serious about actually confronting the most pernicious threats we actually face? Bush's explanation for his own failure to directly confront North Korea is that Kim Jong-il "failed to act," rather than the more obvious impression he's sending North Korea, and by extension, Iran, of his own unwillingness to act against the defiant regime. The example Bush provided the world in his invasion, occupations, and military muckraking in Iraq and Afghanistan is that our great military power's leader is more content with coveting his conquered prizes, than he is in directly confronting any of the antagonists he's presented as the primary provocateurs of our apocalypse. Japan has already invited Lockheed's military-industrial warriors to install more of their 'missile defense' boondoggle as a counter to the North Korean aggression. Poland and other Central European nations have, so far, resisted the Bush cabal's hard-sell of similar U.S. 'missile defense' technology on their soil to counter the administration's hyped threat from Iran. Where is the incentive for Bush to actually stop North Korea? He and the industry cronies that he's packed into his Executive offices recognize the political value of maintaining the public perception of a potential threat from North Korea to keeps pressure on Congress at appropriation time. Why would a "nuclear-free Korean peninsula" need an extensive, costly missile-defense system? Instead of direct diplomacy with North Korea, Iran, and others, Bush is resigning us to these 'cold war' confrontations that allow the antagonists to inflate whatever threat they pose as he zealously inflates our own nation's potential for unleashing devastating, destructive reprisals and pads the bank accounts of his military-industry benefactors. Bush is unconcerned about his own ineptness in confronting the forces massing against our nation, because he's measuring his own importance against the threats that he intends to bequeath to future generations rather than solve. Former U.S. Secretary Baker, leading the 'Iraq Study Group', created last March by Congress, argues in their 'Stability First' document that, it's important to "work toward political accommodation with insurgents.. ." Baker has been openly encouraging Bush to begin direct talks with countries he's been isolating in his rhetoric, like Syria and Iran. The elders want a solution, and have signaled their exasperation with the younger Bush's crusades. Bush should recognize how far out of line he is as Baker, still strongly in support of the continued occupation, is advocating talking with our nation's enemies. Perhaps they're hamstrung because Bush isn't seen as any more credible in the world community than Kim Jong-il. The North Korean strongman couldn't have missed the irony in Bush's call for a "nuclear-free, Korean peninsula as the American president actively pursues new nuclear weapons for the U.S. arsenal, with new justifications for their use centering on the potential threat from North Korea. Kim Jong-il couldn't have missed the scrapping of a generation of nuclear disarmament without so much as a blink as the Bush regime turned their backs on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to facilitate their own rush to fiddle with our stockpile. As the Korean head of state complains that he considers Bush's actions and those of the security council threats to his regime, the administration's nuclear hypocrisy makes those threats credible, if only in North Korea's view. Bush deliberately missed the point of North Korea's rattling of their nuclear war chest just so he could maintain whatever air of fear he could manage to transfer to Americans over the suspected nuclear tests. North Korea, like other nations who seek nuclear power, is trying to gain a level of attention and involvement from the world which is normally only afforded to nuclear states. Kim Jong-il must have been wondering what it would take to re-focus the attention of the U.S. and the world on his impoverished nation as Bush seemed more disinterested in every successive nuke the regime announced. The Korean strongman must have been thinking that he couldn't have misunderstood the signals Bush was sending by virtually ignoring his nuclear build-up while digging our forces even further into Iraq. Kim Jong-il's bombs must have bored Bush. There's no oil in North Korea for Bush to exploit, so he'll make do with spreading around whatever fear he can siphon out of the festering holes that a bored Jong-il has apparently taken to carving out of the North Korean countryside with his nuclear toys. Spreading fear is what Bush and his republican party have been banking on as they conduct their smear and fear campaigns, questioning patriotism, boasting about whatever scheme they imagine they're running behind the deaths and sacrifices of the soldiers they sent to fight and die on a whim. Kim Jong-il is more than welcome in their antagonists' club, along with the deposed Saddam and the elusive bin-Laden and associates. If Jong-il keeps it up, any day now we could be hearing tantalizing excerpts from his revolutionary speeches dutifully repeated by Bush alongside of the fear snippets from al-Qaeda he's fond of throwing into the middle of his fundraising appeals. By doing nothing more than running his mouth with his hands in his pockets, Bush can help return North Korea to the top of his evil axis pyramid. Just like he did in invading Iraq when confronted with bin-Laden in Afghanistan, Bush is free-and-clear now to bomb Iran in order to give North Korea the attention they've earned. [*Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 9 [NYTr] Region fears US military reaction more than nuclear DPRK Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:03:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness Region fears US military reaction more than nuclear North Korea The Irish Times - Oct 16, 2006 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/1016/1160606655967.html South Korea reacts to UN-imposed sanctions on North Korea, Clifford Coonan, in Busan Scientists are still trying to work out the technical details of North Korea's nuclear weapons test at an underground site at the town of Kilju, 100 kilometres from the Chinese border, last Monday morning. It was small for a nuclear explosion, if that is what it was, but the test has sent huge shockwaves rippling through Asia and the rest of the world, which now has to come to terms with the reality of a new, ninth member of the exclusive club of nations with nuclear capabilities. It's a nightmare scenario - nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il, a maverick widely regarded as a highly dangerous, paranoid, megalomaniac, who uses terrorism and threats to get his way. The world is significantly less safe one week on. In the South Korean capital, Seoul, there are growing calls for Washington to redeploy the tactical nuclear weapons that it pulled out in 1991, while others want South Korea to develop its own nuclear weapons. Similar demands are gaining currency in Japan, and in Taiwan, raising the prospect of an Asian arms race. The focus of the international community had long been on Iran's nuclear programme, to the undoubted chagrin of Mr Kim, who successfully steered the world's attention back to his small communist enclave by fulfilling his threat to test a nuclear device. It was a desperate bid to earn respect. The initial reaction from around the world was nearly unanimous condemnation, with even China, North Korea's only friend in the world, slamming the test as a "brazen" act, a harsh term to use between allies. Beijing was furious. Even though China's energy and food aid is a lifeline for Mr Kim's regime, the Chinese received only a brief warning that the test was going to take place, and this after warning Pyongyang for months not to test nuclear weapons. There was talk of abandoning a treaty Beijing signed in a spirit of communist fellow feeling in 1961, which commits China to defending North Korea if it comes under attack. Since then, China has calmed down and moderated its reaction, calling for a resumption of the stalled six-nation talks aimed at solving the nuclear stand-off and trying to avoid the possibility of any efforts to unseat Mr Kim. China fears regime change in North Korea as it would have to bear the brunt of refugees streaming across the border and also doesn't like the prospect of a US-backed capitalist democracy like South Korea's in its back garden. China cannot tolerate Western censure at a time when its economy is growing on the back of exports to the US and Europe, among others, and Beijing is also keen to showcase its diplomatic skills and ability to play honest broker in the region. Underlining this role, senior Chinese diplomat Tang Jiaxuan met President George Bush to discuss ways to ease the situation, although Mr Bush's aides later acknowledged differences over how to deal with the North Korean crisis. After apparently convincing the Americans, British and French to soften the sanctions somewhat, China backed the UN Security Council in adopting a new US draft resolution slapping non-military global sanctions on North Korea. Nerves across the continent were badly rattled, although it is doubtful that North Korea is trying to force an escalation into open military conflict. Pyongyang more likely felt cornered and had to react somehow. So it reacted the only way it knows how - with a focused action aimed at generating fear. In South Korea, where they know a thing or two about living with fear, the people have developed a tough skin when it comes to the North's nuclear programme. The South Korean defence ministry estimates that North Korea has over 13,000 rockets and missiles pointed at the capital Seoul, which is just 50 kilometres from the border and is home to around half of South Korea's 48.5 million people. Jane's International Defence Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area. Even without nuclear weapons, North Korea could do serious damage to its rich southern cousins. President Roh Moo-hyun has been criticised for his soft-pedalling, "sunshine policy" on North Korea and supplying the North with too much economic aid, which may have been used in the nuclear programme. South Koreans are more concerned at the prospect of reunification with the North, which they view as an economic disaster waiting to happen. Polls show that only 12 per cent of South Koreans see unification was an absolute necessity, down 7 percentage points from a year earlier. Against this background, South Korea also backed the US proposal on sanctions. At a summit in Beijing, Mr Roh and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao agreed to support the Security Council in taking "necessary and appropriate sanctions" on the North. The revised draft, which includes an arms and technology embargo, is believed to require a new UN resolution if any further action needs to be taken, which means that any military intervention would have to happen following fresh consultation within the council. There are questions over whether the sanctions will make much difference - the country has lived under US embargo since the end of the Korean War in 1953. But if the North is unable to sell its goods abroad, the sanctions could work, said the Korean Institute for International Economic Policy in Seoul. "External trade is very important for the North. If its trade with other countries is curbed, its economy will face a sharp decline, greater than the situation in the mid-1990s," it said, referring to the economic mismanagement and series of natural disasters a decade ago, causing a famine in which over two million North Koreans died. Situated within striking range of North Korea, Japan is extremely worried at the idea of a nuclear North. Lately North Korea's third-biggest trading partner, Tokyo has also introduced its own restrictions, including a ban on imports from the North and closing Japanese ports to North Korean ships, beefing up earlier sanctions levied on the North after it conducted multiple missile tests in July. The test highlighted the bankruptcy of nearly 20 years of diplomatic efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions and secure a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, a failure particularly keenly felt in Washington where Mr Bush has come in for criticism for the way his administration has handled the nuclear crisis. For many years Mr Bush focused on the perceived nuclear threat posed by Iraq, which subsequently proved a groundless fear. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Mr Bush described North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil" alongside Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and said separately that he loathed Mr Kim for starving his people. Paik Hak-soon, a North Korea analyst at the Sejong Institute outside Seoul, said labelling North Korea like that was like "trying to talk to a woman after calling her a prostitute". Mr Bush said in 2003 that his government would "not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea" but his strong words were not matched with firm actions on resolving the crisis. However, analysts in Seoul say the one thing people in the region fear more than a nuclear North Korea is US military action. Mr Bush seems set on following the UN route for the time being, having called for the swift passage of sanctions and apparently ruling out a military strike. "I believe the commander-in-chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military," he said earlier this week. Mr Kim is unlikely to take much solace from this message. He firmly believes that only nuclear weapons will stop Washington from deposing him by force, something he believes all the more fervently since the US-led invasion of fellow rogue state Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein. "They want to get accepted. They honestly think in their own way that if they didn't act tough, they wouldn't just not get attention, but get invaded eventually," Michael Breen, a biographer of Kim Jong-il and longtime Korea-watcher, told the Korea Herald. "I don't think he is prepared to give up his nuclear weapons. That would require him to trust the United States and South Korea. We may have to live with a nuclear North Korea for a while," he said. C The Irish Times * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear Test Confirmed Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:47:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ PM Monday, October 16, 2006 North Korea's Nuclear Test: Causes and Ramifications AP is reporting: "Air samples gathered last week contain radioactive materials that confirm that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's office said Monday." THOMAS P. KIM, TKim@scrippscollege.edu, http://www.kpolicy.org/projects-spotlight.html Kim is executive director of the Korea Policy Institute and professor of politics and international relations at Scripps College. The Korea Policy Institute recently released a brief titled "North Korea Wants to Talk." JOHN BURROUGHS, johnburroughs@lcnp.org, http://www.wmdreport.org JACQUELINE CABASSO, cell: (510) 306-0119, wslf@earthlink.net, http://www.wslfweb.org, Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. Cabasso is executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation, which also focuses on nuclear policy issues. They are co-authors of the report "Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security?" which will be released tomorrow. The report is a response to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Hans Blix, see: . Blix will be on a panel with Burroughs and Cabasso tomorrow at the United Nations. JOSEPH GERSON, Jgerson@afsc.org, http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1368 Gerson is author of the forthcoming book "Empire and the Bomb: How the United States Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World" and "With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion, and Moral Imagination." ALICE SLATER, aslater@rcn.com, http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1367 Slater is director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: public@lists.accuracy.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org For all list information and functions, including changing your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public ***************************************************************** 11 [NYTr] DPRK Nukes: Here's a Novel Idea - Why Doesn't the US Ratify NPT? Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:56:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Huffington Post - Oct 16, 2006 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/us-should-set-example-for_b_31791.html US Should Set Example for North Korea and Ratify Nuclear Test Ban by Nathan Gardels Certainly, no one outside Kim Jong Il's dictatorship welcomes North Korea joining the nuclear club. But, to be honest, one must also ask how the US and China can demand that North Korea not conduct nuclear tests when they themselves won't ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? (China won't do it because the US won't. That is the question raised by Hans Blix, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency and UN chief arms inspector. Read my conversation with him below: HANS BLIX: FOR NORTH KOREA TO BACK DOWN, U.S. MUST RATIFY TEST BAN TREATY, OFFER SECURITY GUARANTEE Hans Blix was Sweden's foreign minister from 1978-1979 and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981-1997; he led the United Nations' inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from 2000-2003. He spoke with Nathan Gardels in New York on Sunday, Oct. 15. Nathan Gardels: What are the implications for nuclear proliferation of the North Korean nuclear test? Hans Blix: First of all, it is a diplomatic and media explosion that finally focuses the world's attention on what to do about North Korea. After all, we have suspected for a long time that North Korea had enough plutonium to make five to 10 bombs. In that sense, what has happened is not new. Their capacity was virtual; now it is manifest. In the long term, the concern is that if North Korea does not "walk back" as South Africa did, for example, it will strengthen the pressures within Japan, and perhaps even South Korea, to have their own bombs. However, Japan, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has a very strong inoculation against acquiring nuclear weapons, so that is not an immediate prospect. It is more likely that they will have a stronger missile defense and U.S. security guarantees. It will also no doubt make it easier for them to rewrite their constitution in order to boost their conventional military posture. In general, I don't see that the world is replete with would-be proliferators. Let's look at Iran as well, if it gets a bomb in five years' time. Turkey is a member of NATO and has stable relations with Iran. Pakistan already has the bomb. Afghanistan is far away from a bomb. Syria has very limited nuclear potential. So does Saudi Arabia. Egypt is the only one with the knowledge and scientists to make a bomb, but it is strongly imbedded in security relationships with the West. So, I don't see any immediate risk of more proliferation. The other concern, of course, is that North Korea may go further in actually threatening the use of nuclear weapons or selling it to somebody. That needs to be the worry now. Gardels: What then should be the focus ahead? Blix: The effort now has to be to get North Korea to "walk back" and persuading the Iranians to suspend enrichment capability. In both cases, the key element is for the U.S. to offer a "security guarantee" that they will not attack or seek regime change in these two countries. In my long experience, the temptation to proliferation comes from a perceived security threat. North Korea once had Russia and China as friends but do not feel they can rely on them any longer. The U.S. is outright hostile, of course. They feel alone, isolated -- and perhaps are paranoid. And (the North Korean leadership) no doubt tells its impoverished people they are threatened and the bomb will protect them. The question for North Korea at this point is whether the bomb or a paper assurance is their best guarantee of security. The problem has been that the U.S. position is so ambivalent the North Koreans can't trust it. On one hand, (U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice says there is no intention to attack them. But others wave the stick at the same time. Gardels: So there is no walking back without an unambivalent security guarantee? Blix: That's right. Now, some think that the North Korean test was merely a way to raise the price for walking back. I'm not so convinced. Gardels: Does Libya, which gave up its nuclear efforts, offer an example? Blix: Libya had many years of sanctions, and then low-key talks. In the end, pride was the key factor. Qaddafi could walk away from his nuclear program claiming he got the better deal in negotiations with Tony Blair. And they did get quite a lot. Gardels: What should the U.S. specifically do now in the immediate period ahead? Blix: In 1994, Clinton allowed Jimmy Carter to go and talk to Kim Il Sung. That opened up a dialogue that ended in stalling plutonium production for many years. Why couldn't something be done similarly today, for example by (former Secretary of State) James Baker, who has said it is no appeasement to talk to one's adversaries? The six-party talks are a good venue, but, in the end, the security guarantee and normalization of relations are cards in the U.S. deck. But now, even to get back to those talks, will require a U.S.-North Korea bilateral initiative. Gardels: Is non-proliferation dead? Blix: No, I don't think so. The death of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is highly exaggerated. Practically all states in the world -- except for Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea -- are members. For those members, it sends a signal to their neighbors and the rest of the world that the states in question are not planning to go nuclear and thus pose no threat to each other. Is the NPT falling apart? No. Both the problems of Libya and Iraq have been solved. North Korea and Iran are countries open to negotiation. The real threat to the NPT comes from the failure of the large nuclear states to live up to their obligation under the treaty to disarm. There is an unease by the non-nuclear states that they are being cheated by the nuclear states. Gardels: Has the U.S. posture on nuclear weapons during the Bush administration encouraged this unease, if not caused a backlash by the new proliferators? The U.S. abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; it has a program to modernize its nuclear arsenal with a "bunker buster;" it has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); and, of course, it undermined the U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq before the war. Blix: Yes, the U.S. has sent a signal of arrogance, a signal that the rest of the world should do what the U.S. demands but the U.S. is above it all and can do what they like. Since the U.S. has been the backbone of non-proliferation efforts for decades, this has undermined the credibility of the whole effort. In fact, in 1995 the U.S. shepherded the extension of the NPT under Clinton; but in 2005 it reneged, saying those commitments were given in another era. Nothing would be more important in turning the tide with North Korea and Iran if the U.S. ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. How can the U.S. demand that North Korea not test weapons again, as the just-passed U.N. resolution calls for, when they are unwilling to make that commitment themselves? That certainly doesn't put the Americans on the moral high ground. Because the U.S. has not ratified the CTBT, China won't either. The U.S. has the key in its hand. Wouldn't their demands be more credible and effective if they themselves agreed not to test? Gardels: Do you think the U.N. resolution that seeks to stop North Korea from testing again or selling its weapons to others will be effective? Blix: I'm pessimistic. The resolution is very tough in tone in order to satisfy domestic public opinion in the U.S. and Japan especially, but also in China. But the measures are weak. If they want the North Koreans to walk back, they have to act. They are now only waving the stick. When you wave the stick at the North Koreans, it makes them more strident and defiant. It would surprise me very much if the North Koreans moved in the right direction as a result of this U.N. resolution. And if they don't? Well, then there will be an escalation of tensions. (The Security Council) is painting itself into a corner, just as it has with Iran, where the West has demanded a suspension of enrichment (ITALICS) before (END ITALICS) talks. Talks should not have preconditions because otherwise it is like asking a poker player to show the trump card before you sit down and play. The better course on North Korea, it seems to me, would be to deescalate by offering a security guarantee, for the U.S. and Japan to ratify the test ban treaty and for the U.S. to send a high-level envoy to Pyongyang to open a dialogue. Copyright 2006 ) HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 12 Korea Herald: Flurry of diplomatic missions follow U.N. resolution 1718 By Lee Joo-hee Ministers of South Korea, the United States and Japan will meet for talks in Seoul this week to discuss measures following U.N. sanctions on North Korea for conducting a nuclear test. Government officials here said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has adjusted her Asian tour to attend the trilateral talks on Thursday evening. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso will fly in for the meeting. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who was recently appointed as the next U.N. secretary-general, is also set to come back from New York early Thursday morning. The ministerial-level meeting between the three countries is part of a scurry of diplomatic efforts among the countries affected by North Korea's nuclear crisis. (from left)Condoleezza Rice, Ban Ki-moon and Taro Aso Rice may likely urge Ban to join in reprimanding the North for defying international calls against the nuclear test, which prompted a strongly-versed U.N. resolution imposing economic sanctions and inspections of North Korean-related cargo. South Korea believes it has played a singular part through strong preventive measures against North Korea's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, namely by signing the inter-Korean maritime agreement last year. The United States, cheered on by Japan, wants South Korea to formally join the Proliferation Security Initiative, and an international network of naval and air interceptions against WMD-related material. "The three countries will be having a very broad discussion on how to coordinate measures, the U.N. resolution and how to maintain the dialogue channel for the resumption of six-party talks," a government official said on condition of anonymity. Seoul, Washington and Tokyo had originally planned a meeting in Hawaii to discuss a "comprehensive" approach towards North Korea's nuclear ambitions before the North tested its nuclear device in the North Hamgyeong Province on Oct. 9. Rice will visit Japan and China as well. While in China, Rice is most likely to prod the Chinese to use their economic leverage on Pyongyang for a possible return to disarmament talks. China has said that Beijing would not be inspecting cargoes entering or leaving North Korea for fear of raising tensions. The trilateral talks is the first in 13 months since the last one in New York, which occured just before the six parties signed the Joint Statement on Sept. 19 last year. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and top nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill is due to arrive here today. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Yefimovich Fradkov is also visiting Seoul today upon the invitation of South Korean Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook. Fradkov's visit was preceded by Russia's chief nuclear negotiator Alexander Alexeyev, who came to Seoul on Sunday. Alexeyev, who was in Pyongyang last week, did not offer many details of his North Korean visit but said that the communist regime still appeared very much committed to participating in the six-party talks. The Russian prime minister will also pay a visit to President Roh Moo-hyun and share views on the nuclear crisis. This is the second visit by the prime minister of Russia to South Korea. His visit was arranged before the North's nuclear test, government officials said. (angiely@heraldm.com) 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 13 Korea Herald: China inspects N.K. cargo Customs inspectors in China, North Korea's main trading partner, were examining cargo trucks bound for the North more closely on Monday after the U.N. Security Council approved sanctions on the North for its claimed nuclear test. A Chinese bank in the border city of Dandong also reportedly stopped traders from remitting money to North Korea on Friday. But it was not clear whether the move was temporary or part of punitive action against the North. At a border-crossing post in the Chinese city of Dandong, customs officers opened the back of each truck and looked at the cargo, although they did not open individual boxes or bags. By contrast, reporters who visited the border post last week did not see inspectors open any trucks. Spokespeople for China's General Administration of Customs in Beijing and in Shenyang, the provincial headquarters for Dandong, refused to release any information on the inspections or say whether they were prompted by the U.N. sanctions. The North depends on China for most of its trade and aid, including up to 90 percent of its oil. Beijing's cooperation is key to the effectiveness of any sanctions. The U.N. measures ban trade with North Korea in major weapons and materials that could be used by its ballistic missile and unconventional weapons programs. They call for inspections of all cargo leaving and arriving in North Korea. The Hankyoreh newspaper quoted a resident as saying that China erected a barbed-wire fence along part of its border with North Korea on the outskirts of Dandong two days after the communist country conducted its first nuclear test a week ago. The aim was to prevent an exodus of refugees from the isolated state. It was the first time China has erected a barbed-wire fence along the border with its communist neighbor, with whom it shares a long land border, the daily added. The 2.5-meter-high fence stretches about 20 kilometers along the Yalu border river, Hankyoreh said. The daily quoted an ethnic Korean resident in Dandong as saying that Chinese border guards were mobilized to build the fence. 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 14 Korea Herald: 'Six-way talks won't end sanctions' From news reports U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer said yesterday a return by North Korea to stalled six-party talks on its nuclear program would not be sufficient to end U.N. sanctions. He also said Japan's pacifist constitution should not prevent Tokyo from joining the United States in enforcing sanctions. "A return to six-party talks kind of doesn't do it," Schieffer said. "You have to come to the six-party talks and agree on how you are going to implement the Sept. 19 agreement. "If that implementation could then be verified by the international community, I think you would see walking back from the sanctions regime," he said. But he added: "This is long way to go." A weekend U.N. Security Council resolution imposing financial and weapons sanctions on North Korea for its claimed nuclear test allows nations to inspect cargo going to and from North Korea to check for weapons of mass destruction or related supplies. "There are ways that Japan can contribute," Schiffer told reporters at his residence in Tokyo, while adding that it was up to the Japanese to decide how they would contribute. Japan is now debating how it can take part in such inspections within the scope of its pacifist constitution. Japan's defense chief suggested yesterday that the country could pull warships from the Indian Ocean, where they assist US operations in Afghanistan, to waters near North Korea. Defense Agency chief Fumio Kyuma said Japan, which is officially pacifist, could amend the mission drafted under special legislation to allow deployment to the Indian Ocean. "The priority is to defend our country," Kyuma told a parliamentary committee. "If the situation (related to North Korea) becomes more serious, it is possible that we could amend the basic mission plan," Kyuma said. Japan has dispatched supply ships and one destroyer to the Indian Ocean to give logistical support to US-led troops. Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Sunday called for Japan to take part in potential US searches of North Korean ships under Saturday's U.N. Security Council resolution that condemned Pyongyang's nuclear test. Japan passed the law on the Indian Ocean mission after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, which triggered the U.S. military operation that toppled Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a hawk on North Korea who supports a more active military role for Japan, has approved extending the legislation for another year. The mission was initially the most far-reaching military deployment for Japan since World War II. Abe's predecessor as prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, later went further by sending a reconstruction mission to Iraq, the first time since the war that Japanese soldiers had been in a country where fighting was under way. Meanwhile, a top Japanese government spokesman said Japan has no intention of developing nuclear weapons in response to North Korea's claim of an atomic test last week, A leading ruling party official reportedly said on Sunday that Japan needs to discuss whether to create its own nuclear deterrent. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said yesterday, however, that the government was committed to remaining a non-nuclear power, despite those comments. "There is no change whatsoever to our government position that Japan will not possess any nuclear weapons," Shiozaki told reporters. Shiozaki was responding to questions about comments made Sunday by Shoichi Nakagawa, chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party's Policy Research Council. Nakagawa reiterated yesterday that he did not mean to suggest that Tokyo should stray from its three main principles of not possessing, producing or allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan. 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 15 Korea Herald: Korean tanks useless in nuke warfare: lawmaker Most of Korea's tanks and self-propelled artillery would be rendered inoperative during biological, chemical and radiological warfare because they lack equipment needed to operate in such conditions, a lawmaker said yesterday. Rep. Gong Sung-jin of the main opposition Grand National Party said only 30 out of the Army's 2,400 tanks are equipped with a device that enables the vehicles and their crews to operate properly in contaminated battlefield. "Almost all the tanks are in fact useless in radiological, biological and chemical combat situations," Gong said in the National Assembly's annual audit session to the Army. He said even the Army's newest K1A1 tanks are unequipped with the device which blocks inflows of contaminated air into the vehicles. The military is currently developing its next-generation tank designed to have the device, but Gong said the Army wouldn't have sufficient combat vehicles for those situations until 2019 when the new tanks are planned to be put into operations. "The condition will lead the country to depend on U.S. armor capabilities in case of nuclear warfare even after the transition of wartime control," he said. He added about half of the Army's self-propelled artillery also lack such protection device. Another lawmaker from the GNP said about more than 500 out of the total of 2,400 tanks are too old to be used in battle. (davidpooh@heraldm.com) By Jin Dae-woong 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 16 Korea Herald: Dealing with nuclear N. Korea Pyongyang may attempt to extort economic benefits This is the second in a series of analytical articles about the impact of North Korea's alleged nuclear test. - Ed. By Scott Snyder The Oct. 9 North Korean nuclear test was Pyongyang's latest "October surprise," following the first public revelations of North Korea's covert uranium-based nuclear developments in October of 2002, Madeleine Albright's visit to Pyongyang in October of 2000, the signing of the failed Geneva Agreed Framework in October of 1994, and North Korea's defiance of IAEA demands to maintain a monitoring regime put in place for the first time only months earlier that helped escalate the first crisis in October of 1992. Scott Snyder The timing is not unrelated to the U.S. election cycle and a belief in Pyongyang that American politics can be manipulated to North Korea's benefit. But the theme is that North Korea's consistent drive to attain missiles and nuclear weapons has resulted in policy failures on the part of successive American administrations that have tried to prevent this development. North Korea's bid to join the nuclear club creates an even more difficult challenge both for the United States and North Korea's neighbors. The collective failure of all parties to prevent a test threatens the global non-proliferation regime and decreases the likelihood that the North Korean nuclear problem will be solved peacefully. North Korea's test attempts to mask deeply entrenched political and economic failures within the North Korean system. A nuclear test may serve as a desperate effort to rally the people behind Kim Jong-il's leadership while achieving effective deterrence against any neighbor or internal challenger that threatens the survival of his regime. A nuclear North Korea has strategic implications for Northeast Asia that are hard for North Korea's neighbors to accept. Even now, denial of the significance of the test is an attractive policy response for some. But North Korea's neighbors have reason to worry that North Korea would use its nuclear status to extort economic benefits necessary for regime survival by threatening an attack of catastrophic proportions. It is unacceptable that an otherwise failed state could demand political prestige or economic tribute deriving from its nuclear status. Pyongyang's logic that its newfound nuclear capacity should close the power and prestige gap with other nuclear weapons states and lay the groundwork for a relationship of mutual deterrence among nuclear equals is unlikely to be accepted by Pyongyang's neighbors or the United States. No regime that has tested a nuclear weapon has ever voluntarily accepted denuclearization, so governments are operating without any past policy guidelines as they set out to manage the new world created by North Korea's test. Ground rules have not been set for what Paul Bracken has termed the "second nuclear age," in which regional balances and threats posed by new nuclear powers are considerably more difficult to anticipate and maintain. This dynamic puts new pressure on South Korea and Japan to go nuclear, especially if the United States fails to credibly respond to the North Korean threat. The situation is considerably more complex than that posed by the U.S.-Soviet standoff at the height of the cold war. The biggest immediate challenge for policymakers is how to punish North Korea without making the stakes higher or triggering a potentially catastrophic escalation of tensions. Without a punishment for North Korea, more states may draw the conclusion that they may invest in a poor man's asymmetrical deterrent to effectively counter threats from larger, nuclear-armed neighbors. The collateral risks of pushing too hard and making a bad situation worse include the possibility that sanctions could induce political destabilization and thereby jeopardize North Korean command and control over "loose nukes" in the context of a regime change, trigger a worsening humanitarian crisis or renewed famine where the North Korean people would bear the brunt of suffering. Perhaps worst of all, a cornered Kim Jong-il might conclude that his only choice is to pursue a suicide option designed to take his enemies with him. North Korea's clear defiance of all its neighbors has been a catalyst for new forms of regional cooperation to isolate Pyongyang. American diplomats have pointed to the sense of common purpose among the other five that has developed through the six-party process. In this respect, the timing of Japan's renewed high-level dialogue with China and South Korea under Prime Minister Abe could not be better. For such cooperation to continue on a long-term basis, all parties will be required to take responsibility - and possibly to make significant financial and political investments - to promote a denuclearized North Korea's long-term peaceful integration with East Asia. The common challenge of dealing with a nuclear North Korea must be treated as an opportunity to forge common strategic purpose among Asia's great powers; otherwise, North Korea will continue to serve as a source of strategic anxiety and historical flashpoint for conflict of major power interests in East Asia. Consensus among the concerned parties must be cultivated through a discussion of how to prepare for the hard contingencies listed above - and to forge consensus on the costs all states are willing to bear - if there is to be any hope of rolling back North Korea's nuclear program. The most difficult challenge is to find a formula by which a diplomatic approach can be reconstituted, given the unacceptability to North Korea's closest neighbors of either military conflict or regime failure. To illustrate the contradictions at hand, the U.N. Security Council resolution under discussion considers a travel ban on North Korean diplomats; on the other hand, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has said earlier this week that "If (the North Koreans) want to talk to us, all they have to do is buy a ticket to Beijing." The prospect of renewed diplomacy - essential to any prospect for a peaceful solution - is made even more difficult by Pyongyang's public defiance of Beijing resulting from the missile and nuclear tests. There is no longer a serious prospect for neutral mediation, but the likelihood that North Korea will make a unilateral "strategic decision" prior to returning to negotiations without a face-saving mechanism to obscure the North's humiliation is even harder to imagine given the psychological boost to North Korea's self-image as a nuclear power. The task of defining the agenda, scope, and purpose of renewed talks in any format will surely be complicated by North Korea's presumption that it come back to talks as a recognized nuclear weapons state. The international consensus must be strengthened to reject North Korea's claims to such a status. The agenda for any renewed diplomacy must remain the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. North Korea will not stop knocking on the door of the nuclear club, yet the dangers and costs of further escalation seem excessively high. Punishment alone does not provide an effective path to escape the current dangers, especially at a time when the few available diplomatic measures are dismissed or equated with appeasement. But the seriousness of the threat will require unprecedented diplomatic coordination and convergence of strategic aims among North Korea's neighbors if the worst scenarios are to be avoided, or at least managed effectively. North Korea's desperation to get into the club heightens current dangers, but allowing North Korea in would also carry with it prohibitive costs to the international non-proliferation regime. Where North Korea is, Iran may not be far behind. Even though there is no precedent, no satisfactory solution will be possible without serious consideration being given to a long-term rehabilitation program for recovering former nuclear states. Scott Snyder, author of "Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean Negotiating Behavior," is a senior associate with The Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum CSIS. The views expressed here are personal views. He can be reached at ssnyder@asiafound-dc.org - Ed. 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Australia Bans NKorean Ships From Ports From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 6:16 AM CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Australia will ban North Korean ships from entering its ports, toughening its response to the North's reported nuclear test, the foreign minister announced Monday. Australia, a key U.S. ally, strongly backed a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stiff sanctions on the communist country. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would impose the port ban in addition to the U.N. sanctions. ``If we are to ban North Korean vessels from visiting Australian ports then I think that will help Australia make a quite clear contribution to the United Nations sanctions regime,'' Downer told Parliament. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Korea Herald: Satellite fails to capture N.K. nuke test South Korea's multipurpose satellite, Arirang-2, failed to take any pictures of North Korea before and after the North allegedly carried out a nuclear test on Oct. 9, a lawmaker said yesterday. The satellite did not capture any images of North Korea between Oct. 3 and Oct. 9 and only took pictures of South Korea during the period, Rep. Kang Sung-jong of the ruling Uri Party said. The Korean Peninsula comes under its surveillance footprint between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. every day. "It could have detected the movements of facilities, equipment and other geological signs in North Korea if it had taken images of North Korea before Oct. 9," he said in news release. "If it had taken pictures of the possible test sites, Seoul would not be confused about whether the North really conducted the nuclear test." Government authorities have not confirmed whether the test was a nuclear detonation and whether it was a success or a failure. In July 2006, South Korea launched Arirang-2, a scientific research satellite equipped with cameras to log geographical changes and help search for natural resources. The satellite was also expected to keep a watch on North Korea's military activities. (hjjin@heraldm.com) By Jin Hyun-joo 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 19 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Seoul's dilemma Immediately after North Korea conducted a nuclear test on Oct. 9, President Roh Moo-hyun indicated it would be inevitable that adjustments would have to be made to the engagement policy under which the Seoul government has continued economic and humanitarian aid to the North. A week later, we see a government that still appears hesitant to make any drastic changes. Through high-level policy conferences, the Roh administration established new objectives for future interaction with the North. They are, according to government sources, "realizing the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through a stable process, and minimizing the security threat and economic uneasiness." For a government whose country is the direct target of nuclear weapons developed and tested by North Korea, the policy statement could be described as prudent to the point of being impassive. Officials explain that the new government position is that its future actions should in no way aggravate the status quo of inter-Korean relations. In practice, this means that no measures would be taken toward the North that may irritate its leadership and eventually lead to an increased security threat to the South. The engagement policy will remain in place and no changes are expected in relation to the two flagship projects - the Mount Geumgang tourist resort and the Gaeseong Industrial Park. Seoul officials must have breathed sighs of relief when the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution on Saturday to impose sanctions on North Korea, which contained a clause that expressly rules out military action against the North. The resolution sent a strong message to Pyongyang with harsh words of condemnation and provided tough measures to restrict the regime's external transactions. The North Korean U.N. delegate issued a statement of protest and then left the chamber, but China and Russia were satisfied with the watered-down document which excluded provocative clauses that may have intensified tensions. But officials here face cumbersome problems in the interpretation of the resolution. With the authorities here in favor of continuing the Mount Geumgang and Gaeseong projects, they are now bearing a difficult "burden of proof" as Washington will doubtless demand Seoul establish that the cash funneled to the North through these inter-Korean businesses would not be used for Pyongyang's weapons program. Seoul halted shipments of rice, fertilizer and cement to the North last week following the nuclear test. But President Roh held a meeting with the CEOs of firms engaged in inter-Korean businesses and listened to their strong appeal that he allow the continued operation of the Geumgang and Gaeseong projects. People who had canceled their reservations for the Mount Geumgang tour after the North's nuclear test are now reapplying. Since the tours to Mount Geumgang began in 1998, Hyundai Asan Co., which runs the tours with total investment of $1.5 billion, has remitted $451 million to the North. North Korea earns nearly $700,000 a month from the Gaeseong Industrial Park in rents, taxes on employees and other types of income. So far, the government has maintained that these supplies of hard currency were necessary as part of "expenditures for future reunification." Now officials argue that an abrupt end to these remittances could provoke the North and trigger an increased security threat to the South. For the people of the Republic of Korea who have just experienced the worst "provocation" from the North since the Korean War, the hardest thing for them to understand is the logic that continued aid to the North is necessary in order not to "provoke" them. If President Roh has decided not to apply any changes to the basic position in inter-Korean cooperation and exchanges, his aides should be doing a lot of homework to come up with convincing arguments to convince our skeptical citizens as well as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who will visit Seoul this week on her Northeast Asian trip. 2006.10.17 ***************************************************************** 20 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: UN resolution bans travel, weapons trade, luxury goods New sanctions on the North October 16, 2006 Pak Gil-yon, North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations, walking out of the Security Council chamber Saturday after the council unanimously adopted sanctions against North Korea for its declared nuclear test. [YONHAP] The UN Security Council unanimously voted to impose a new round of tougher sanctions on North Korea, ranging from travel to trade, on nuclear weapons and also high-end military weapons. South Korea publicly supported the resolution, but an official said it needed more time to devise a response on whether its current inter-Korean projects such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex or Mount Kumgang tours would continue. At the same time, a top Unification Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was little connection between the resolution and the projects and said they should go on. North Korea rejected the UN resolution outright and threatened to take "physical countermeasures," about which it did not elaborate. While the resolution called upon Pyongyang to abandon all of its nuclear weapons and programs, existing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, it also stated that the UN "decides" that all member nations must halt the sale or transfer of high-end military products such as battle tanks, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. Any travel to the North for technical military training was also banned. The resolution also asked member nations to freeze funds related to Pyongyang's non-conventional arms programs. The resolution urged Pyongyang to return to the six-party talks and "demanded" that it halt any further nuclear or missile tests. To deny the North's leader, Kim Jong-il, the means to hand out lavish gifts to his country's power elite, the resolution also bans the sale of any "luxury goods," although no details were provided. After North Korea test-fired missiles on July 5, the UN passed a resolution banning the transfer of nuclear weapons and imposing some financial sanctions. As he did the first time, North Korea's top envoy to the UN, Pak Gil-yon, immediately rejected the resolution on Saturday and said, during a televised meeting in New York, "If the United States increases pressure upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea persistently, the DPRK will continue to take physical countermeasures, considering it as a declaration of war," Mr. Pak said. Pyongyang was ready for both "dialogue and confrontation," he said. The envoy then marched out of the council chamber. The resolution was based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and stated that it was taking measures under the charter's Article 41, which outlines the use of measures to enforce the resolution "not involving the use of armed force." The resolution includes an article that calls upon UN member states to take "cooperative action" within the boundaries of each member nations' laws to ensure compliance with the resolution, including the inspection of cargo to and from North Korea. A government official said yesterday that Seoul already has a specific agreement with the North regarding the inspection of each sides' vessels and the agreement was in line with the UN resolution. The official said the agreement does not refer to cases taking place in international waters. He added that no additional measures are needed. UN member states are asked to report within 30 days to an ad hoc committee of the UN Security Council, which will monitor what measures nations have taken. "We welcome and support the decision by the UN Security Council," South Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement yesterday. After the apparent nuclear test on Oct. 9, President Roh Moo-hyun has said Seoul may change its engagement policy toward the North. Spokesman Yang Chang-suk of the Unification Ministry only said that the government will enact their own measures after it gauges public opinion, "taking into account the UN resolution and in close consultation with the international community." Uri Party spokesman Woo Sang-ho said yesterday the party supported the resolution. "The North Korean nuclear test was the wrong thing to do, but it's fortunate that the possibility of taking military actions has been closed by the UN resolution," he said. In a phone interview with Yonhap News Agency, Uri Party Chairman Kim Geun-tae argued the inter-Korean projects needed to be continued as well as humanitarian aid. Grand National Party spokeswoman Na Kyung-won urged the government to stop all aid to the North and called for active participation by Seoul in a U.S.-led program aimed at curbing the international transfer of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. President George W. Bush billed the UN resolution as a united response by the international community. Nevertheless, Wang Guangya, Beijing's top envoy to the UN, warned nations against escalating the situation. "China strongly urges the countries concerned to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude in this regard and refrain from taking any provocative steps that may intensify the tensions," the ambassador said. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Tokyo is considering additional measures against the North apart from the resolution. by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr> ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects U.N. Stance on North Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 10:01 AM AP Photo VAH102 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president said his country has no reservations about pursuing its nuclear ambitions despite the U.N. sanctions imposed on North Korea for its purported nuclear test. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again rejected the U.N. Security Council's demand that Tehran suspend its nuclear activities in response to concern they are aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. The comments represented Iran's first official reaction to the council's vote Saturday to punish North Korea's defiance of international will. The United States said Sunday that it hoped the sanctions would be a lesson to Iran not to follow North Korea's example. But Ahmadinejad's remarks suggested North Korea's claim to have tested an atomic bomb has emboldened Tehran in its own standoff with the U.N. ``Some Western countries have turned the U.N. Security Council into a weapon to impose their hegemony and issue resolutions against countries that oppose them,'' Ahmadinejad was quoted by the state-run television as saying Monday. ``They use the council for threats and intimidation,'' the television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. But Iran ``won't be intimidated,'' he said. ``Mounting threats and pressures against Iran's peaceful nuclear activities won't cause even one iota of hesitation in the will of the Iranian nation to continue this path.'' The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations warned Iran that it risks sanctions like those slapped on North Korea. ``I hope the lesson they learn is that if they continue to pursue nuclear weapons, they will face the same kind of isolation and restrictions that we have just imposed on the North Koreans,'' Ambassador John Bolton told CNN's ``Late Edition'' on Sunday. Iran says its nuclear activities are aimed at generating electricity, not developing weapons. It has repeatedly ignored Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium, which can be used to produce electricity or fuel for a bomb. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: N.Korea Sanctions Serve As Warning From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 8:46 PM AP Photo DCSA101 By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that U.N. sanctions are a clear warning the international community is united in opposing North Korea's nuclear ambitions and Iran should take heed that it could face a similar rebuke. Previewing her upcoming trip to the region, Rice called Security Council sanctions adopted on Saturday ``a very strong resolution'' that would punish and further isolate the North Korean government. Rice briefed reporters at the State Department on her upcoming trip to Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, which begins on Tuesday. ``The purpose of my trip is to rally the support of our friends and allies'' in the region, she said. ``The world has responded calmly and firmly'' to last week's North Korean nuclear test, Rice added. The U.S.-sponsored U.N. resolution demands that North Korea eliminate nuclear weapons but rules out military action against the country, as the Russians and Chinese demanded. It calls on countries to block North Korea from receiving equipment or materials to build weapons of mass destruction and other advanced weaponry. It also clamps down on travel for North Koreans involved in the weapons program, and orders countries to freeze many of the international assets of people or businesses connected to that program. While China has been inspecting cargo trucks headed for its communist ally, there have been questions about how strictly it and South Korea will enforce the U.N. resolution. Both countries have significant trade relations with North Korea, whose economy is perpetually on the verge of collapse. Rice's tone at times was conciliatory. ``Let's give some time to these sanctions to work,'' she said. ``Let's give some time to the diplomacy to work. Let's see if North Korea can be pushed in a different direction. But we've got a much stronger set of tools with which to do that.'' She acknowledged international concerns of escalating the crisis. Countries in the region openly worry that the collapse of North Korea's government could send millions of refugees streaming toward their borders. South Koreans also worry about a conventional attack by their unpredictable neighbor. ``I do hear states saying that they want to be certain that it won't ratchet up conflict. We have no desire to ratchet up conflict either. But we'll have some discussions on precisely how this will be carried out,'' Rice said. She said her trip was designed to ``rally the support of our friends and allies'' to pressure North Korea to drop its nuclear effort. She also said the U.S. will seek to increase international cooperation for efforts like the proliferation security initiative, in which the United States and other countries try preventing weapons of mass destruction from reaching rogue nations. Efforts under that program have so far been limited. Rice also tried prodding China and other countries, saying, ``We expect every member of the international community to fully implement all aspects'' of the U.N. resolution. She said she did not consider North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons irreversible, noting that a handful of other nations like South Africa and Libya had abandoned their nuclear programs. ``If North Korea reverses course and embraces the path of cooperation, if it makes the strategic choice to dismantle its nuclear weapons completely, verifiably and irreversibly, an entirely new and better future would be open to it and to its people,'' she said. Rice said the United States was prepared to return to the bargaining table with North Korea and other countries ``without precondition,'' repeating a position the Bush administration has taken frequently. But such talks, she said, ``have to lead someplace'' and not dwell on tangential issues. Six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear program have been in limbo since last November. ``The nonproliferation regime is under strain but it is not broken,'' Rice asserted. Rice denied that U.S. involvement in Iraq was keeping the administration from giving its full attention to the North Korean nuclear problem. ``We can certainly do more than one thing at a time,'' she said. Rice pointedly challenged Iran to learn a lesson from the international reaction to the North Korean atomic test. ``The greatest challenge to the nonproliferation regime comes from countries that violate their pledges to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The North Korean regime is one such case, but also so is Iran,'' she said. ``The Iranian government is watching and it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation.'' Rice said she expected the Security Council to begin work this week on an Iran sanctions resolution. Rice also said her trip was aimed at winning support from U.S. allies in northeast Asia for ``a comprehensive strategy'' to handle the confrontation with North Korea. ``As President Bush has made clear, the United States has both the will and capability to meet the full range of our security and deterrent commitments to allies like South Korea and Japan,'' she said. ``This trip is an opportunity to reaffirm our reciprocal obligations.'' --- Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 23 Korea Times: US Reviews War Plan on N. Korea Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter The United States is mapping out a new theater war plan on the Korean Peninsula aimed at striking weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, reports said yesterday, citing an unidentified Chinese defense expert in Canada. The U.S. move comes after North Korea's self-proclaimed nuclear weapon test on Oct. 9. According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force. Whether the new plan is related to the joint contingency plan with South Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5027, was not confirmed. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declined to comment on the report. Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers, such as F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters and F-15Es, would conduct ``surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said. OPLAN 5027, drawn up by the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), aims to deter North Korean forces armed with conventional weapons. The South Korean and U.S. militaries review the contingency scheme every year and update it in accordance with the security situation. Washington is reportedly committed to dispatching some 690,000 troops with 1,600 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out under OPLAN 5027. The plan, however, lacks specific actions to cope with a nuclear war. Since Pyongyang's nuclear test, the South Korean military has also stepped up preparations for a possible nuclear war on the peninsula. Sources at the JCS said last week that Seoul is reviewing OPLAN 5027 to address North Korea's missile and nuclear threats. The JCS has submitted two reports to Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung since Oct. 3 when Pyongyang announced its plan to conduct a nuclear test, they said. gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 10-16-2006 17:23 ***************************************************************** 24 Korea Times: Top Diplomats to Discuss Nuke Solution in Seoul Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter Foreign ministers from South Korea, the United States and Japan will gather in Seoul on Thursday to coordinate follow-up measures to the U.N. Security Council's resolution on North Korea's nuclear test on Oct. 9. In the meeting, the first of its kind in 13 months, the three top diplomats are expected to show a united front against the North's nuclear threat and discuss ways to reopen the six-party talks, officials in Seoul said on Monday. It is not yet clear whether it could develop into a five-way dialogue, excluding Pyongyang, to discuss how to implement the Security Council's punitive measures, including inspecting cargo going to and from North Korea to prevent trafficking in weapons of mass destruction (WMD). An official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who asked to remain anonymous, stressed that diplomatic measures will also be discussed during the three ministers' meeting. ``They will also discuss measures to maintain a dialogue channel with North Korea, including the resumption of the six-party talks,'' he told reporters. Christopher Hill, U.S. top envoy to the denuclearization talks, will come to Seoul on Tuesday to arrange a visit by U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and meet with his South Korean counterpart Chun Yung-woo and Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan. Two days later, Rice will hold a bilateral discussion in Seoul with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon, in which they are expected to discuss hot issues, such as Seoul's role in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that is designed to intercept suspicious arms shipments, targeting North Korea and other ``rogue states.'' In the run-up to the off-year elections on Nov. 7, Washington has been apparently forced to make a visible move to address the nuclear crisis somehow as it has been recognized as a failure of President George W. Bush's foreign policy. Seoul also has no reason to avoid such a meeting as it would provide the government with an opportunity to shake off the public mistrust that Seoul is siding with Pyongyang too much to keep alive its ``sunshine'' policy of economically engaging North Korea. Ban, the U.N. secretary-general appointee, will come from New York to Seoul for the meeting with Rice early in the morning on Thursday. Later in the evening, the two officials will join Taro Aso, Japanese foreign minister, who will come to Seoul for a three-way dinner meeting. Ban and Aso also plan to meet the next day. Previously the three countries planned to hold a meeting of their top nuclear envoys and discuss ways to realize the ``common and broad approach,'' reached by President Roh Moo-hyun and Bush on Sept. 14 to reopen the six-party talks. But they had to change the agenda as the security situation in Northeast Asia has drastically deteriorated with the North's nuclear test. It is the first time in 13 months for the three top diplomats to hold a meeting. The last one took place in New York prior to the adoption of the joint statement by the six states _ the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan _ in Beijing on Sept. 19. im@koreatimes.co.kr 10-16-2006 17:18 ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: Australia bans NKorean ships from its ports - FM - Mon Oct 16, 6:18 AM ET CANBERRA (AFP) - Australia has banned North Korean ships from its ports as it moved to ramp up sanctions against the Stalinist state following last week's declared nuclear test. "From today North Korean-flagged ships will be prevented from accessing Australian ports," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in a statement Monday. "This ban is part of Australia's response to North Korea" /> North Korea's irresponsible and highly dangerous actions in conducting a nuclear test on 9 October," Downer said in a joint statement with Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile. The ban was applied in addition to any role Australia might play in implementing sanctions against North Korea under UN Security Council resolution 1718, such as helping enforce a shipping blockade. Downer told parliament in Canberra earlier Monday the shipping ban would be imposed "except in the most dire of emergencies. I think this is appropriate," he said. He said the measure would help stiffen sanctions against Pyongyang and noted that Australia had in 2003 captured and later destroyed a North Korean ship loaded with heroin. "The experience we've had of North Korean vessels visiting our shores is an unhappy one and if we are to ban North Korean vessels from visiting Australian ports then I think that will help Australia make a quite clear contribution to the United Nations" /> United Nationssanctions regime," Downer said. The announcement came as the US pointman on North Korea, Christopher Hill, arrived in Asia for talks with China, Japan and South Korea" /> South Koreaabout implementing a battery of UN Security Council sanctions approved Saturday. Australia joins nations such as Japan in outlawing North Korean vessels from its ports. Downer last week also banned the issue of visas to North Koreans wishing to visit Australia, one of only a handful of countries in the world to maintain diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, following last week's nuclear test. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: China Boosts N. Korea Border Inspections From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 9:46 PM AP Photo XHG127 By NG HAN GUAN and AUDRA ANG Associated Press Writers DANDONG, China (AP) - Customs officials examined trucks at the North Korean border Monday as China complied with new U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang for its nuclear test. But China's U.N. ambassador indicated its inspectors will not board ships to search for suspicious equipment or material. The United States began a new round of diplomacy in Asia to address divisions over how to impose the sanctions, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to arrive in Japan on Wednesday before traveling to South Korea and China. The U.S. announced that air samples gathered last week contain radioactive materials confirming that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion, as it claimed. China's support is key to whether the measures will have any impact on neighboring North Korea. Beijing's mixed response on implementing the sanctions, approved Saturday by a unanimous U.N. Security Council including China, demonstrates the difficulties U.S. diplomats will encounter as they tour the region. China and Russia contend that interdicting ships might needlessly provoke the North and at the very least discourage it from returning to talks on its nuclear program - though the U.S. and Britain say most inspections of ships would be done at ports rather than on the high seas. Australia announced it was banning the North's ships from entering its ports, except in dire emergencies. While China is angry over its communist ally's behavior and is loath to appear out of step with other powers, it has been reluctant to support or implement tough measures. The leadership is concerned that tightening the squeeze on Pyongyang might trigger a collapse of the North Korean regime, sending refugees streaming across the border. In a sign of Beijing's wariness about refugees, construction of a massive concrete and barbed wire fence along parts of its 880-mile border with the North has picked up in recent days. Scores of soldiers have arrived in communities along the banks of the Yalu River, up from Dandong, over the past week to erect the barrier, farmers and visitors to the area said. ``The move is mainly aimed at North Korean defectors,'' said Professor Kim Woo-jun at the Institute of East and West Studies in Seoul, South Korea. ``As the U.N. sanctions are enforced ... the number of defectors are likely to increase as the regime can't take care of its people.'' The sanctions ban trade with the North in major weapons and materials that could be used in its ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs. They call for all countries to inspect cargo to and from North Korea to enforce the prohibition, ``as necessary,'' and consistent with each nation's laws. In some areas of the border, the Chinese seem to have stepped up inspections, though elsewhere a police officer said nothing had changed and inspections were continuing as usual. At a border-crossing post in the Chinese city of Dandong, about 30 Chinese trucks were seen being checked on Monday morning while 50 empty North Korean trucks waited in line to enter China to pick up cargo. Customs officers opened the back of each truck and looked at its cargo as it rolled up, though they didn't open individual boxes or bags. By contrast, reporters who visited the border post last week didn't see inspectors open any trucks. In the afternoon, the officers repeated the process as loaded North Korean trucks returned home. They climbed into the back of the vehicles, but observers couldn't see whether they opened any containers. Trading companies in Dandong, at the western end of the border, and in Tumen, near the eastern end, said the sanctions were not affecting shipments. ``Today, we just sent a batch of agricultural tools to North Korea by truck,'' said Huang Kelin, manager of Wanshida Trading Co., a Dandong-based firm that has an office in Pyongyang. At the Nanping crossing, in an eastern valley surrounded by mountains, inspectors were going through a standard regimen, looking at both cargo and passengers, a police officer said. ``The inspections are routine and conducted by quarantine officials,'' said the officer, Li Canhao. Chinese goods reach the North by road and rail, while oil is delivered mainly via pipeline. It wasn't immediately clear what China was doing to inspect rail shipments. A lone locomotive headed into North Korea on Monday afternoon, apparently to pull a cargo train back to China. The North also has a rail link to Russia in the east, though it wasn't clear how that was being policed. China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his country would implement the Security Council resolution and inspect cargo from North Korea for illegal weapons and missiles, but he indicated Chinese inspectors would not board ships. He noted that inspections are not mandatory under the resolution, intended to punish the North for its Oct. 9 nuclear test. ``This is a resolution we have to implement,'' Wang told reporters at the U.N. ``The question was raised whether China will do inspections. Inspections yes, but inspection is different then interdiction and interception. I think different countries will do it different ways.'' Wang's remarks represented a change from those he made Saturday after joining the council in voting to impose tough sanctions on North Korea for its Oct. 9 nuclear test. He initially objected to China's conducting inspections because of concerns that cargo checks would raise tensions with the North rather than persuade Pyongyang to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, when asked about interdicting ships, said Monday that ``one has to be very careful about it.'' ``When you go into inspection and things like that, cargo, one has to be very careful to avoid any kind of semblance of provocation,'' Churkin said. North Korea's total foreign trade was less than $4 billion last year, though it is growing quickly, according to Chinese and South Korean figures. China accounted for a major portion of that trade, with $1.7 billion in exports and $500 million in imports, according to the Commerce Ministry in Beijing. China also provides up to 90 percent of the North's oil. There are also questions about how strictly South Korea will enforce the U.N. resolution. The South has significant trade relations with North Korea and its citizens worry about a conventional attack by their unpredictable neighbor. North Korea's No. 2 ranking leader, Kim Yong Nam, defiantly said the regime would strengthen its military and ``achieve a final victory in the historic standoff with the U.S.'' The North found a sympathetic ear in Iran, which has also been condemned for its nuclear program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected the American-initiated measures and accused the U.S. of using the U.N. Security Council as a ``weapon to impose its hegemony.'' In Washington, Rice warned that U.N. sanctions on North Korea should also be seen by Iran as a strong signal to abandon its nuclear ambitions or face a rebuke from a united international community. ``The Iranian government is watching,'' she said. ``It can now see that the international community will respond'' to efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. --- Ng Han Guan reported from Dandong and Audra Ang reported from Beijing. AP writer Edith M. Lederer contributed from the United Nations. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: US faces reluctance on NKorea sanctions by Marc Carnegie Mon Oct 16, 8:34 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - The United States has launched a diplomatic push to enforce new UN sanctions on North Korea" /> North Koreaand shore up China and South Korea" /> South Korea's determination to punish Pyongyang for its declared nuclear test. Less than 48 hours after the Security Council voted unanimously to impose the sanctions, US diplomats were facing reservations from key Asian nations on Monday, worried that tough action could provoke the unpredictable North's regime. Meanwhile a new poll in South Korea found more people blamed the United States than North Korea for the test, underlining doubts that the harsh US stance was effective in influencing the North's behaviour. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricewas headed to China, Japan and South Korea later in the week while Christopher Hill, the lead US negotiator on the North, arrived in Tokyo on Monday to discuss the Council resolution. "We want to talk about implementing the resolution," said Hill, who was to go to South Korea on Tuesday. Japan, officially pacifist since World War II, has already volunteered to help with the inspections. "We want to talk about other measures we can take to work together to make sure North Korea is not able to get the technology nor the financing to continue these programmes," he said. The Council unanimously passed Saturday's resolution, which calls on the North to give up all weapons of mass destruction and allows nations to stop cargo going in and out of North Korea to prevent any illicit trafficking. The measure also bars heavy conventional weapons and luxury goods from being sent to North Korea, calls for a freeze in any funds connected with the North's WMD programmes, and urges it to return to disarmament talks. Close US ally Australia, which is also one of the few nations to have diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, on Monday banned all North Korean ships from its ports. But elsewhere in Asia, cracks in the international consensus appeared almost immediately. China, North Korea's main ally and aid provider, indicated it would be reluctant to stop and search Pyongyang's cargo. North Korea has warned that any tough measures would be a "declaration of war," words that sent shudders across a region already unnerved by its announcement of the atom bomb test on October 9. In neighbouring South Korea, President Roh Moo-Hyun" /> Roh Moo-Hyun's spokesman reiterated concern about any action that could destabilise the tense situation. "It is not desirable if such efforts to keep the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons amplify security risks and economic instability," spokesman Yoon Tae-Young said. South Korea is also unwilling to search the North's ships for fear of sparking an armed clash with its neighbour. The two countries have remained technically at war since the 1950-1953 Korean conflict. Despite the sanctions, Roh's government has announced it will continue with two cross-border projects that provide tens of millions of dollars to the cash-starved North. North Korea has repeatedly said it needs a nuclear weapon to deter any attack by the United States, which it says wants to topple its communist regime. Six-nation talks hosted by China appeared to win agreement from Pyongyang last year to give up its nuclear programmes. But negotiations fell apart after the United States imposed sanctions on a Macau bank which it accused of laundering North Korean money and helping to distribute very high quality counterfeit US currency. North Korea said earlier this month that it had to conduct a nuclear test in response to the US sanctions and what it called the threat of a nuclear war from the United States. US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush, who has made the fight against proliferation of nuclear weapons a keystone of his foreign policy, famously lumped North Korea in with Iran" /> Iranand pre-war Iraq" /> Iraqas an "axis of evil." But with fears mounting about Iran's nuclear programme, and the North having announced it has tested the bomb, critics say US policy has not worked. A new poll by the Korea Times found Monday that 43 percent of South Koreans blame Bush's hardline stance for North Korea's test, with only 37.3 percent blaming the North Korean regime itself. "So far, the Republican administration's North Korea policy has been a total failure," the paper said. The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency, meanwhile said it could not confirm the North had even carried out an atomic weapons test. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: US confirms North Korean nuclear test Mon Oct 16, 4:45 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said tests of air samples confirmed that North Korea" /> conducted a nuclear test October 9, but noted the test was less than one kiloton. A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the working assumption in the US intelligence community was that North Korea conducted a nuclear test that did not go as planned. The official said the North Koreans could test again with little notice but said activity at potential test sites were not necessarily an indication of preparations for another test. The office of the Director of National Intelligence said the confirmatory air samples were collected on October 11, two days after North Korea declared that it had detonated a nuclear weapon for the first time in a test. "Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006 detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of Punggye on October 9, 2006," the office of the Director of National Intelligence said. "The explosion yield was less than a kiloton," the statement said. Analysis of air samples collected by a US military aircraft on October 10 showed no evidence of nuclear debris, a defense official told AFP. But radioactive debris showed up in a second batch of air samples collected the next day, said the official, who asked not to be identified. The official said the presence of xenon gas was among the tell-tale signs of a nuclear explosion. Nuclear explosions emit xenon and krypton gases that eventually will seep through rock and soil into the atmosphere, analysts said. The unusually low yield, estimated by US intelligence officials at as low as the equivalent of 200 tons of TNT, had raised doubts that North Korea had succeeded in detonating a nuclear device as claimed. North Korea is reported to have tipped off China before the test that it was detonating a four kiloton weapon. The DNI would not comment beyond its statement so it was unclear whether the US intelligence community believes the North Korean test was successful or not. "Those are the kinds of questions that are being looked at hard," said the US official. Although the working assumption is that the North Korean device failed to meet specifications, analysts have not ruled out that the blast was muted by the geology of the test site. Another possibility is that North Korea deliberately tested a sub-kiloton weapon, but that would require far greater sophistication than would be expected from a country that had never tested a nuclear weapon before. Robert Norris, a nuclear weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said a partial yield may have resulted from the misfiring of high explosive charges used to trigger a plutonium bomb. "We're pretty sure that this is an implosion design which means you're pressing the plutonium ball inward with conventional high explosives," he told AFP. The triggering mechanism involves detonating 32 or 64 precisely shaped high explosive charges at exactly the same time to drive pressure inward on the plutonium core, he said. "Otherwise, if it doesn't there won't be uniform compression of the ball of plutonium, and you'll only get a partial yield. If it's so bad, it probably wouldn't go off at all," he said. In this case, he said, the high explosive charges might have been directed incorrectly or they might not have gone off at the same time. "No doubt the North Koreans are poring over whatever data they were able to gain from this test and they'll learn something from this, which means there might be another test at some future point correcting the problems that they found in this one," he said. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: Rice rallies partners on NKorea sanctions Mon Oct 16, 7:23 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States called on its partners in the confrontation with North Korea" /> to honor their "obligations" to punish the Stalinist regime after US intelligence confirmed that Pyongyang had carried out its first nuclear test. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> said she would urge Japan, South Korea" /> , China and Russia during visits this week to "share the burdens as well as the benefits" of forcing North Korea to back away from its nuclear arms program. The top US diplomat said the goal of her weeklong tour would be to ensure full enactment of UN Security Council resolution 1718, which was adopted Saturday and imposes "unprecedented sanctions" on North Korea in a bid to force the reclusive regime back into multi-party disarmament negotiations. The resolution bans trade with North Korea related to dangerous weapons, calls for a freeze on financial assets and imposes a travel ban on those linked to the country's nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs. But the most hotly contested measure is a call for inspection of cargo to and from the impoverished state, aimed at preventing its cash-strapped government from selling material for an atomic bomb to terrorists or rogue states. "As North Korea scorns the international community, we will collectively isolate North Korea from the benefits of participation in that community," Rice said of the sanctions regime. Both Rice and the White House insisted they were confident that China, North Korea's major ally and trading partner and a traditional opponent of sanctions, would enact the UN resolution. "I am not concerned that the Chinese are going to turn their backs on their obligations," Rice said, noting that Beijing had voted for the UN resolution. White House spokesman Tony Snow for his part said there were already signs China has begun inspections at its long land border with North Korea. "We've also been hearing that the Chinese are, in fact, examining things that are crossing the border," he said. Rice acknowledged fears of China and South Korea that aggressive search and seizure operations against North Korean cargo could spark a conflict, calling them a "natural concern." She said her talks in the various Asian capitals and Moscow would include detailed discussions of "mechanisms" for carrying out the interdiction operating without "ratcheting up" tensions. Shortly before Rice spoke to reporters about her trip, the US intelligence establishment said tests of air samples had confirmed that North Korea conducted a nuclear test on October 9. But the Director of National Intelligence determined that the test explosion had an unusually low yield of less that one kiloton, an outcome that could indicate the nuclear detonation may have partially failed. Amid concerns Pyongyang could carry out another test to prove its nuclear capability, Rice warned that such a move "would further deepen the isolation of North Korea, and I hope they would not take such a provocative act." In light of the enhanced threat represented by North Korea, Rice said her trip would also aim to reassure leaders in Tokyo and Seoul that Washington would stand by its commitment to help defend the two nations. "The United States has both the will and capability to meet the full range of our security and deterrent commitments," she said. While primarily waving the stick of sanctions, Rice also held out for North Korea the carrot of a return to six-party disarmament talks involving the US, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. "A positive path remains open to (North Korea) through the six-party talks," she said. "We are prepared to return to the talks without precondition" with the goal being to end Pyongyang's nuclear program "irreversibly and verifiably", she said. The offer was a far softer approach than that taken by Washington against Iran" /> , which is also facing possible sanctions for ignoring a UN demand it suspend the enrichment of uranium. The US is insisting that Tehran verifiably end its enrichment activities, which can be subverted to produce material for nuclear weapons, as a precondition for talks on ending Iran's diplomatic isolation. "The Iranian government is watching and it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation," Rice said. She warned Iran that it could face sanctions and international isolation over its nuclear program such as those faced by North Korea. "I expect the Security Council to begin work this week on an Iran sanctions resolution," she said. "So the Iranian government should consider the course that it is on, which could lead to simply to further isolation." Meanwhile, North Korea's number-two leader, Kim Yong-Nam, said his country is "seriously threatened by the daily-growing threat of a nuclear war from the US." Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Japan may shift warships from Indian Ocean to NKorea Mon Oct 16, 2:37 AM ET TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's defense chief has suggested that the country could pull warships from the Indian Ocean, where they assist US operations in Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan, to waters near North Korea" /> North Korea. Defense Agency chief Fumio Kyuma said Japan, which is officially pacifist, could amend the mission drafted under special legislation to allow the deployment to the Indian Ocean. "The priority is to defend our country," Kyuma told a parliamentary committee. "If the situation (related to North Korea) becomes more serious, it is possible that we could amend the basic mission plan," Kyuma said on Monday. Japan has dispatched supply ships and one destroyer to the Indian Ocean to give logistical support to US-led troops. Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Sunday called for Japan to take part in potential US searches of North Korean ships under Saturday's UN Security Council resolution that condemned Pyongyang's nuclear test. Japan passed the law on the Indian Ocean mission after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, which triggered the US military operation that toppled Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a hawk on North Korea who supports a more active military role for Japan, has approved extending the legislation for another year. The mission was initially the most far-reaching military deployment for Japan since World War II. Abe's predecessor as prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, later went further by sending a reconstruction mission to Iraq" /> Iraq, the first time since the war that Japanese soldiers had been in a country where fighting was under way. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: SKorean leader under fire over handling of North by Marc Carnegie Mon Oct 16, 3:49 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea" /> 's embattled president has been hit with new criticism over his handling of North Korea" /> as doubts surfaced about whether new UN sanctions against Pyongyang would be strongly enforced. Seoul came out in strong support of the UN Security Council's vote Saturday to impose sanctions on the communist North after it announced it had tested a nuclear weapon for the first time. But many here see the test as proof that President Roh Moo-Hyun" /> 's "sunshine policy" of engaging the North has failed, and complain that millions in aid money was instead used to develop an atomic weapon now threatening the South. Newspapers lambasted Roh after his government said that, despite the crisis, it would continue with cross-border industrial and tourism projects which have become a key source of cash for the impoverished North. "The government and the ruling party are advised to please behave like grown-ups," the Chosun Ilbo, South Korea's largest-circulation daily, said in a pugnacious editorial. "Despite the emergency of having a nuclear-armed enemy just dozens of kilometres away from Seoul, they keep acting childishly," it said. South Korea has repeatedly said it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed North, and the government quickly issued a statement underlining its willingness to implement the sanctions. Yet Roh's government is clearly hoping to avoid confrontation over the sanctions, which the North previously warned would be tantamount to a "declaration of war." Cracks in the global consensus were already emerging as the United States publicly pressed China to enforce the UN resolution, including inspections of cargo in and out of the North that Beijing had opposed. After China, South Korea is the main provider of food and aid to the North, where many South Koreans have relatives that they have not seen since the peninsula was divided six decades ago. Despite those ties, polls show that nearly 80 percent of South Koreans believe Roh's carrot-and-stick approach, aimed at coaxing Pyongyang's isolated regime back into the international fold, should now be abandoned. "The government should drastically change its way of thinking," the JoongAng Daily said, urging Roh to abandon the joint projects in the North -- Mount Kumgang, a tourism site, and the Kaesong industrial complex. "If the government continues these projects, there will be no real profit for them. It would instead bring conflict with the United States and raise criticism of not upholding the resolution," it said. The United States, one of South Korea's main allies, is also coming under increasing fire here. A new poll by the Korea Times found that 43 percent of South Koreans blame Washington for the test, with only 37.3 percent blaming the North Koreans who actually carried it out. The results appeared to be a sign of growing doubt about US commitment to achieving a diplomatic end to the crisis instead of wanting simply to topple Pyongyang's communist leadership -- as the North claims. "The isolationist regime's sense of the US security threat may be overblown but not entirely groundless," the paper said. "So far, the Republican administration's North Korea policy has been a total failure." A small group of anti-US activists protested near the US embassy on Monday, accusing the Security Council of "collaborating" with the United States against the North, Yonhap news agency reported. A flurry of diplomatic talks were set to hammer out how the UN resolution would be implemented. Christopher Hill, the lead US negotiator in stalled six-nation negotiations with Pyongyang over its nuclear programme, was due in Tokyo later Monday before heading to South Korea on Tuesday. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon will host US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Thursday. Seoul's Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-Hwan was to meet later Monday with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 AFP: Rice reminds partners of 'obligations' on North Korea sanctions Mon Oct 16, 4:37 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricetold Washington's partners in the confrontation with North Korea" /> North Koreathat they must honor their "obligations" to enact tough sanctions with the communist regime over its nuclear weapons program. Rice, who leaves Tuesday for visits to Japan, South Korea" /> South Korea, China and Russia, said these neighbors of North Korea "must share the burdens as well as the benefits" of restoring regional security following last week's nuclear bomb test by Pyongyang. "This trip is an opportunity to reaffirm our reciprocal obligations," Rice said. The UN Security Council on Saturday unanimously adopted a resolution imposing "unprecedented sanctions on the government of North Korea, and it requires every nation in the world to uphold them," she said. The top US diplomat said her week-long mission will focus on ensuring the fullest possible implementation of the sanctions resolution, which bans trade with North Korea related to dangerous weapons and calls for the inspection of cargo to and from the impoverished state. "As North Korea scorns the international community, we will collectively isolate North Korea from the benefits of participation in that community," she said. But Rice added that she would also be reassuring key allies South Korea and Japan that the United States "has both the will and capability to meet the full range of our security and deterrent commitments". Asked about the apparent reluctance of China, North Korea's long-time ally and key trading partner, to aggressively inspect cargo crossing their long land border, Rice said the US expects "every member of the international community to fully implement all aspects of this resolution". Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: China clamping down on North Korean border - White House - Mon Oct 16, 1:07 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - China has begun inspections at its border with North Korea" /> in line with UN sanctions imposed on Pyongyang after its apparent nuclear test, despite earlier reluctance, the US said. "We've also been hearing that the Chinese are, in fact, examining things that are crossing the border," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "Apparently, they're inspecting," he said. Earlier Monday, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN that China was clamping down on trade. "We have some indications that the Chinese are also stopping trucks and inspecting them across that 800-mile border this morning," Burns said. "That's a sign that China is going to implement the resolution it signed up to," he said, before adding that Washington and its allies would continue pressing Beijing to honor the US Security Council sanctions resolution adopted on Saturday. Asked about the extent of Chinese inspections, Snow withheld judgement. "They're 72 hours into an agreement," he said. "The parties have committed to fulfilling its obligations. Let's just see what happens, all right?" Snow stressed that due to their common borders and relationships with North Korea, China and South Korea" /> would shoulder much of the responsibility to implement the sanctions. "You understand that the Chinese and the South Koreans, by virtue of their extensive ties with the government of North Korea, are, in fact, going to have the most leverage, and therefore, they're going to have some significant responsibilities, and they know that," he said. "China is an equal partner in this and they have their responsibilities and ambassador (John) Bolton made it clear," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> will be travelling to Beijing this week as part of a tour aimed at ensuring the sanctions are applied. Burns said she would be pressing China's top leaders on the issue. "Secretary Rice will be in Beijing later this week to discuss this personally with President Hu Jintao" /> and others in the Chinese leadership," he said. The UN resolution bans trade with North Korea related to dangerous weapons and the export of heavy conventional weapons to the Stalinist state, calls for a freeze on financial assets, and imposes a travel ban on those linked to the country's nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programmes. But the most hotly contested measure is a call for inspection of cargo to and from the impoverished state, aimed at preventing its cash-strapped government from selling material for an atomic bomb to terrorists or rogue states. Shortly after the UN adopted the measures, though, China's ambassador to the world body said his government did not favor inspections of cargo going in and out of North Korea. Burns brushed aside the diplomat's remarks, suggesting he possibly "misspoke". "China is going to have to implement this resolution, it was unanimous," he said. Rice is due to leave Tuesday for Japan and will also visit South Korea and Russia on the week-long trip, US officials said. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 34 Japan Times: LDP policy chief calls for debate on nuke option japantimes.co.jp Monday, Oct. 16, 2006 LDP policy chief calls for debate on nuke option Kyodo News Japan needs to discuss whether it should go nuclear in response to North Korea's declared nuclear test, the policy chief of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party said Sunday. Shoichi Nakagawa Shoichi Nakagawa, chairman of the LDP's Policy Research Council, made the contentious comment on a TV Asahi talk show, saying the Constitution does not rule out the option of possessing nuclear arms. As a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Japan is not allowed to produce or possess nuclear weapons. While stressing the nation should maintain its three-point nonnuclear principles of not possessing, producing or allowing the entry of nuclear weapons into Japan, Nakagawa said, "There could be an argument that possession of nuclear weapons diminishes the likelihood of being attacked as we could fight back in such an event." "There can be discussions, of course, (about being a nuclear power)," he said. The remarks drew immediate opposition from the LDP's coalition partner, New Komeito, with party policy chief Tetsuo Saito telling the same program, "We will never possess nuclear arms. We should not even discuss the matter as it causes concerns to the world." Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, speaking in the Lower House Budget Committee last Tuesday following North Korea's announcement the day before of a nuclear test, said he does not plan to change Japan's policy of not possessing nuclear weapons. Following Nakagawa's remarks, Abe reiterated in the afternoon that Japan would stick to its nonnuclear principles. Nakagawa told reporters after the program, "There also are demerits of possession. I'm not discussing this on the assumption that we should possess nuclear weapons." As for the three nonnuclear principles, he said, "We need to have thorough discussions on whether there is a need to review them." The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved japantimes.co.jp. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Expects China's Backing on N. Korea From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 1:01 PM AP Photo DCHG102 By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration, citing new inspections by the Chinese of trucks bound for North Korea, said Monday it expected China would do its part in enforcing a U.N. resolution punishing its reclusive ally for its nuclear program. The United State is pressing China for touch action against North Korea ahead of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip this week to Asia. R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, pointed to the fact that Chinese customs inspectors had begun inspecting cargo trucks bound for North Korea in the border city of Dandong. Japan and Australia, meanwhile, announced Monday that they might take measures beyond the new U.N. sanctions against North Korea for that country's reported nuclear test. ``We have indications this morning the Chinese are beginning to apply this to their very long land border'' with North Korea, Burns said on CBS' ``The Early Show.'' ``We also have announcements from Japan and Australia. I spoke to both governments this morning. They are both implementing this.'' He said there will be ``enormous pressure on China to live up to their responsibility'' in enforcing United Nations punishment of its ally, North Korea. Rice travels to the region Tuesday for a series of talks aimed at easing tensions among countries already on edge from the North's claimed nuclear test. China, which voted Saturday for the U.N. penalties, has balked at cargo inspections to prevent trafficking of certain banned weapons and technology. ``I'm quite certain that China is going to live up to its responsibilities,'' Rice said Sunday, adding she was willing to have ``conversations'' during her trip on how best to enforce the resolution. The United States' U.N. ambassador portrayed North Korea's detonation last week as a public humiliation for China, which shares a long border with North Korea and is the North's chief ally and supplier of crucial shipments of food and energy aid. If China were to cut its support, John Bolton said, it ``would be powerfully persuasive in Pyongyang,'' the North's capital. ``They've not yet been willing to do it. I think that China has a heavy responsibility here.'' Rice, who joined Bolton in making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, plans to visit Asian partners this week to consult about the resolution. ``I understand that people are concerned about how it might work so it doesn't enhance tensions in the region, and we're perfectly willing to have those conversations,'' Rice said. Bolton said the United States' concept of the resolution ``is that the overwhelming predominance of the inspections would take place in ports or at land crossings or that sort of thing. But the resolution neither increases nor decreases existing authority to interdict on the high seas.'' The U.S.-sponsored resolution demands North Korea eliminate nuclear weapons but rules out military action against the country, as the Russians and Chinese demanded. After the resolution unanimously passed, North Korea's U.N. ambassador accused council members of a ``gangster-like'' action that neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States. China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his country ``strongly urges the countries concerned to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude in this regard and refrain from taking any provocative steps that may intensify the tensions.'' Meanwhile, a leading Senate Republican urged direct talks with North Korea, as the reclusive nation has sought. ``We do need to engage the North Koreans'' because the U.N. resolution is weak and limited, said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But Rice brushed aside such calls, reaffirming the U.S. commitment to six-nation disarmament talks, which have stalled. ``It is so important not to allow this to become a bilateral negotiation, because the North would like nothing better than to simply deal with the United States so that we are the ones that isolate it,'' Rice said. Critics said the U.N. penalties will not curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions and stemmed from what they saw as President Bush's failed foreign policy. Democratic Sen. John Kerry said the Bush administration is ``living in a complete fantasy with respect to the foreign policy they put in place. It is a failure.'' He said U.S. involvement in Iraq has undermined America's credibility to deal with nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran. --- Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer from the United Nations, Nedra Pickler from Washington and William Foreman and Hans Greimel from Seoul contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 UPI: Walker's World: Ban's tough U.N. start United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 10/16/2006 2:42:00 PM -0400 By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- It is triply unfortunate that the Korean nuclear crisis should have reached the United Nations at this time as such a seminal test of its powers to enforce collective security against a rogue state going nuclear. It is unfortunate in the fist place because the United Nations itself is in an interregnum. The current Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a lame duck, due to retire at the end of the year and therefore unlikely to stay in place through whatever resolution or humiliation the U.N. process is to undergo. He is, moreover, a lame duck wounded and tarnished by the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, which threw such a critical light on the working of the U.N. bureaucracy. For better or worse, he carries little weight. It is unfortunate in the second place because today's vote on the Latin American country which will be given the next temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council, setting the U.S.-backed Guatemala against Venezuela, whose radical populist President Hugo Chavez has become such a thorn in the side of the man he calls "the devil," President George W. Bush. If Venezuela wins, it will be because of the largesse (some might call them bribes) Chavez is distributing from his swollen oil revenues. Cut-price oil for his friends and food for Africa, airstrips for Caribbean islands and fat munitions contracts for Russia, a brand-new transplant unit for Uruguay's Hospital de Clinicas; Chavez is throwing money around to buy friends, and doubtless counts on this generosity to win votes at the United Nations. The prospect of such a fierce anti-American figure buying his way onto the Security Council is unlikely to persuade Americans, and far less the Bush administration, that the United Nations is a reliable defender of international security against a rogue state like North Korea. And without American support, and American money, the United Nations loses both credibility and much of its capacity to act. It is unfortunate in the third place because Kofi Annan's successor as secretary-general, the South Korean career diplomat and former foreign minister Ban Ki-moon, is not yet in place to tackle the Korean crisis that he knows so well. Known as Ban in diplomatic circles, his nickname among the South Korean press corps was "slippery eel," but there was nothing slippery about his first appearance before the United Nations' press corps over the weekend. Ban was asked a direct question whether he would fill out the usual U.N. staff form, disclosing his personal finances. This was a move that Kofi Annan had long resisted, claiming that as secretary-general he was not just another member of staff. But Ban said straight away that he would not only complete the form, but would make it public. It was a good start, along with his speech, which sought to make a virtue of his reputation as a low-key, modest and self-effacing man, not the hard-driving and can-do figure that many of the United Nations' critics believe the 192-nation institution now needs. "Asia is also a region where modesty is a virtue. But the modesty is about demeanor, not about vision and goals. It does not mean the lack of commitment or leadership. Rather, it is quiet determination in action to get things done without so much fanfare," Ban said. "This may be the key to Asia's success, and to the United Nations' future," he added. "Indeed, our organization is modest in its means, but not in its values. We should be more modest in our words, but not in our performance." He certainly did not raise expectations too high, which may be a good thing. And the more that is learned about Ban's work in South Korea's foreign ministry, the more impressive he sounds. He claims never to have been even a minute late getting to his desk, his days are meticulously planned in 5-minute blocks, and this quiet workaholic sleeps only 5 hours a night. South Korean diplomats claim he was "in charge of everything, from A to Z." In nearly three years as foreign minister, he took only two days off -- to attend his daughter's wedding. And he pushed through a sweeping internal reform at the ministry, insisting that promotions should be made on merit, rather than through seniority. He achieved this without open battles with the entrenched bureaucracy, but with quiet and determined persistence. That same persistence helped him get the new job, which few predicted he would win when he first announced his candidacy two years ago -- perilously early to make such an open bid, according to U.N. tradition. But he knows the United Nations well, having served as top aide to Han Seung-soo, the former South Korean foreign minister who became U.N. president in 2001. A fluent English-speaker, after getting a Red Cross scholarship to travel in the United States as a youth in 1962, he then studied at Harvard's Kennedy School. He was taught by Joseph Nye, later President Clinton's assistant secretary for defense, and the author "Soft Power," a subtle suggestion that attracting and persuading others to see things America's way usually works better than bullying. Competence and persistence, persuasiveness and modesty, determination and the ability to handle a stolid bureaucracy; these are qualities that make a formidable combination and may be just what the United Nations needs. But he will be pitch-forked into a crisis over North Korea, and another over Iran, that have already gone dangerously far to be resolved by diplomatic means, and are likely to get worse over the next 10 weeks before he takes up his new post. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 37 UPI: 2nd nuke test will build resolve - Snow United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/16/2006 4:42:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- White House spokesman Tony Snow Monday predicted a threatened second nuclear test by North Korea would strengthen international resolve against the regime. U.S. intelligence officials Monday confirmed the explosion North Korea set off last week was, indeed nuclear, albeit small. The confirmation came two days after the U.N. Security Council voted sanctions against Pyongyang. "As far as further nuclear tests, I think all it's going to do is strengthen the commitment, especially of those in the neighborhood to make it clear to Kim Jong Il that, again, bad behavior no longer will be rewarded, it will be punished, and that if his government wishes to remain credible, and he wishes to have any credibility, they need to come back to the six-party talks and renounce nukes," Snow told the daily White House media briefing. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 38 UPI: No enforcement yet of North Korea ban United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 10/16/2006 1:20:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy has not yet been ordered to search suspicious ships going to and from North Korea, a Pentagon spokesman said. The United Nations Security Council Saturday approved a unanimous resolution banning the sale or transfer of missiles, warships, tanks, attack helicopters, combat aircraft and missile- and nuclear-related goods to North Korea. It also calls for the "inspection of cargo" bound for North Korea or being exported. It rules out military action to punish North Korea, a concession to China and Russia, North Korea's two closest trading partners. "There's no clarity on any specific action to be taken," said Col. Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman. The U.N. resolution was passed after North Korea claimed it had tested a nuclear warhead on Oct. 9. On Monday, U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte confirmed the nuclear test, characterizing it as small -- less than a kiloton. "Analysis of air samples collected on Oct. 11, 2006 detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on Oct. 9, 2006. The explosion yield was less than a kiloton," Negroponte said in a written statement issued Monday. The nuclear test came three months after North Korea fired a series of short-range missiles and a long-range missile. The long-range missile -- believed to be a booster rocket for a satellite -- failed shortly after launch. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 39 AFP: Thirty new countries could acquire nuclear weapon - IAEA chief - Mon Oct 16, 7:18 AM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Up to 30 new countries could have the capability to build a nuclear weapon, on top of the nine current nuclear powers, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyhas warned. "We need to develop a new system of international approach (or we will not) end up with nine (nuclear-)weapon states only, but with another 20 or 30 states which have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a short time," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in Vienna. He said these "virtual nuclear weapon states" had the means and know-how to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, at the opening of a symposium bringing together some 500 experts to discuss ways to improve safeguards to ensure peaceful nuclear programmes are not used for military purposes. "Unfortunately the polical environment is not a very secure one... there are a lot of temptations" to seek nuclear weapons, ElBaradei added, in reference to Iraq" /> Iraqand Libya's now-halted military programmes and to Iran" /> Iran's secret nuclear activities, which have been on-going for almost 20 years. Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States are declared military nuclear powers, along with India and Pakistan, while Israel" /> Israelis also belived to have weapons. North Korea" /> North Koreaalso announced on October 9 that it had conducted an underground nuclear test. Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 40 UPI: REALPOLITIK: Raising the stakes United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 10/16/2006 5:42:00 PM -0400 By ALON BEN-MEIR NEW YORK, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- North Korea has finally played its trump card by testing a nuclear weapon. In doing so, it has challenged the United States, shook South Korea, deeply alarmed Japan, paid little heed to Russia, and risks humiliating China for a big reward by appearing independent and daring. Emboldened by its own action, Pyongyang will be less accommodating in future negotiations, especially since it has successfully provoked international attention while raising the stakes for the United States, South Korea and Japan. The sanctions passed by the U.N. Security Council are not strong enough to force Pyongyang to relinquish its nuclear weapons. To prevent the situation from spinning out of control, the Bush administration must conduct direct talks with North Korea. The administration may praise the U.N. resolution, arguing that even a weaker resolution strongly signals international condemnation. But since when has North Korea worried about international condemnation? The truth is that the sanctions will neither have an immediate nor a crippling effect. North Korea knows that China will not allow it to become a failed state and inherit the insurmountable burden of dealing with millions of refugees and possibly millions more starving to death. This is why China and Russia will continue to insist that the situation be peacefully resolved. Pyongyang also knows that by seeking multilateral punitive measures through the United Nations, Washington has ruled out a military response. In fact, President George W. Bush conceded defeat when he publicly switched from a policy of non-proliferation to one of deterrence and defense. Thus, in his statement after the test, he basically acknowledged that he can no longer seek to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons but will try to deter North Korea from their use or transfer. Pyongyang is also fully cognizant that South Korea, regardless of its internal debate on how to deal with a nuclear North, wants to preserve the Sunshine policy. Seoul is eager to keep the prospect of unification alive and will do everything to prevent a war that could completely devastate it. Finally, although realizing how sensitive Tokyo is about a nuclear North Korea but obsessed with its historic enmity to Japan, Pyongyang went ahead with its nuclear test, willingly risking the loss of Japanese economic assistance in order to assert itself as a regional nuclear power to be reckoned with. In sum, North Korea skillfully capitalized on the divergent interests of the group of five it has engaged with in on-and-off negotiations during the last few years. The test's aftermath finds North Korea in a much better bargaining position. Washington's refusal to negotiate directly with Pyongyang for the past six years has allowed it to proceed with its nuclear program with impunity. The administration's stubborn insistence on regime change and its refusal to enter into a non-belligerency agreement have given North Korea every reason to defy and successfully defeat the Bush administration policy. Pyongyang has certainly succeeded: there is not even a hint of an American military attack, and to assure the American public, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has categorically removed that option. The Bush administration may choose to be satisfied with the passage of the Security Council's sanctions. But by themselves, they will not force North Korea to the negotiating table nor abandon its nuclear program. Kim Jong Il has skillfully raised the stakes at a time of his choosing: U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq fighting an ever-widening insurgency in a country that has plunged into civil war; the administration is fighting for its political life in mid-term elections, and Iran has rejected international demands to end its uranium enrichment program, thus presenting another daunting challenge to Washington. To be sure, North Korea has scored another impressive victory in its brinkmanship game with the Bush administration, leaving it scrambling for a face-saving way out. Six years of failed policy has added another nation to the nuclear club, but one that is reckless, unpredictable, and potentially extremely dangerous. The argument by some administration officials who boast that the U.N. resolution is evidence of a united, multilateral front agreeing to punish North Korea is dangerously nave. It is critical to move quickly beyond the sanctions because North Korea's first nuclear test hardly signals the end of its nuclear program. Kim Jong Il seeks a functional nuclear deterrent, and this requires more testing of larger magnitude as well as the development of long-range missiles. Moreover, now that scores of countries are involved in uranium enrichment programs the problem of proliferation assumes far greater urgency. To prevent North Korea from pursuing this dangerously ambitious goal, there is an urgent need for long, sustained talks between Pyongyang and Washington. In this context, the Bush administration must give up the idea of regime change in North Korea to assuage its main concerns and begin the process of building a positive relationship. Only bilateral dialogue will permit Washington to gauge Pyongyang's intentions and requirements and reach a verifiable and enduring agreement. Such an agreement will permanently remove the danger of transfer of nuclear technology and the growing risks of nuclear conflagration in Asia. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiations and Middle Eastern studies. alon@alonben-meir.com www.alonben-meir.com Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 41 Jim Bell: Nuclear Power One of Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:50:24 -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 >Nuclear Power One of Humankinds Biggest Mistakes > >By Jim Bell > >www.jimbell.com, jimbellelsi@cox.net, 619 758 9020 > >Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family >survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify >leaving them nuclear powers toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing >with for hundreds if not thousands of generations. > >And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air >conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them. > >Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our >descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, >we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power >everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar >energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake. > >On its own, nuclear powers toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to >give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as >quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the >radioactive wastes already created. > >The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its >history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated >civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current >civilization(s) dont feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunamis >volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This >given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as >nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds >to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes >are safe to be around. > >And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their >guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations >if San Onofres spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this >happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously >erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if >not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for >thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. > >Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and >the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so >the industry can expand. > >Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse >gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. >This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. Its not >true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during >nuclear powers fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and >dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power >was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in >order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear >power has already generated. > >An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are >saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases >to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned >to make electricity directly. > >In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney >Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of >fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the >net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than >if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been uses directly to produce >electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel >generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce >the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. >Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters >Degree in Mechanical Engineering. > >Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same >amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and >deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in >Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled The Net Energy >Yield of Nuclear Power.In their article the authors concluded that even >without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate >past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only the >re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it. > >In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected >British publication, featured a16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of >the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough >electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill >and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the >other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical >U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and >processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. > >To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses >around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year. > >As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of >metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure >uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was >passing by him on the screen. I became an instant true believerin nuclear >power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of >energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore >plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose. > >Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or >near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. >Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure >uranium gets used. Thats why we are left with depleted uranium and other >long-lived wastes. > >The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy >producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the >environment and out of the hands of terrorists. > >But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of >our countrys total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of >billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? The 2005 Federal >Energy Bill continues this trend. According to U.S. PIRG, Taxpayers for >Common Sense, Public Citizen and the Congressional Research Service the >recently passed 2005 Federal Energy Bill includes a taxpayer liability of >$14 to $16 billionin support of nuclear power. > >If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price >Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the >cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a >Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for >over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release >would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian >Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a >serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. >Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant >would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one. > >Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, >manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or >order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned >these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute >for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, >they included the follow 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James >Asselstine, given the present level of safety being achieved by the >operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown >within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could >result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger >than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl.Bare in mind, a >meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear >power to cause a serious radioactive release. > >As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially >considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to >make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self-sufficient. Solar >energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future >generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign >yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, >be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. > >If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV >panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This >assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day >after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements. >For details read my free books at www.jimbell.com. They are also available >in most local libraries. >For ourselves, our children and future generations, lets move into the >solar age. ================================================== ***************************************************************** 42 NRC: NRC to Send Special Inspection Team to Surry Nuclear Plant to Review Offsite Power Loss and Shutdown News Release - Region II - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-043 October 13, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II office in Atlanta is planning to send a special team of inspectors to the Surry nuclear power plant, operated by Dominion in southeastern Virginia, to look into the facts surrounding the partial loss of offsite power and the manual shutdown of one of the plants two reactors on Saturday, Oct. 7. The team is expected to begin its inspection the week of October 23. The Surry plant was in an Alert, the next to the lowest of four NRC emergency classifications, from early Saturday evening until early Sunday morning due to a complete loss of offsite power to Unit 1's emergency safety systems and a partial loss to Unit 2. The loss of normal offsite power was a result of flying debris damaging overhead power lines coming from nearby electrical transformers. Dr. William Travers, administrator of the agencys Atlanta office, said the plants emergency diesel generators started and provided emergency power until normal offsite power could be completely restored late afternoon on Sunday. Dr. Travers said the NRCs resident inspectors immediately responded to the event. The agency began a review for safety implications and continues to assess the companys response. Dr. Travers said the special inspection team will review circumstances associated with the event in more detail, determine if there are any generic issues for other nuclear plants, and assess the companys overall response and investigation. The team will document its findings and conclusions in a report to be issued within 30 days of the inspection. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 16, 2006 ***************************************************************** 43 The Australian: Nuclear power plants in a decade Matthew Warren October 17, 2006 AUSTRALIA has been put on a path towards nuclear power after the Howard Government said construction on new plants could start within a decade. John Howard said yesterday Australia had to consider the nuclear power option, given the nation had the largest uranium deposits in the world, and it had to be debated as part of the response to global warming. The Coalition's strongest endorsement of nuclear power yet establishes a clear divide on climate change policy, with the Labor Party yesterday moving quickly to oppose nuclear and back solar energy as an alternative source of low greenhouse-emissions energy. Solar energy is currently 10 times the cost of conventional sources of power. The Coalition is also facing a grassroots backlash, with Labor already running a marginal seat campaign with the theme that the Government wants to build a power station in voters' neighbourhoods. But the Prime Minister said nuclear power had to be examined. "I believe very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to global warming, it is clean green, it is something in relation to which many rabid environmentalists have changed their views over recent years," he said. Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has largely stayed out of the power debate until now, yesterday claimed Australia could start construction on a nuclear power plant within 10 years. Mr Macfarlane said the mood towards nuclear energy in Australia was likely to change when the community understood its ability to supply affordable electricity while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. "Around the world, uranium is coming in from the cold," he said. "This shift isn't driven primarily by the need for energy - we have hundreds of years in coal and gas reserves. It's a demand propelled by communities seeking to balance their economic development and the challenge of curbing greenhouse emissions." Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said that now the Prime Minister had "declared he wants a nuclear power industry, John Howard must declare where he will build the reactors". While no sites have yet been identified in Australia, experts say cost-effective nuclear power stations would need to be built on a series on coastal sites about 100km from major cities and energy demand. Clarence Hardy, president of the Pacific Nuclear Council, said identifying locations would only be feasible if there was clear public acceptance of the technology and an established regulatory framework. He said possible locations included the coast south and north of Perth, the Hunter Valley in NSW or the coast north of Newcastle, the Iron Triangle in South Australia and north of Brisbane. The coast south of Victoria's La Trobe Valley may also be a potential site. Nuclear power already generates 16per cent of global electricity supply, with 442 reactors operating and another 30 under construction. China is building three new plants each year. Australia has been relatively immunised from a debate on nuclear power because of its abundance of low-cost coal and gas, which has continued to undercut the cost of nuclear power - and therefore the necessity of considering it. New nuclear-powered energy is increasingly cost-competitive in most parts of the world as a result of rising oil and gas prices and improving nuclear technology. The Prime Minister's taskforce reviewing uranium mining, enrichment and nuclear energy in Australia, headed by former telecommunications executive and nuclear scientist Ziggy Switkowski, is due to table its draft findings next month. The Labor Opposition has backed solar energy, not nuclear, as the low-emission solution for Australia energy needs, even though the technology is intermittent and expensive. "Australia's energy future is in renewables, not reactors, and John Howard must abandon his push to build nuclear reactors in Australia's major cities," Mr Beazley said. "Middle Australia now has a clear choice on Australia's energy future. There will be no nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley Labor government. There will be under John Howard." While Mr Beazley has rejected nuclear power as a climate-change solution for Australia, he has backed a review of the ALP's no new uranium mines policy, which will be considered at the federal party conference next year. A paper to be presented today by Geoscience Australia will show that global uranium production may need to double by 2020 to meet growing demand. Australia currently holds about 36 per cent of the world's minable uranium resources. Geoscience Australia estimates it would take more than 70 years to mine uranium from the world's biggest deposit, at the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, which alone represents more than a quarter of global reserves. Experts say cost-effective nuclear power stations would need to be built on coastal sites about 100km from major cities. ***************************************************************** 44 The Australian: Nuclear power possible 'within decade' October 16, 2006 AUSTRALIA could start planning to build its first nuclear power station within ten years, Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says. Mr Macfarlane's prediction comes after Prime Minister John Howard yesterday gave his strongest support yet for the introduction of nuclear power in Australia. Mr Macfarlane said while it was important to have an informed public debate on the issue, he believed nuclear power could play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. "Nuclear power comes with benefits and risks and they need to be weighed up,'' he told reporters after addressing the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney. "Once that debate is had, then the government will able to make a decision on how we move forward. "But it's certainly possible that within the next ten years, a nuclear power station could begin to be planned." By the end of the year, the federal government is expecting an expert task force to release a draft report on the merits of introducing nuclear power in Australia. Privacy Terms The Australian ***************************************************************** 45 The Australian: Climate solution 'must include nuclear power' October 16, 2006 ANY serious consideration of the problems presented by global warming must involve nuclear-powered electricity generation, Prime Minister John Howard said today. Mr Howard berated Labor for not accepting that position when he was asked by opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese if there was any other country on the planet where renewable energy projects were being closed. "It's the view of the government that there are many contributions to be made to solving the problem of global warming," Mr Howard told parliament. "Renewable energy is part of the solution but another very important part of the solution is nuclear power." Mr Howard said the government had always acknowledged that renewables were part of the response to global warming, but so were other energy sources. "If you're really serious about tackling the problem of global warming, you've got to be serious about the potential contribution of all of the energy sources, including nuclear power,"he said. Earlier Mr Howard said nuclear power was part of the solution to global warming. "Those who say they are in favour of doing something about global warming but turn their faces against considering nuclear power are unreal," he said. "It is part of the solution, I'm not saying it's the only solution. "I just think that if we're serious about having a debate about global warming, particularly as the holder of some of the largest uranium reserves in the world, we have got to be willing to consider the nuclear option." Mr Howard said part of the reason he commissioned the taskforce, headed by nuclear physicist and former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, was because he felt strongly about the benefits of nuclear power. "It is clean green," he said. But he couldn't say when Australia may get nuclear power. "As to when, as I say, I'd like a bit more advice on that," Mr Howard said. Labor has pledged there will be no nuclear power if it wins government, but it does plan to re-examine its policy of no new uranium mines at its national conference next year. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley wants the policy changed but faces a difficult job convincing some sections of Labor that it is the way to go. Mr Keating thinks a change in the Labor policy would be a mistake. "I think I would stay with the existing policy," he said yesterday. "This is not a good industry to encourage, and anyone that has an electricity program, ipso-facto ends up with a nuclear weapons capability." Privacy Terms The Australian ***************************************************************** 46 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Comment on Implementation of Reactor Oversight Process News Release - 2006-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-129 October 16, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking comment from members of the public on the implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP), which the agency implemented six years ago to revamp and improve its inspection and enforcement programs for commercial nuclear power plants. Each year the NRC seeks feedback to help the agency continue to improve its regulatory approach. In particular, the NRC would appreciate the publics answers to a list of 22 questions relating to the ROP, including the following: -- Is the information in the inspection reports useful to you? -- Is the ROP understandable, and are the processes, procedures and products clear and written in plain English? -- Has the public had sufficient opportunity to participate in the ROP and provide input and comments? All 22 questions are contained in the Federal Register notice of the request for comment, which was published Oct. 10. The notice is available from the NRCs Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2006survey.pdf . The comment period runs until Dec. 1. Comments may be e-mailed to or mailed to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001. Comments can also be delivered to Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal workdays. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 16, 2006 ***************************************************************** 47 London Times: Cracks appear at British Energy plant as Blair opens gas pipeline - October 17, 2006 By Carl Mortished The Prime Minister's call for action to secure energy supplies has gained an unexpected urgency TONY BLAIR called for action to secure Britains energy supply as he opened a gas pipeline yesterday. His words were given unexpected urgency when British Energy gave warning that there were cracks at one of its nuclear power stations. British Energy said that it would be forced to buy electricity on the wholesale market to meet its supply contracts after discovering cracks in boilers at Hinkley Point power station. Although the company maintained that there was no radiation safety risk its shares plunged on the stock market. British Energy supplies a fifth of the countrys power from its fleet of ageing nuclear reactors. The spot price of gas fell on the market as the Prime Minister launched Langeled, the worlds longest subsea pipe, a vital piece of infrastructure that will bring fuel from Norway, helping to fill a supply gap caused by the dwindling output of Britains North Sea fields. The emerging shortage caused extraordinary surges in the gas price last winter, forcing businesses to close and prompting National Grid, on March 13, to make its first Gas Balancing Alert, a warning that the network was dangerously short of gas. Mr Blair made his call for action on energy as he celebrated in London with Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian premier, the opening of the Langeled terminal at Easington in Yorkshire. He said: Where we replace our energy from is going to be a huge thing . . . if we dont get the question of energy security right now, in this period of time, we will pay a heavy price in the future for our economy and for our consumers. The opening of the 875-mile Langeled pipe coincided with a government consultation on gas security. Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, said that by 2020 more than 80 per cent of Britains gas could be imported. Mr Wicks said that it was the energy industrys job to deliver security of supply, but the Government needed to make sure that Britain had the right regulatory framework. Norsk Hydro, the lead company in the Langeled project, will be piping gas from Ormen Lange at full capacity within a year. Pumped at a rate of 70 million cubic metres per day, it will carry enough fuel to supply a fifth of Britains daily need. The project, which cost more than 5 billion, involved major feats of engineering and required the capacity of three steel mills to produce a million tonnes of pipe. The gasfield has no surface platform but uses new technology to control the wells from a manifold on the seabed at depths of more than 1,000 metres. A leading energy consultant claims that inaction by the British Government caused delays in bringing Ormen Lange gas to Britain. According to Simon Blakey, a senior director of CERA, the energy consultancy, Langeled would have been completed a year ago and contributed to lower British gas prices but for delays from Whitehall. The clearest example of this was the process by which the British Government, from 2001 to 2003, dragged out discussions with its Norwegian counterparts on tax and other issues, he said. Since the summer, wholesale gas prices have fallen due to warm weather and anticipation by gas traders of the completion in October of the southern section of the Langeled, which joins Sleipner, a gas production platform and pipeline hub in the North Sea. The full benefit of the new import capacity wont be felt until completion of the northern section, expected in October next year, when Langeled will tie Ormen Lange, a giant gasfield 87 miles off the west coast of Norway, directly into the British gas grid. Pressure tests of Langeled in September caused the spot gas price to collapse as engineers pumped huge volumes through the pipe to check for leaks. So much gas was injected into the network that National Grid was forced to pay companies to remove gas from the grid, causing the spot price to fall briefly to minus 5p per therm. Consumer groups have called for action by retailers to pass on the benefit of falling wholesale prices. Karen Darby, chief executive of SimplySwitch said: Domestic gas users have seen their bills go up by an average of 80 per cent for gas and 53 per cent for electricity since the start of 2004. Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 48 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear reactor '10 years away' - www.smh.com.au October 16, 2006 - 8:06PM An Australian city could have its own nuclear reactor in as little as 10 years. The prediction by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane came as the Government today ratcheted up its support for nuclear power. And a nuclear expert has tipped some of the most likely sites - the Queensland coast, NSW's Hunter Valley, and Western Australia. Prime Minister John Howard today continued to back the benefits of nuclear power after yesterday unambiguously coming out in favour of the energy source. As he announced $350 million in drought aid, Mr Howard talked up the role nuclear power could play in easing the problem of global warming and climate change. Climate change is seen as a major factor behind the big dry which is hurting Australian farmers. "I just think that if we're serious about having a debate about global warming, particularly as the holder of some of the largest uranium reserves in the world, we have got to be willing to consider the nuclear option," Mr Howard said. "Those who say they are in favour of doing something about global warming but turn their faces against considering nuclear power are unreal." Mr Howard has upped the rhetoric in favour of nuclear power after saying for months that it was something Australia should consider if it was economically viable. The unofficial Government campaign to sell the benefits of nuclear power comes ahead of the release next month of a draft report by an expert taskforce, which is examining the merits of nuclear power and uranium enrichment. Mr Howard said part of the reason he commissioned the task force, headed by nuclear physicist and former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, was because he felt strongly about the benefits of nuclear power. "It is clean green," he said. Mr Macfarlane, speaking after opening a nuclear conference in Sydney, predicted a growing public debate on the issue over the next few years. After that, Australia could get down to the business of building nuclear power stations, which could be as little as 10 years away. Once we are across the challenges, then the next step will be to licence and permit these sorts of installations (of nuclear power plants)," Mr Macfarlane said. "The reality is ... it will probably be 10 years at the earliest before a nuclear power station is actually built in Australia." Clarence Hardy, vice president of the Pacific Nuclear Council, believes nuclear power stations could be safely built within 50km of major population centres on the Queensland coast, in the NSW Hunter Valley, and in Western Australia. "So there's plenty of potential sites and I would say if you're really going along that road you don't just put in one, two or three in the next 20 years, you choose the site so that over the 20-30 year period you would have multiple reactors on those sites," Dr Hardy told reporters. But Wilderness Society national campaign director Alec Marr said that after 50 years of nuclear technology, there was still no safe, long-term solution for nuclear waste. "The prime minister says he wants to develop a nuclear industry," Mr Marr said. "But what he isn't saying is that Australia is being lined up to become the world's nuclear waste dump." Greenpeace pointed to North Korea's nuclear test as evidence there was never a guarantee that nuclear power would only be used for peaceful purposes. "North Korea is the latest example that developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes just cannot be guaranteed," Greenpeace spokesman Steve Shallhorn said. "The uranium and nuclear power industries pose unacceptable risks of contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as we saw just last week." Mr Howard has said Australia has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. AAP ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: Resources Minister endorses nuclear option Monday, 16 October 2006. 11:58 (AEDT)Monday, 16 October 2006. The Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney [File photo].Reuters Federal Minister for Resources and Industry, Ian Macfarlane, has delivered a strong endorsement for nuclear energy in Australia at a conference in Sydney today. Mr Macfarlane has opened the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, which brings together nuclear experts from 30 countries. He says nuclear energy is Australia's best option for cutting greenhouse emissions and it would be foolish not to consider it. "Based on currently available technology, only nuclear power has the potential to deliver base load quantities of electricity in Australia at low emissions," he said. He was echoing comments by the Prime Minister John Howard, who has said he is in favour of Australia developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. "In an age where we're worried about global warming we should be looking seriously at nuclear power as an option, because it's clean and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases and I can't understand why the extreme Greenies oppose it," he said. The executive director of the World Nuclear Association, John Ritch, says Australia is in a unique position to take advantage of its plentiful uranium resources. "But also as a producer of nuclear fuel, as a generator of nuclear power," he said. Mr Ritch says if there is public acceptance, Australia could have a nuclear power plant within 10 years. ***************************************************************** 50 The NewStandard: Nuke Watchdog Urges New Look at Whistleblower Case - by Catherine Komp Newly uncovered documents show discrepencies between what managers told two different federal agencies before and after firing an employee who raised safety concerns at Fitzpatrick nuclear plant. Oct. 16 Activists opposed to nuclear power are calling on federal regulators to re-open an investigation into the case of a whistleblower whose employer fired him after he reported safety concerns at an Upstate New York reactor. They cite new evidence that plant managers gave false testimony to federal officials probing the issue. Nearly three years after Entergy Corporation dismissed engineer Carl Patrickson from his position at its FitzPatrick nuclear power plant near Oswego, critics also say the company and federal regulators have failed to adequately address the "chilled work atmosphere" that resulted. According to transcripts of interviews conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Labor, and reviewed by The NewStandard, three FitzPatrick managers gave conflicting testimony to the federal agencies about whether they knew Patrickson had reported safety problems before he was fired. In submitting this evidence to the NRC last week, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN), a grassroots public-interest group with chapters in the Northeast, called for an immediate inquiry into discrepancies in the managers’ testimony. CAN wants the NRC to suspend the three Entergy managers who apparently gave false testimony in the case, as well as reinstate Patrickson’s job. Last month, in a petition for emergency enforcement action, CAN called on the NRC to suspend Entergy’s license to operate the FitzPatrick plant and to suspend review of the company’s 20-year license renewal. Three FitzPatrick managers gave conflicting testimony to federal agencies about whether they knew Patrickson had reported safety problems before he was fired. "Entergy has assured NRC that it creates a work environment in which workers do not have to fear for their jobs when they report safety problems," Deb Katz, executive director of CAN, said in a press statement. "Carl Patrickson’s case and the discrepancies in these transcripts raise serious doubts about that." Located with two other reactors on a 900-acre site near Lake Ontario, the Fitzpatrick plant has been operating since 1974. CAN has waged a long struggle to shut down the plant, citing a litany of safety and maintenance problems that compound the general threat posed by ’70s-era nuclear generators. Nationwide, Entergy owns eleven nuclear facilities at nine different locations. NRC documents show that each of three managers was aware of Patrickson's complaints to the NRC by November 5, 2003, at the very latest – weeks before Entergy dismissed Patrickson. Yet all three testified before the Department of Labor the next year that they had not known of Patrickson’s complaints at the time Entergy fired him on November 21, 2003. CAN notes that all three managers – Ted Sullivan, then vice president at FitzPatrick; Brian O’Grady, then plant manager; and Manager of Systems Engineering Steve Bono – appear to have been promoted or favorably reassigned since Patrickson’s firing. Patrickson described in court testimony a long of period of worker intimidation for reporting possible safety hazards and violations. "NRC must determine whether Sullivan, O’Grady and Bono’s superiors were aware of any misrepresentations of fact in their testimonies, and whether these promotions and reassignments were related to their performance in the Patrickson case," wrote CAN in a letter presented to the NRC last Thursday. "However, it would be enough to contribute to a chilled work atmosphere at FitzPatrick if Entergy employees perceive these managers to have been rewarded – and never reprimanded," despite a federal finding that Entergy retaliated against Patrickson for reporting safety problems. Patrickson, who worked at FitzPatrick for about 14 years, described in court testimony a long of period of worker intimidation for reporting possible safety hazards and violations at the plant. Patrickson says he first reported a problem to the NRC in 1997 – a problem he says could have led to a "nuclear meltdown." In April 2003, Patrickson filed a complaint with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration alleging Entergy "discriminated and retaliated" against him "for complaining to management and governmental agencies" about nuclear- and safety-related issues. Three months later, OSHA ruled that its investigation failed to find evidence supporting Patrickson’s retaliation claim. In November 2003, while Patrickson was appealing OSHA’s decision to the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges, Entergy fired him outright, citing performance problems. A Department of Labor judge eventually ruled in favor of Patrickson, stating that Entergy had failed to prove that it would have fired him had he not reported safety problems to federal regulators. Entergy has appealed that ruling; the case is currently pending. Bonnie Bostian, communications manger at the Fitzpatrick plant, told TNS that Entergy did not agree with the decision, because the company "does not dismiss employees for raising safety concerns." Entergy also admitted that changes were made at the plant in response to some of Patrickson’s safety concerns. In a May 2005 letter to Entergy, the NRC stated that its own investigation did not find enough evidence to substantiate Patrickson’s claims. But Citizens Awareness Network charges the NRC with failing to conduct a thorough investigation of Patrickson’s discrimination case in the first place. CAN says the new documents prove regulators had even more evidence at hand than did the Department of Labor when a judge serving the latter body ruled in favor of Patrickson. The 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, one of many laws containing whistleblower protections, shields employees from discrimination or termination for reporting health, safety or environmental violations. For workers at nuclear plants, says nuclear-safety engineer and former whistleblower David Lochbaum, it is "imperative they have freedom to raise a flag when something doesn’t look right." "The plant workers are the first line of defense," Lochbaum said. "They are the people who are performing the tests, performing the inspections, or just walking down the hallway to spot a puddle from a leaking valve." Despite the NRC’s finding that Patrickson’s claim of an unlawful dismissal was unsupported, the agency decided that in the wake of the Department of Labor’s ruling in favor of Patrickson, there was the "potential for a chilling effect on the safety-conscious work environment." The agency further determined that employees "could be reluctant to identify or raise safety problems for fear of similar retaliation." The NRC requested that FitzPatrick’s management advise the agency of actions it would take to prevent a chilled work environment. Entergy, in a 5-page letter responding to NRC’s request, said it had met with all employees in Patrickson’s former department to explain that his dismissal was based on performance problems, rather than because he reported safety issues. Management reportedly reiterated at that meeting that the company encourages employees to bring up safety concerns through internal channels. Entergy’s letter went on to detail the company’s efforts to promote a "safety-conscious work environment," both prior to and after the Department of Labor’s ruling in favor of Patrickson. These include a "Correction Action Program" to document and evaluate employee concerns; a confidential "Employee Concerns Program"; and literature and trainings for staff to promote a "safety-conscious work environment." Entergy also admitted in the letter that changes were made at the plant in response to some of Patrickson’s safety concerns. The NRC decided, based on that letter and a subsequent conference call, that Entergy had been responsive to the Commission’s requests to show it was not creating a chilled work environment. But CAN disagrees with the NRC’s conclusion, stating the company did not "assess the actual effect the [Department of Labor] ruling may have had on employees’ perceptions of management and their willingness to report safety problems." NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell would not respond to specific questions about Patrickson’s case, nor why the NRC said it found no evidence to substantiate his claims of discrimination despite its own records documenting all three managers’ awareness that their employee had reported problems at the plant. "When there are indications that an employee’s ability to raise those concerns is impaired by management action, the NRC takes that very seriously," Burnell insisted. "That is one of the easiest ways to get the NRC’s attention." Burnell said that when the NRC sees such evidence, it "reflects very negatively on the plant’s ability to meet NRC regulations." While these issues do not play a role in license renewals, Burnell added, there have been instances where the NRC has prevented a plant from returning to operation. He cited the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio, which was shut down in 2002 "while extensive maintenance work and a great deal of attention to safety-conscious work environment [were] done at the plant." Patrick Milano, NRC senior project manager, said the agency does not have a response yet to the new evidence CAN submitted. Before they can review the merits of CAN’s petition and the alleged false testimony, they must first determine if it meets agency criteria for an investigation, a process that takes about 30 days. 2006 The ***************************************************************** 51 RIA Novosti: Court against returning Adamov case for further investigation 16/ 10/ 2006 MOSCOW, October 16 (RIA Novosti) - The Moscow City Court canceled Monday a lower court decision to send an ex-nuclear power minister's case back to the Prosecutor General's Office to correct shortcomings in the investigation and clarify the charges. The city court thereby upheld the prosecution's appeal against the Zamoskvoretsky District Court's decision in the case against Yevgeny Adamov, 67, charged with embezzlement and abuse of office. Prosecutors demanded that the case should instead be sent for retrial in the district court. The Prosecutor General's Office said the Zamoskvoretsky court's decision on Adamov, who served from 1998 to 2001 as Russia's nuclear power minister, was unfounded and unlawful, and demanded its annulment and a retrial with different judges. Viktor Antipov, the state prosecutor in the case, earlier said the defense team had read the indictment as far back as the preliminary examination and never applied for any clarification. "The court in effect took the defense team's side ahead of hearings on the merits of the case," Antipov said. Prosecutors said Adamov was the head of an organized criminal group that inflicted damage worth over 3 billion rubles (about $110 million) on the Russian budget, enterprises and organizations. Adamov was originally arrested in Switzerland in May 2005 at the request of the United States, where authorities accuse him of misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for nuclear safety projects. If convicted in the U.S., Adamov would have faced 60 years in prison. He was extradited to Russia in early 2006 to face charges, but was released by the Russian Supreme Court July 21 after a total of 15 months in prison to await trial. 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 52 West Australian: PM, Downer support nuclear power 16th October 2006, 13:03 WST Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has backed the use of nuclear power in Australia. Mr Downer visited two plants during a recent trip to Finland and said he was impressed with what he saw. "I was enormously impressed with two things - one how a relatively small facility can generate so much electricity, but secondly, how it does so without any pollution at all," he told Sky News. "It's an extraordinary thing and I think the scare campaign that's been run against nuclear power reactors has been very much to the detriment of the environment." Prime Minister John Howard has been talking up the benefits of nuclear power ahead of receiving a draft copy of an expert report next month, which is examining the issue. Mr Howard now says nuclear power has to be considered if Australia is serious about tackling the problem of climate change. Mr Downer supported that view. "If you want to address the climate change issues then it's very important you address the issue of CO2 emissions from power stations - in the short term wind mills and solar power are not going to provide you with a base load power in any country on earth that you need," he said. "Nuclear power is a very real option, it works well in a lot of parts of the world and it's entirely clean." The Wilderness Society fears an Australian nuclear industry will see Australia become a nuclear waste dump. Protesters on Monday gathered outside the Sydney's Hilton Hotel, where Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told the Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference that Australia could start planning to build its first nuclear power station within ten years. Wilderness Society national campaign director Alec Marr says that after 50 years of nuclear technology there is still no safe, long-term solution for nuclear waste, and any move towards a nuclear industry in Australia will have negative repercussions. "The prime minister (John Howard) says he wants to develop a nuclear industry," Mr Marr said. "But what he isn't saying is that Australia is being lined up to become the world's nuclear waste dump." Mr Marr said the government's plan for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory could be a disaster, citing problems with other waste dump facilities overseas. He said a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in the US at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has stalled, with environmental safety standards being challenged in court. "The State of Nevada is successfully blocking the [Yucca Mountain] project due to environmental problems, and so far $US9 billion has been spent on a failed waste dump," he said. In the UK, the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority had recently estimated the costs of decomissioning the country's nuclear facilities at $A170 billion. Mr Marr said the cost of nuclear industry meant it only survived with heavy government subsidies. He said burdens of this magnitude are not what Australia needs and urged the government to find other ways to meet the nation's energy requirements. "We need long lasting and economically viable solutions to climate change - solutions that are not going to leave a toxic nuclear legacy for 250,000 years," he said. AAP thewest.com.au] 'The West Australian' Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 CT Business News Journal: The Fly in the Energy Ointment 10/16/2006 Editorial: Business New Haven by BNH More proof that in real estate it's location, location, location comes from the $34.1 million payment a court has ordered the federal government to pay Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power. The "rent" is for storage of radioactive material including more than 1,000 spent nuclear fuel rods on site at the Haddam Neck power plant. The judge acted to enforce a contract the federal government signed in 1983 to remove the waste and ordered the payment to cover the 2001-to-2002 time frame. Additional payments may very well be forthcoming. Connecticut Yankee has said it wants the government to live up to the contract and remove the radioactive waste. The problem, not surprisingly, is that no one wants it. The federal government's proposed site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., 100 miles north of Las Vegas, is still being hotly contested and has yet to be licensed. Even if approved, the first waste shipments wouldn't arrive before 2017. Connecticut Yankee's radioactive storage problems underscores an important difficulty for those who would expand nuclear power - the safe disposal of waste that has a shelf life measured in many thousands of years. Ironically, some environmentalists' obsession with carbon dioxide emissions are causing them to forget the concern over nuclear waste and embrace the building of new nuclear power-plants. Jim Motivalli, a longtime contributor to the New Haven Advocate and editor of the environmental journal, e magazine, recently revealed this change of heart by some environmentalists to readers of his weekly "Wheels" column in the Advocate. We can't see how a safe and affordable energy future in Connecticut can realistically include new nuclear power plants. Only an expansion of pipeline natural gas, LNG and coal gasification can realistically solve Connecticut's major power needs while improving air and water quality. However, progress on all fronts continues to be stalled by those who brandish the environmentalist "brand" as some kind of sword of righteousness intimidating state officials and making them unwilling to lead in the face of this nearly religious zeal. Opponents in Branford have delayed the arrival of clean-burning natural gas via pipeline with the Islander East project. Others across New England are battling proposed LNG terminals in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine and are now gearing up to fight NRG's replacement of a dirty power plant with a $1 billion investment in a new clean-burning coal gasification plant. New gas pipelines bringing gas from eastern Canada, LNG terminals opening up a nearly unlimited and untapped world supply of natural gas and the new technology for gasifying coal are the only real options for a secure and affordable energy supply for Connecticut that also contribute to an improving environment. Environmentalists and elected officials have to get on board and start offering real solutions, not just platitudes about conservation - or admit to Connecticut residents that their real solution is new nuclear power plants. ***************************************************************** 54 Xinhua: Russian company plans floating nuclear plant www.chinaview.cn 2006-10-16 18:01:17 BEIJING, Oct. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- A Russian energy company has plans to construct a floating nuclear-energy plant on a football-field size barge to deliver electricity to inhabitants of northern territories near the White Sea. Rosenergoatom said the 200 million U.S. dollar facility will be constructed next year and will provide relatively inexpensive, reliable energy to 200,000 people in a region where harsh weather makes regular coal and oil fuel deliveries unreliable and expensive. It's not a new idea, and the technology has been available since the 1970s when U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Company built a huge dry-dock facility in Jacksonville, Fla. Westinghouse had planned to construct nuclear plants that would be floated north along the Eastern Seaboard, providing electricity to needy customers. Engineers would standardize construction for multiple plants in an offsite factory with increased quality control and reduced production costs before tugging a plant to its port of call. But ultimately, says retired Westinghouse consultant Richard Orr, energy conservation following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo killed the project. The Russian plan is to mount two reactors on a barge, float it to a port, connect power lines to the mainland, and turn on the reactors, providing communities with affordable electricity. The plant will store waste and spent fuel in an onboard facility that workers will empty every 10 to 12 years during regular maintenance overhauls. After 40 years, the normal life span for a nuclear plant, the decommissioned plant would be towed away and replaced with a new one. The reactor and spent fuel would go to a storage facility, but the barge could be recycled. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Norwegian foundation Bellona say they ware worried about the plan to bring back to life the Westinghouse project because of safety concerns. One concern is that a boat could ram the plant and spill waste into the water. An even bigger fear is that a storm could cut the plant off from the land-based power supply required to run plant operations. Should emergency generators fail, says David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Chernobyl-like disaster could ensue. In a worst-case scenario, an overheated core could melt through the bottom of the barge and drop into the water, creating a radioactive steam explosion. Such a cloud could do far more damage than the plume of nuclear fallout kicked up by the 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the former U.S.S.R., Lochbaum notes, because the human body absorbs radioactive water droplets more easily than it does radioactive ash. "Its worst day would be much worse than a land power plant's," he says. Rosenergoatom has permission and intends to have the facility afloat in the port city of Severodvinsk in the southeastern White Sea by late 2010. "The Russians have learned a lot about safety from the U.S. Department of Energy, Sweden and Norway -- who probably all wish [the Russians] would focus on things other than a floating nuclear power plant," says Cristina Chuen, a Russian nuclear-energy specialist with the Monterey Institute for International Studies in California. "Maybe it will turn out great, but I just hope they did all the research to make sure it's safe." Enditem Editor: Gareth Dodd ***************************************************************** 55 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-17078 [Federal Register: October 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 199)] [Notices] [Page 60770-60772] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16oc06-103] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. STC-133 Authorizing the Use of Site-Specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels When Determining if Unrestricted Release Criteria Has Been Met for the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Nuclear Supply Center Depot in Somerville, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone 610- 337-5366; fax number 610-337-5393; or by e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. STC- 133. This license is held by Defense Logistics Agency (DLA or the Licensee) at multiple sites. The site at issue is its Defense National Stockpile Center [[Page 60771]] located at U.S. Highway Route 206 South in Somerville, New Jersey (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize the licensee to use site-specific Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) in a later survey of the Facility to determine if the Facility can be released for unrestricted use under the criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. The use of the site-specific DCGLs requires an exemption to the definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated October 19, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The NRC plans to issue the amendment following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's October 19, 2005, license amendment request to use site-specific DCGLs as part of a later request (not yet submitted) to release the Facility for unrestricted use under the criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. License No. STC-133 was issued on July 23, 1983, pursuant to 10 CFR part 40, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed source material for purposes of storage, sampling, repackaging, and transfer. Based on the approved DCGLs, the Licensee will conduct surveys of the Facility and provide information to the NRC to demonstrate that the Facility meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the approval of site-specific DCGLs through issuance of an exemption to the definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003. The licensee needs these site specific DCGL values for later determining if the Facility meets the criteria for unrestricted use. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a timely decision on a proposed license amendment that ensures protection of public health and safety and the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: natural uranium and thorium mixtures. An amendment specifying the site specific DCGLs is required before the Licensee can use such DCGL values to later demonstrate compliance with unrestricted release criteria. The Licensee conducted site- specific dose modeling using input parameters specific to the Facility and a conservative assumption that all residual radioactivity is in equilibrium. Federal Guidance Report Number 13 was used to modify the dose conversion factors because it is based on an improved, more realistic dosimetry model. The selected critical age group is adults as the expected future use of this facility will be industrial. Based on the type of building, and its proximity to an existing railroad, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that the building will be used for other than industrial activities. The NRC has reviewed the Licensee's methodology and proposed DCGLs and finds that the proposed DCGLs are acceptable for use at the Facility. Federal Guidance Report Number 13, as an updated dosimetry model, uses different weighting factors than is published in 10 CFR part 20. The weighting factors are used to determine effective dose equivalent and total dose equivalent. Therefore, an exemption to the definition of weighting factors in 10 CFR 20.1003 is required to use Federal Guidance Report Number 13. The use of Federal Guidance Report Number 13 for dose modeling and weighting factors is acceptable for this Facility. Based on its review, the staff has concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. Denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the site specific DCGLs identified by the Licensee are acceptable for use at its Facility. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this EA to the State of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection for review on June 21, 2006. On July 20, 2006, the State of New Jersey responded by letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA if the DCGL's are adjusted from the NRC's 25 millirem per year standard to the Department of Environmental Protection's remediation criterion of 15 millirem per year (N.J.A.C. 7:28-12.8(a)). While, 15 millirem per year is the State of New Jersey criterion, for the purpose of NRC consideration of the proposed action, the NRC must implement DCGLs that support the 25 millirem per year standard set forth in 10 CFR 20.1402. The Department of Environmental Protection also requests that the deed restriction referenced on page 2 of the letter dated April 26, 2006, ``Defense Logistics Agency, Request for Additional Information Concerning Application for Amendment to License'' [ML061220479] be in place before approval of NRC license termination. The NRC found that based on the type of building, railroad distribution, and truck access, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that the building will be used for other than industrial activities. NRC determined that no deed restriction will be necessary should the Licensee pursue its plans to seek the unrestricted use of its Facility. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. [[Page 60772]] Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance''; 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, part 20, subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; 3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions''; 4. Letter dated October 19, 2005, ``Amendment to Source Materials License'' [Adams Accession No. ML053060017]; 5. Letter dated December 29, 2005, ``Amendment to Source Material License STC-133--Request to use Commodity Specific DCGLs at Binghamton and Somerville Depots'' [ML060040304]; 6. Letter dated February 7, 2006, ``Amendment to Source Material License STC-133--Request to Use Commodity Specific DCGLs at Binghamton and Somerville Depots'' [ML060410319]; 7. Letter dated April 26, 2006, ``Defense Logistics Agency, Request for Additional Information Concerning Application for Amendment to License'' [ML061220479]; 8. ``Radiological Historical Site Assessment Report, Defense National Stockpile Center, Somerville Depot, Hillsborough, NJ'' dated January 2006 [ML060730422]; 9. ``Radiological Historical Site Assessment Report, Defense National Stockpile Center, Binghamton Depot, Binghamton, NY'' dated February 2006 [ML060730408]. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia this 6th day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1. [FR Doc. E6-17078 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 56 IHT: Czech nuclear power plant off the grid because of minor malfunction - - International Herald Tribune Associated Press MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2006 PRAGUE, Czech Republic The first unit of a nuclear power plant near the border with Austria has been taken off the Czech Republic's power grid because of a minor malfunction in the unit's non-nuclear part, an official said Monday. A spokesman for the plant, Milan Nebesar, said that automatic security system disconnected the unit from the grid early Monday because of excessive moisture near the generator. The plant's second unit is also off the grid due to annual refueling. Construction of the plant's two 1,000-megawatt units, based on Russian designs, started in the 1980s. The reactors were later upgraded with U.S. technology, but they have remained controversial because of frequent malfunctions. The station, 60 kilometers (35 miles) north of the Austrian border, has been a source of friction between the two countries. Environmentalists in Austria demand it be closed, while Czech authorities insist it is safe. About the IHT | Privacy & Cookies | Contact the IHT Herald Tribune All rights reserved [IHT] ***************************************************************** 57 Janesville Gazette : Workers begin to dismantle closed Genoa nuke plant | | Janesville, Wisconsin, USA (Published Monday, October 16, 2006 10:21:56 AM CDT) Associated Press GENOA, Wis. - Nineteen years after a nuclear power plant last produced electricity, workers are preparing for a big job - dismantling the reactor of the plant near this Mississippi River community about 15 miles south of La Crosse. Since the Dairyland Power Cooperative shut down the plant in 1987, the utility has worked on plans for decommissioning it, which involves taking it apart and disposing of the radioactive parts. The biggest part is the reactor pressure vessel. The large steel container is where nuclear rods caused water to boil, creating steam to power the 50-megawatt generator. "It's a huge project because it's such a large item," plant manager Roger Christians said. The entire nuclear reactor facility at Genoa will eventually be torn down, he said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated the cost of decommissioning the plant at $79.5 million. Plans now call for moving the reactor vessel, which is considered low-level radioactive waste, to South Carolina to be buried in a nuclear waste facility. Christians said workers in the plant have filled the vessel with concrete grout, which increased its weight to about 200 tons. The next step, now visible from outside, is cutting a hole in the building wall so that the reactor vessel can be removed. It's no easy task, considering that the building's walls are a little more than 10 inches thick, with nine inches of concrete and just over an inch of metal. As planned, a crane will lift the vessel and slide it out of the building and into a steel container that will be filled with concrete grout and sealed shut, raising the weight to about 360 tons. The vessel then is to be placed on two special railroad cars with 20 axles and shipped to South Carolina in mid-May. Christians said there was no risk of releasing radioactivity. "There's nothing to leak," he said. "This is a low-level waste shipment, just a bigger one." But Gail Vaughn, an anti-nuclear activist who lives near Genoa in Vernon County, said she was concerned that parts of South Carolina will have to be written off as a "dead zone" because of the nuclear waste disposal site. For that reason, she said she would feel better if Dairyland did not ship the reactor vessel. But she said it was even more important that spent fuel rods from the plant not be shipped to Utah as a consortium of utilities had wanted. Recent federal government rulings have all but killed plans to store the spent fuel rods temporarily at Utah's Goshute Indian Reservation. Christians said Dairyland's plan now is to store the spent fuel rods at the Genoa plant in dry casks "until the government lives up to its obligation to come and get it." The government has not completed development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which once was expected to open in 2010 but has yet to get a federal license and is not likely to be completed until 2018 at the earliest. Christians said a consultant is evaluating what would be the best spot on the Genoa site for storing the casks. The same casks could be used for shipping. The Dairyland plant opened in 1969. Copyright 2006 Bliss Communications Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 ANTARA News: Indonesia, Russia studying deal on floating nuclear power plant Oct 17, 2006 | Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Indonesia is poised to sign an agreement with Russia's national electricity trading company Raoues on the possibility of developing a floating nuclear power plant, from which Indonesia will buy electricity at predetermined rates, a provincial government official said. Authorities from Gorontalo province on Sulawesi island signed a memorandum of understanding last Friday with the Russian-Indonesian Corp, a joint venture between the two countries aimed at developing trade, over Raoues developing the plant, provincial spokesman Rudi Iriawan told Agence France-Presse. The head of the provincial economic affairs bureau, Ishak Ndoma, said a further agreement between Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Raoues is to be signed in the next few weeks over the 70-megawatt plant. "This MOU will be followed up by the president of the Republic of Indonesia on December 2 in Russia," he said. Presidential spokesman Andi Mallarengang said he could not confirm the trip was going ahead but it was "possible", noting that ultimate authority on nuclear power in Indonesia rested with the president and not the regions. Ndoma said only after Yudhoyono had signed the agreement would "the Russian side send a team to Gorontalo to conduct the feasibility study for the project." "They will build the plant themselves and no money from the government will be used," he said, adding that the government would purchase the electricity at predetermined rates. (*) Copyright 2006 ANTARA October 16, 2006Send Print Copyright 2006 LKBN ANTARA ***************************************************************** 59 AU ABC: Nuclear debate a diversionary tactic - ALP. 17/10/2006. ABC News Online Diversion claims: The Opposition says the Government should focus on clean coal and renewable energy." Nuclear debate a diversionary tactic: ALP The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of using the nuclear energy debate as a diversion from the nation's energy issues. Prime Minister John Howard has spoken in support of nuclear power as a way of countering the problem of global warming. A government inquiry is considering whether Australia should enter the nuclear cycle to generate electricity. But Labor energy spokesman Martin Ferguson says the nuclear debate is simply a side issue. "Our immediate priorities are investing in clean coal technology in association with the promotion of the renewable sector," he said. "The Prime Minister, as usual, is about diversion, rather than solving the energy problems that confront Australia. "Our immediate priority is to actually get the technological solutions to actually guarantee the future of coal, side by side with the growth in the use of gas and renewables." Democrats leader Lyn Allison says Australia cannot afford to wait for nuclear power to come on line before dealing with the problem of global warming. "We understand that the US reactors that were started in the 1970s took, in fact, 20 years," she said. "We just can't wait that long. The Prime Minister needs to turn his mind to immediate actions. "We need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by 2050." © 2006 ABC| Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 60 ABC: PM, Resources Minister endorse nuclear power Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 16/10/2006 Reporter: Phillipa McDonald The Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Federal Minister for Resources and Industry, Ian Macfarlane, have both spoken in support of nuclear energy use in Australia. Transcript TONY JONES: A Federal Government push to develop nuclear power in Australia is gathering momentum. In the past 24 hours, both the Prime Minister and the Federal Resources Minister have expressed their strongest support yet for the idea. There's even been talk that the construction of Australia's first nuclear power plant could be under way within a decade. Phillipa McDonald reports. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: The Federal Resources Minister is using the environment as a selling point for the introduction of nuclear power in Australia. IAN MACFARLANE: I believe nuclear energy offers clean environmental and economic benefits, nuclear energy could be, some say - must be - a major part of the global strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: And he says the first Australian power station could be on the drawing board within a decade. IAN MACFARLANE: It's certainly possible that within the next 10 years a nuclear power station could begin to be planned. ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN: Nuclear energy is a dirty toxic option. It's also extremely expensive it's also inextricably linked to the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: According to its supporters at a nuclear fuel conference in Sydney today, several sites, similar to those where there are already coal-powered power stations, could be suitable, some just 50km away from major population centres. DR CLARENCE HARDY, AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION: Somewhere north of Queensland to couple into the Queensland grid, somewhere around the Hunter Valley or on the coast there to couple into the New South Wales' grid, and somewhere perhaps in Western Australia where there will be a shortage in the next 10 years to couple into the Western Australian grid. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: But a few scientists are questioning the Government's nuclear sales pitch. They say in the long term not only does nuclear energy stand to be more expensive, it could be just as environmentally damaging. DR MARK DIESENDORF, UNIVERSITY OF NSW: There are quite significant carbon dioxide emissions which come from the mining and milling of uranium, especially as the uranium ore grade gets lower and lower. So for the first few years, the emissions are low, but then as we run out of high-grade uranium ore the carbon dioxide emissions become quite significant, so it's not even an answer to the greenhouse problem. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: As one of the world's top uranium suppliers, Australia was today also reminded of its obligations in helping to dispose of spent fuel. JOHN RITCH, WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION: I don't thinks its a necessity for Australia to do that as a condition of being a fuel supplier, but it would be an appropriate function for Australia to play because you have the appropriate geology to do it and it can be done extremely safely. PHILLIPA MCDONALD: The Prime Minister's task force examining the future of uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy is due to deliver its findings before the end of the year. Phillipa McDonald, Lateline. [ABC | abc.net.au] ***************************************************************** 61 UPI: Texas reactor's nuke fuel reduced United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 10/16/2006 11:31:00 AM -0400 WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- A Texas nuclear reactor has been converted from the use of highly enridched uranium to low-enriched uranium. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration announced Friday that it had successfully converted the 1-megawatt TRIGA research reactor at Texas A University from the use of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium. The NNSA said the conversion was part of its non-proliferation mission. "NNSA converts research reactors in the United States and around the world from operating on highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel," the agency said. "LEU is not suitable for use in a nuclear weapon and is not sought by terrorists or criminals," the NNSA said. "The conversion is part of the Bush administration's efforts to minimize the use of highly enriched uranium in civil applications around the world," it said. "This domestic reactor conversion will also help us significantly as we work with others to convert research reactors as part of our global effort to minimize the use of HEU in civilian nuclear applications around the world," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel L. Bodman. "By the end of this year, we will have converted six U.S. and international research reactors, a good record by any measure." "HEU is primarily used in research reactors to produce isotopes for medical applications, and early reactor technology used HEU fuel because it was more difficult to achieve comparable power levels using LEU," the NNSA said. "However, modern reactor designs can use newer high-density LEU fuels while maintaining comparable power levels, making conversion an attractive option for limiting the availability of HEU nuclear material," the agency said. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 62 UPI: Bush calls Singh to discusses nuclear deal United Press International - NewsTrack - 10/16/2006 12:48:00 PM -0400 NEW DELHI, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- U.S. President Bush reportedly called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal which the U.S. Senate may vote on this month. The U.S. House of Representatives already has approved the deal calling for the United States to provide India with nuclear fuel and technologies for continuing nuclear development. The United States also will work to help India gain more access to world nuclear markets. In return, India will open 14 of its 22 nuclear to international inspection. In recent weeks, there had been some uncertainty about the deal due to numerous world developments, reports the Press Trust of India. If the Senate does not take up the issue before its session ends ahead of the mid-term poll, it may have to be done during the brief "lame-duck" session. Failing that, the issue will be sent to the next Congress in January, which means the entire process would have to start anew. Last week, Singh said the Bush administration expects the bill to be passed. Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 63 Guardian Unlimited: Gorbachev: Nukes Could Keep Spreading From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 3:31 AM By RICHARD PYLE Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - Ex-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said Sunday the five original nuclear powers haven't done enough to eliminate nuclear weapons and prevent other nations from acquiring them. Consequently, India, Pakistan, Israel and most recently North Korea have joined the club, Gorbachev said at the screening of a CNN television series on the Cold War at the Museum of Television &Radio. ``This is not good that this is happening,'' Gorbachev said, speaking briefly to reporters through an interpreter. The four countries he named are not among the nearly 190 that signed the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the past week, North Korea announced it had carried out an underground nuclear test blast. Under the treaty, the five original powers - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - were allowed to keep nuclear weaponry. If the five undermine the treaty, he said, more than 30 countries capable of producing the weapons will say that if the five ``are preserving and modernizing their nuclear weapons, why should we be hostages to this situation?''' ``This is a very serious situation,'' he said. When asked whether North Korea was trying to scare the world or the other way around, the 75-year-old former Kremlin leader replied, ``I think both sides are trying to scare the other side.'' Twenty years ago this month at a summit in Iceland, Gorbachev and President Reagan reached a surprise agreement on removing intermediate-range missiles from Europe and limiting nuclear warhead numbers elsewhere. The next year in Geneva, the two parties signed a formal nuclear weapons agreement that would be a key step toward ending the Cold War. Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. Having left office when the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Gorbachev now runs a foundation devoted to international issues, including globalization, security, weapons of mass destruction and poverty. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 64 Guardian Unlimited: 30 More Countries Could Have Nukes Soon From the Associated Press [UP] Monday October 16, 2006 7:01 PM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency warned Monday that as many as 30 countries could soon have technology that would let them produce atomic weapons ``in a very short time,'' joining the nine states known or suspected to have such arms. Speaking at a conference on tightening controls against nuclear proliferation, Mohamed ElBaradei said more nations are ``hedging their bets'' by developing technology that is at the core of peaceful nuclear energy programs but could quickly be switched to making weapons. ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called them ``virtual new weapons states.'' The warning came amid heightened fears that North Korea's nuclear test explosion and Iran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment could spark a new arms race, particularly among Asian and Middle Eastern states that feel threatened. ElBaradei did not single out any country in his warning, but was clearly alluding to Iran and other nations that are working to develop uranium enrichment capability, such as Brazil. Other nations, including Australia, Argentina and South Africa, have recently announced that they are considering developing enrichment programs to be able to sell fuel to states that want to generate electricity with nuclear reactors. Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania are among nations that either have the means to produce weapons-grade uranium if they chose, could quickly build such technology, or could use plutonium waste for weaponization. All are committed non-nuclear weapons states, and no one has suggested they want to use their programs for arms. Japan also says it has no plans to develop atomic weapons, but it could make them at short notice by processing tons of plutonium left over from running its nuclear reactors. South Korea also has spent reactor fuel and was found a few years ago to have conducted small-scale secret experiments on making highly enriched uranium that would be usable in warheads. Other countries considering developing nuclear programs in the near future are Egypt, Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Namibia, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen, U.N. officials say. There are five formally declared nuclear weapons states - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - and four others are known or thought to have such arms - India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea. North Korea developed its capacities from what it had portrayed as a peaceful nuclear energy program, and there are widespread suspicions Iran may be trying to obtain arms through its enrichment program, despite Tehran's insistence it seeks only to produce fuel for reactors to generate electricity. North Korea's nuclear weapon test a week ago sparked widespread condemnation and led the Security Council to agree on broad sanctions. On Iran, the council plans this week to discuss possible selective penalties for Tehran ignoring its demand to stop enrichment by Aug. 31. Much of ElBaradei's comments were directed at the potential for misuse of uranium enrichment, which can generate both low-enriched, reactor-grade uranium and highly enriched material for nuclear bombs. ``The knowledge is out of the tube ... both for peaceful purpose and unfortunately also for not peaceful purposes,'' ElBaradei said. ``It's becoming fashionable for countries to try to look into possibilities of shielding themselves ... through the possibility of nuclear weapons,'' he said, adding: ``Another 20 or 30 would have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time.'' Indirectly criticizing nuclear weapons states, ElBaradei said it was illogical for them to maintain their atomic arsenals while urging others not to acquire such arms. He also obliquely took some of them to task for not signing or ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, suggesting their endorsement of the 1996 pact ``would have changed the behavior of North Korea, maybe.'' The treaty, which prohibits all nuclear explosions, will not take effect until it has been ratified by 44 states that possess either nuclear reactors for power-generation or research. So far 34 have ratified it. Holdouts include the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. ElBaradei said more money and international commitment are needed for his agency's verification efforts, describing the $120 million annually budgeted as ``a drop in the ocean.'' ``It's important that the system continues to be ahead of the game,'' he said. ``We cannot continue to do business as usual.'' --- IAEA site on nations with nuclear reactors: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2 Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 65 [NukeNet] The Children of the World Don't Deserve This Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:50:56 -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 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m27460&hd=0&size=1&l=t "The Children of the World Don't Deserve" The Case Against Depleted Uranium DON MONKERUD 1c3560.jpg October 14, 2006 When the US Army advertises for recruits, it emphasizes jobs and benefits the Army offers, but nowhere are prospects informed about the risk of illness, sickness and death caused by the Army's use of radioactive munitions. On September 7, in the first court case on Gulf War I to reach Federal Court, nine veterans from a National Guard unit argued their case before a judge in New York, claiming the Army violated its own safety protocols by exposing them to radioactive depleted uranium and refusing to provide medical care. Representing the US Army, Assistant US Attorney John Cronan asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit immediately because courts can't decide "sensitive military matters" and a 1950 Supreme Court decision ruled that soldiers can't sue the government for injuries caused by their military service. The Court has not reached a decision. Depleted uranium remains a nagging problem for the US Army, which extensively used such munitions during fighting in Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. DU is a chemically toxic, radioactive element with a half-life of 4.5 billion years that damages the kidneys and lungs, causes genetic mutations and cancer, and is associated with a number of medical problems. The US nuclear industry has produced 1.2 billion pounds of DU waste as a by-product of nuclear energy and weapons production. This nuclear waste is being recycled into DU munitions, which many believe were given to Israel in the form of armor piercing shells for use in the 1973 Sinai war. Since then, DU has been tested, manufactured and sold to a number of countries by US arms manufacturers. Considered highly-effective in penetrating armor, uranium munitions are used by the main US Abrams battle tanks, Bradley Fighting vehicles, A-10 attack aircraft and a host of other ammunition, including bunker busters. Upon impact, DU munitions burn at 3000 to 6000 degrees Centigrade and combust into a radioactive gas of fine particles of uranium oxide dust, which remain suspended in the air and, once inhaled, become a chronic source of uranium heavy metal and contact radiation poisoning. Estimates vary on the total tonnage of DU used by the US and include: during the US bombing of Yugoslavia, 34 tons of DU; in Gulf War I, up to 375 tons; in Afghanistan in 2001, 1,000 tons; and in Gulf War II in 2003, up to 2,200 tons. The release of radioactive and chemically toxic dust and uranium fragments causes serious medical problems. According to Leuren Moret, an independent scientist and international radiation specialist, depleted uranium is considered a factor in Gulf War syndrome, which affects many of the 325,000 Gulf War I veterans who are on permanent medical disability. In August 2004, the VA reported that over 518,739 Persian Gulf veterans were on medical disability since 1991. Moret attributes many of these disabilities to DU exposure. Although some remain controversial, Moret compiled a list of 100 illnesses that veterans associated with DU, including brain tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, rectal cancer, Parkinson's disease, respiratory problems, rashes, kidney and eye problems, and thyroid cancer. Others point to definite connections between DU and brain tumors, and Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. "Under international law, depleted uranium meets the definition of WMD and violates US military law as well as the Geneva and Hague conventions," says Moret. "There has been a cover-up by three administrations including Bush Senior, Clinton and Bush the younger because reparations, which the countries attacked are entitled to, would bankrupt the US." The Pentagon asserts that DU "is only mildly radioactive" and a White House website stated that reports of health problems and cancers caused by DU are propaganda, although a US Army report by Col. E. Wakayama in August 2002, confirms serious health and environmental problems. The report recommends long-term sampling of water and milk from sites heavily contaminated with DU and the removal of contaminated soil from populated areas. Vietnam and Gulf War veteran and former US Army Depleted Uranium Project director Doug Rokke charges that the Department of Defense (DOD) deliberately ignores its own orders for testing soldiers who come in contact with DU. In August, 1993, General Eric Shinseki issued an order requiring training for anyone who "may come in contact" with DU equipment, complete medical testing for solders "exposed to DU contamination," and the development of "a plan for DU contaminated equipment." Rokke cites a number of other orders including an April 2004 Surgeon General's order and US Army regulations requiring medical and environmental clean up from DU contamination. Rokke charges government and political officials with a deliberate cover-up to limit liability and to ensure uranium munitions use during combat. He insists that DOD officials provide medical care for all DU casualties, complete environmental mediation, and complete decontamination of all DU damaged equipment, structures, and terrain as required by US regulations. He also emphasizes that documented health problems exist in many of the 55 US locations where DU is stored, processed and tested. "Clinton and Bush totally were aware of the use of DU and made conscious choices to disregard the law," said Rokke. "The world needs to know about it: It's a horrible mess and it will continue until someone holds these people accountable for what they've done and demands compliance. The children of the world don't deserve this." The Pentagon took 25 years to acknowledge problems with the corrosive defoliant Agent Orange, used in Vietnam to destroy the jungle. It took 40 years before sick WWII veterans were compensated for exposure to atomic bomb radiation. Officials today can't say, "We didn't know," because they are fully aware of the dangers of DU. How long will it take them to stop using radioactive ammunition and exposing soldiers and civilians to genetic damage, cancer and other illnesses? Don Monkerud is an Aptos, California-based writer who follows cultural, social and political issues. :: Article nr. 27460 sent on 14-oct-2006 17:46 ECT :: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27460 :: The incoming address of this article is : www.counterpunch.org/monkerud10142006.html :: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet . _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Attachment Converted: 1c3560.jpg: 00000001,708e559e,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 66 [NukeNet] Global Impact of Radiation - 1945-2003 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:53:58 -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 http://www.berkeleycitizen.org/diabetes.html Global Impact of Radiation 1945-2003 Global Impact of Radiation 1945-2003 [source: Japanese government vital health statistics 1899-2003] Japan govt health statistics 1899-2003, chief causes of mortality. Around 1950 the use of antibiotics caused infectious diseases (the main cause of death until then) to decline to almost nothing. Since bacteria, viruses and parasites cause cancer, the cancer rate should also have declined. BUT after 1945, cancer took over as the main cause of death and continued to rise with the introduction of each new nuclear technology (atmospheric testing, nuke plants, Depleted Uranium). Note that mortality from cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases also increased - that's the damage to the mitochondria which have the highest concentrations in the heart and brain (50% of the bulk mass). DU=Depleted Uranium [source: New York Times Jan. 9, 2006] Global diabetes map from NYTimes Jan 9, 2006. Its a fallout/rainout map from atmospheric testing radiation and you can see that the jetstream is the main transport mechanism. US map indicates that the highest diabetes rates in the US are along the Gulf Coast states where the Depleted Uranium is carried across the Atlantic on Westerlies and rained out where the highest rainfall occurs along the Gulf Coast. Basically the US govt is shipping the most radioactive milk from dairies around nuke plants into black and poor inner city communities. Wash. DC looks the same and we have proved it with US govt. measurements of rad in milk by city. [Jay Gould, DEADLY DECEIT: LOW LEVEL RADIATION HIGH LEVEL COVERUP, Chapter "Infant Mortality and Milk"] [data source: Centers for Disease Control] Diabetes incidence for the US from the Centers for Disease Control 1980-2003.] Diabetes increased from 1980-1990 by 18%. Diabetes increased from 1980-2003 by 136%. Europe is in a pandemic of diabetes and the EU just passed a resolution and is asking the UN to help. It is caused by CHERNOBYL and by Depleted Uranium. The above information was provided by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who worked at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab where she became a whistleblower in 1991, has survived years of retaliation from the Livermore Lab and the University of California and has lived firsthand the experiences of Karen Silkwood. A radiation specialist, she works around the world educating citizens, the media and lawmakers about the impact of radiation globally on the health of the public and the environment. She assisted with Al-Jazeeras recent report on depleted uranium weapons which quickly became one of the most read articles produced by the website. Depleted Uranium: Washingtons Secret Nuclear War She is an independent scientist and an Environmental Commissioner for the City of Berkeley. Video information on Radiation Issues * "Connecting the Dots: 911 Four Years Later, From the A-Bomb to Depleted Uranium and Beyond" Leuren Moret http://www.art101.com/radiation/index.html * Leuren Moret's GLOBAL RADIATION COVERUP SERIES: "Atmospheric Testing, Nuclear Power Plants, Depleted Uranium" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643 * Leuren Moret's GLOBAL RADIATION COVERUP SERIES: "Global Diabetes Epidemic Caused by Depleted Uranium" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846 Additional reading: * International Journal of Health Services, Volume 36, Number 3, Pages 503 520, 2006 2006, * Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. Occupational Hazards of War * DEPLETED URANIUM: ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT DU AND * GULF WAR SYNDROME ARE NOT YET ANSWERED pdf (108KB) * Rosalie Bertell * DIABETES RADIATION LINK KNOWN IN EARLY 1960'S * Here is a research paper on radioactive isotopes linked to diabetes from 1963. Lyn Anspaugh worked at LBNL, LLNL, and now he's at SAIC and the Univ. of Utah. They have known about the diabetes-radiation link forever: http://www.utah.edu/radiobiology/people/Anspaugh.htm L.R. Anspaugh, "Chemical Elements in the Serum of Man in Health and Diabetes Mellitus: X-Ray Emission Spectrographic Determinations", Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, UCRL-10873 (1963) * "VA requested article on Gulf War Syndrome from the National Academy of Sciences which concludes "Gulf War Syndrome does not exist."... Gulf War and Health: Volume 4. Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War Committee on Gulf War and Health: A Review of the Medical Literature Relative to the Gulf War Veterans Health, executive summary pdf (503 KB) Contact Us Home 2006 berkeleycitizen.org ***************************************************************** 67 Leaf Chronicle: 'Birdcage' cases slow for some www.theleafchronicle.com - Clarksville, TN By CHANTAL ESCOTO The Leaf-Chronicle Sam Samsil thinks his father's radiation death which was caused by working at the Clarksville Base nearly 50 years ago did not go completely in vain. His mother filed a claim with the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) about five years ago, and it was finally approved recently. Samsil a Birmingham, Ala., attorney who grew up in Clarksville said he never gave up on the claim for his mother's sake because it was the right thing to do. "It's been a long road for my mother," Samsil said. The maximum amount awarded for each case is a $150,000 lump sum payment. His father, D.M. Samsil, died in 1996 with unexplained skin cancer. Some people are still waiting and hoping their claims will be approved about 440 workers of the Clarksville Base nuclear storage facility and their families are waiting for government compensation. "We had to appeal several times, but it would seem that we have been successful, and the dosage report was positive in my father's case," Samsil said. D.M. Samsil's case was determined through a long and complicated process called "dose reconstruction," the dosage report his son is referring to. The scientific calculation is conducted through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The dose reconstruction determines the amount of radiation a worker could have been exposed to depending on where he worked and for how long. If a worker's dose reconstruction is rated at 50 percent or above, then the claim usually is awarded. The Clarksville Base at Fort Campbell was one of 13 nuclear facilities set up around the United States during the Cold War. The Birdcage was constructed in 1948 by the Atomic Energy Commission, and its operations were highly secretive. Even to this day workers at the Clarksville Facility are reluctant to talk about what went on at the nuclear weapons storage because of such intense security. But for many employees who kept quiet for so long, their secrets died with them. To make matters more complicated, many of the files and employee records at the nuclear storage facility were lost or "disappeared." Compensation slow The EEOICP has paid out more than $500 million in cash and benefits since 2001 to Department of Energy Atomic weapons site workers or their families in Tennessee. Those sites include Oak Ridge, Clarksville Base at Fort Campbell, Chattanooga and Erwin. A total of $2 billion has been paid nationwide. Workers at the Clarksville Base whose claims have been approved received nearly $1.2 million. But that doesn't mean a whole lot to Bobby Murphy and 441 other people who have filed for the lump sum. Murphy submitted his claim on behalf of his father in 2001. It's been denied four times even though he has affidavits and records proving his father worked at the Clarksville Facility as an electrician. "Most everybody my father worked with are deceased. It seems they're just waiting for everyone to die," he said. Murphy's problem with the compensation process is that officials say his father wasn't exposed to enough radiation to get the compensation. But at the same time the EEOICP will not accept proof Murphy has that shows his father worked extensively in the "hot" areas. "It doesn't make a lick of sense," he said. "I never thought in my lifetime that I'd be arguing with the Department of Energy about where my father worked." Persistence is key Peter Turcic, director of the EEOICP, said he feels for the families, but the dose reconstruction is still pending in many of these cases. He advises workers and families to be patient and to continue appealing, especially if new information becomes available such as a changed medical condition or death. Turcic said the majority of the claims were denied for illnesses not covered under Part B of the program, which includes radiation cancers and lung diseases such as silicosis and beryllium. "NIOSH has their processes and procedures," Turcic said, citing 133,000 claims filed nationwide. The EEOICP is still actively seeking people to file if they think their sickness or that of a relative was caused by working at an atomic weapons site. "We encourage people to file if they worked at (Clarksville Facility) and had an illness. If they fill out Part E (of the claim application) that includes all illnesses. If they fill that out we make a determination if they are entitled to benefits." Debbie Bratton has done extensive research on the Birdcage and said she has gone before the appeals board on behalf of some families seeking compensation. She said tenacity is the answer. "I believe there are many people who have not filed because they either feel they don't have a chance or they are intimidated by the paperwork requirements," Bratton said in an e-mail. "I cannot over emphasize the need for persistence. The very legislation would not exist without the persistence of many former workers of nuclear facilities, particularly those in Oak Ridge, who invested years to get the federal government to adopt legislation." Chantal Escoto covers military affairs and can be reached by telephone at 245-0216 or by e-mail at chantalescoto@theleafchronicle.com. Fort Campbell civilian employees have worked in numerous jobs that are hazardous to their health in later years. One job is working in boiler rooms handling chemicals and breathing asbestos contaminated air. I'm not aware of the dead boilertender's families being compensated. Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:48 pm ***************************************************************** 68 SNA: Bulgaria: Workers Stumble Upon Radioactive Cylinder in Bulgaria www.novinite.com Sofia News Agency Crime: 16 October 2006, Monday. Workers from the central Bulgarian city of Sliven have stumbled upon a metal container that emitted radiation, Darik News revealed. The two workers were digging for a construction when they found a sealed metal cylinder that was marked as containing radioactive materials. One of the workers took the container home, because he was planning to hand it in for scrap metal, but he then called the police to tell them of his finding. The cylinder was actually an appliance for geodesic measurements and it is not hazardous if all safety regulations are kept. The radioactive isotope in the appliance emitted some 170 micro Sieverts per hour. This is about three times as high as the radioactive level of the leak detected in the country's Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant the previous week. novinite.com All Rights Reserved Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish ***************************************************************** 69 [NukeNet] Scotland: Cardboard boxes used to tra nsport Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:54:11 -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 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.sundayherald.com/58502 Sunday Herald - 15 October 2006 Cardboard boxes used to transport nuclear materials By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor ---------- THE packaging for shipments of radioactive materials across the UK is so poor it could breach safety regulations, putting the environment and public health at risk. A nuclear industry safety adviser has revealed that radioactive materials are often transported by hospitals and factories in secondhand cardboard boxes and other dubious packages. There are about half a million movements of radioactive materials by road, rail or air every year in the UK. About 300,000 of them are low-level isotopes for medical, industrial or research purposes, known in the trade as excepted packages. But, according to Phil McNamara, dangerous goods safety adviser for British Energy, the rules for transporting such packages are open to misinterpretation and in dire need of reform. One can get and often sees a great deal of confusion, he said. Many hours are spent trying to achieve compliance through sets of unclear, and occasionally contradictory, regulations. Shipments are made in a large variety of containers, some of which are barely compliant, if at all. There is a profusion of cardboard boxes and wooden crates, he warned. Such cheap and cheerful packages would not be accepted by the public in the event of an accident, McNamara argued. There was also a risk that drivers would not be properly trained. The concern is that it will be difficult to provide the duty of care that the public expects in transporting radio-active materials, when drivers may not be fully conversant with what they are carrying, he said. Excepted packages are covered by 14 general conditions designed to ensure that the radioactive material is transported easily and safely. The packages have to be easy to decontaminate, and those taken by air have to withstand pressure differentials. But the rules for excepted packages are much less strict than for packages containing higher levels of radioactivity. The transport costs are consequently much lower, which puts pressure on companies and public agencies to send excepted packages wherever possible. There is much evidence that items are made to fit the excepted package criteria, alleged McNamara. He called for more joined-up thinking, including a rethink of the regulations and a new code of practice for excepted packages. His comments came in an article in the technical journal Packaging, Transport, Storage And Security Of Radioactive Material. More than 800 accidents involving the transport of radioactive materials have been officially recorded in the UK since 1958. According to a report by the governments Health Protection Agency (HPA) in July, in 19 of them people suffered serious radiation doses, mostly due to improperly packaged materials in the 1970s. Packages that are damaged or poorly prepared can have radiological consequences for people in the vicinity, said an HPA spokesman. However, he added, there was no evidence that packages prepared in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) transport regulations underperformed. British Energy, which runs nuclear power stations at Torness in East Lothian and Hunterston in North Ayrshire, said the regulations were robust but would benefit from being made clearer. But McNamaras demand for reform was unequivocally backed by environmental groups. The call for regulations to be tightened up should be heeded and soon, said Duncan McLaren, of Friends of the Earth Scotland. ---------- Copyright 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088 Back to previous page _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 70 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear firm to be fined over leak [UP] Press Association Monday October 16, 2006 7:08 AM The firm that runs Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant will be fined in court on Monday after admitting safety breaches following a radioactive leak. Around 83,000 litres of acid containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium escaped from a ruptured pipe into a sealed concrete holding cell at the site in Cumbria. The spillage of spent nuclear fuel was discovered in April 2005 - but may have gone unnoticed for eight months. No one was injured and no radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere after the leak at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) part of the site. But British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd, which runs the facility, later pleaded guilty to three counts of breaching conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence, granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The Health and Safety Executive brought the prosecution, arguing the firm failed to ensure safety systems were in good working order and that radioactive material was effectively contained. Representatives of the company will appear at Carlisle Crown Court on Monday. They face unlimited fines under the powers of the court. Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 71 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield operator fined 500,000 Press Association Monday October 16, 2006 4:58 PM The operator of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant has been fined 500,000 following a radioactive leak. Around 83,000 litres of acid containing 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium escaped from a broken pipe into a sealed concrete holding site at the site. No one was injured in the leak and no radiation escaped from the plant in west Cumbria. The company was handed the fine at Carlisle Crown Court after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to three counts of breaching conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence, granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The court heard that the leak should have been detected within days rather than the eight months it took. Passing sentence, Mr Justice Openshaw said British Nuclear Group Sellafield "did not have a good safety record". The penalty must serve as a reminder that health and safety is a serious matter and achieving public safety is of paramount importance, he said. The court was told that a change in the handling process had caused the leak. It was not spotted because a 'floating' bobbin in the machinery had become stuck which produced "wild and unaccountable" gauge readings of radioactive levels over a five year period. Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 72 BBC: Sellafield firm fined over Last Updated: Monday, 16 October 2006 [Thorp reprocessing plant] The leak occurred at the Thorp complex at Sellafield The operator of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant has been fined 500,000 following a radioactive leak. About 83,000 litres of acid containing 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium escaped from a broken pipe into a sealed concrete holding site. The operator of the Cumbrian site, British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing. In August, it was revealed the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had withheld 2m from the company after the leak. No-one was injured in the leak at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) and no radiation escaped from the plant in the leak, which was found in April 2005. 'Deeply regret' The company pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to three counts of breaching conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence, granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It was fined at Carlisle Crown Court on Monday along with nearly 68,000 in prosecution costs. The court heard that the leak should have been detected within days rather than the eight months it took. Passing sentence, Mr Justice Openshaw said the penalty must serve as a reminder that health and safety was a serious matter and achieving public safety was of paramount importance. 'Fell short' In a statement, British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd said: "We deeply regret the incident, which clearly should not have happened, though we are disappointed with the size of the fine. "We continue to work closely with the regulators and have implemented new measures to ensure that nothing similar can ever happen again." Director of nuclear safety for the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the prosecution, and HM chief inspector of nuclear installations , Dr Mike Weightman, said the case highlighted the high standards needed in the nuclear industry. He said: "Our extensive investigation into the events in Thorp has shown that British Nuclear Group Sellafield Limited fell significantly short of the required standards for a considerable period of time before the leak was discovered. "Although we stress that there is no evidence of any harm to workers or the public, the leak being contained within a stainless steel lined, heavily shielded cell, there has been a significant prolonged reduction in attention to the high standards demanded, something we are not prepared to tolerate." ***************************************************************** 73 BBC NEWS: Leaks knock British Energy shares Last Updated: Monday, 16 October 2006, 16:49 GMT 17:49 UK [Hinkley power station] British Energy shares have lost 24% in value after the firm found cracks in pipes at one of its nuclear reactors. The cracks in boiler pipes at its Hinkley Point BR3 power station in Somerset were "at the high end of those previously experienced," the firm said. It is also investigating a "significant leak" in its cooling systems pipes at its power station in Hartlepool. The news comes a month after the firm found cracks in boiler tubes at its Hunterston BR3 power plant in Scotland. Shares in the group tumbled after the announcement, ending the day with a loss of 133.5 pence at 427p. While investors feared the news could spark safety concerns, British Energy said the cracks were not leaking, adding that the problems at the North Eastern power plant were non-nuclear. Output cut As a result of the discoveries, the company - the biggest energy producer in the UK - said it would now be carrying out checks at two other plants in the UK. "The output of Hunterston B R4 and Hinkley B R4 has been lowered," the group said in a statement. "And preparations are being made to shut down the units for inspections and to undertake any repair work required so as to be satisfied as to the integrity of the boilers," it added. The news dealt a further blow to the group as the firm warned the new glitches meant it would no longer be able to meet its output targets for the year. Instead, British Energy said that it would now be forced to buy electricity on wholesale markets in order to meet its supply contracts, adding it was "unsure" how much it would have to purchase. ***************************************************************** 74 Platts: Utilities may appeal spent fuel damages award Washington (Platts)--13Oct2006 Three New England utilities that were awarded $142.8 million in damages on October 4 for spent nuclear fuel storage costs at their shutdown reactor sites are evaluating an appeal of the US Court of Federal Claims decision, a stakeholder in the utilities said October 13. In a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Connecticut Light and Power said the utilities also expect DOE to appeal the decision. CL&P also said the utilities believe "they will have the opportunity in future lawsuits to recover more damages incurred in years after 2001/2002." The utilities -- Yankee Atomic Electric, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power, and Maine Yankee Atomic Power -- sued the federal government in 1998 after DOE failed to begin disposing of utility spent fuel by a 1998 contract date. Copyright 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 75 CourierPost: Newfield cleanup estimate in doubt Monday, October 16, 2006 By MEG HUELSMAN Gannett New Jersey NEWFIELD A metal manufacturer estimates the cost to remove a 30-foot-high pile of low-grade radioactive waste from its property is $20 million more than an offer made by a Utah disposal facility. Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. is at the center of a controversy involving more than 52,000 cubic yards of radioactive waste sitting at the rear of the company's 67.7-acre property. Shieldalloy wants to seal the pile under a specially manufactured cap for 1,000 years. But residents and politicians are demanding the low-grade radioactive rock pile be removed to a Utah-based disposal facility. EnviroCare -- a radioactive decommissioning facility in Clive, Utah -- has released figures estimating the cost to remove the entire pile at between $35 million and $38 million, spokesman Al Rafati said. Shieldalloy estimated the cost of the actual waste removal at about $36 million. But that's not the whole picture, the firm said. The $20 million discrepancy was explained in a report submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which outlined a removal plan that would cost Shieldalloy more than $58 million. Millions of dollars in expenses were attributed to administration, engineering and construction costs, but the major difference rests with an $11.6 million NRC-required contingency allowance -- a 25 percent insurance buffer to cover for any unforeseen events. "We're required by the NRC to follow an established and rigorous process," said Michael Turner, a Shieldalloy spokesman. "It would be a financial hardship on the company to pay to have this stuff trucked out of here when we honestly believe that the best solution for this is to have the material capped." Residents and politicians, including Gov. Jon S. Corzine and state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson, disagree with Shieldalloy's proposal to cap the pile, which would cost the company about $6 million for the duration of the cap's 1,000-year life span. Copyright 2006 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 76 This is London: Sellafield 'left to leak for eight months' - The Evening Standard incorporating ThisisLondon.co.uk] Leak: Sellafield nuclear plant The operator of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant was fined 500,000 today following a radioactive leak. Around 83,000 litres of acid containing 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium escaped from a broken pipe into a sealed concrete holding site at the site. See also... Cracks force nuclear reactors to shit down No one was injured in the leak and no radiation escaped from the plant in west Cumbria. The company was handed the fine at Carlisle Crown Court after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to three counts of breaching conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence, granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The court heard that the leak should have been detected within days rather than the eight months it took. Passing sentence, Mr Justice Openshaw said British Nuclear Group Sellafield "did not have a good safety record". The penalty must serve as a reminder that health and safety is a serious matter and achieving public safety is of paramount importance, he said. The court was told that a change in the handling process had caused the leak. It was not spotted because a 'floating' bobbin in the machinery had become stuck which produced "wild and unaccountable" gauge readings of radioactive levels over a five year period. Richard Matthews, prosecuting, said the first indication of a leak at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) was on August 24, 2004 when 50 grams of uranium was detected following a sample test. The company failed to react effectively to the sample result, he said. The faulty gauge gave several zero readings after August 24 and no further sample tests were triggered, although they were supposed to be taken every three months, he added. It was not until November 2004 that the company found a discrepancy in the levels of uranium at the site. The full extent of the leak was finally uncovered on April 14 and Thorp was shut down four days later and remains closed. Mr Matthews said that following a visit by nuclear safety inspectors, 55 recommendations were made to the company. He said: "They found leaked detection procedures were flawed, there was an inadequate safety management system and a culture of tolerating alarms directly contributed to the breaches. He said that there was no evidence of any leak from the containment cell but he added the company had "lost its ability to detect leaks as it relied on its last line of defence." He said: "It was a significant departure from recognised safety procedures over a long period of time." The court was told that in 1998 a similar but less serious incident happened when pipe work eroded. This produced 28 recommendations to regularly log radiation level tests and review them on a regular basis." The company admitted it had no record of whether it had acted on those recommendations. The court heard that the company had seven previous convictions on safety related matters and had received fines totalling more than 115,000 but none of these involved a leak. Mr Mark Monaghan, defending, said there was no dispute that there had been no contamination, no environmental impact and no damage to any persons. He said: "There was difficulty with the gauge readings because there was an erroneous belief that they were correct. "It appears a repair had been made to the machinery which was supposed to have been successful. Quite clearly it was not. This led to the belief being maintained. In a statement the Health and Safety Executive, which brought the case, said: "Our extensive investigation into the events at Thorp has shown that British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd fell well below required standards for a considerable period of time, something we are not prepared to tolerate. "Thorp was Sellafield's flagship and built to high standards. It must also be operated, maintained and managed to high standards. "In particular, the conditions attached to Sellafield's nuclear site licence to secure the protection of workers and the public must be fully complied with. "For the wider nuclear industry, our message is clear - high standards are demanded of the nuclear industry. "This means continued vigilance and close attention to maintaining all the multiple barriers, physical, administrative and procedural, put in place to protect people and society from highly radioactive material. "It is not acceptable to allow any one of these barriers to degrade and weaken, relying on the existence of other barriers to secure continued protection." © 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd ***************************************************************** 77 Whitehaven News: BNG fined £500,000 for radioactive leak Published on 16/10/2006 SELLAFIELD operator British Nuclear Group (BNG) has been handed a fine of £500,000 for the massive radioactive leak which closed the Thorp plant 18 months ago. The £1.8 billion flagship reprocessing plant is still closed after the leak of 83,000 litres of highly-radioactive liquor from a fractured pipe, which went undetected for nine months. BNG has already had to pay a £2 million penalty for the incident to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which said it failed to meet high-quality safety and environmental requirements. The company faced an unlimited fine when it appeared at Carlisle Crown Court yesterday (Monday) for sentencing. They were fined £500,000, with £67, 959 costs. BNG admitted three charges brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at an earlier hearing in June. The charges were brought after a 83,000 litres of highly radioactive liqueur leaked from a pipe into a sump over a nine month period. The court heard that faulty machinery allowed the leak to go undetected from August 2004 until April 2005. An alarm system did sound, but the court heard that the workforce had a culture of coping with alarms by ignoring them. Thorp remains closed following the leak, which shadow trade secretary David Willets described at the time it was discovered - on April 19, 2005 - as a failure “worthy of Homer Simpson,” the inept nuclear plant worker from TV cartoon series The Simpsons. BNG had originally hoped to restart the plant this summer, but after failing to meet that target, it said an autumn restart was more likely. Last month it announced that it will not be in a position to re-open Thorp until next year because there is still too much to do. The plant can only re-start once all of the necessary permissions have been obtained from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the NDA, and this is likely to take until the end of the year. Since the leak from a fractured pipe within the feed clarification cell, BNG has been giving Thorp staff training in “behaviour and technical matters” and a new CCTV camera has been installed. The Health and Safety Executive said standards fell well below the standard required - and although the leak posed no risk to health and safety or to the environment, resulting costs are estimated to have soared to £50 million. A BNG spokeswoman said: “British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd has been charged by the Health and Safety Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 of contravening three licence conditions in relation to the Thorp feed clarification cell pipe fracture. “We deeply regret the incident and have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by the HSE.” In 2004 British Nuclear Fuels was fined £30,000 with £20,000 costs in an HSE prosecution over an accident in which a Sellafield diver nearly drowned. Martin Forewood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) said: "I hope that the level of this fine will finally force BNG to take notice of their liabilities. "While this fine is sizeable, they do not have a good track record and, as they said in court, the mentality of the workforce is to allow alarms to ignored." ***************************************************************** 78 NewsAshland.com: Hiroshima, Nagasaki: An International Exhibit With A Message Of Peace Comes To Oregon - October 16, 2006 Ashland News and Classifieds. An Ashland, Oregon Portland, Oregon - Atomic bomb artifacts, photographs and videos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, will be on display at Portland State University for the "Hiroshima-Nagasaki Exhibition: An International Exhibit with a Message of Peace." In conjunction, corresponding lectures will take place including one from a nuclear attack survivor. All events are free and open to the public. "It has been 60 years since the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan. As the horror of these attacks recedes from living memory, it is imperative that today, when nuclear strikes remain in the discourse of the foreign policy of various nations, we learn what actually takes place when nuclear weapons are used," said Laurence Kominz, director, PSU Center for Japanese Studies. "There is no better way," he continued, "for us to have this important experience, short of traveling to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than to visit the traveling exhibition. Portland State University is honored to be the first in the Pacific Northwest to host this important exhibition." Hiroshima-Nagasaki Exhibition Schedule: The exhibition features atomic bomb artifacts, photographs and video presentations from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, and runs November 2-29, 2006, Monday through Friday from 12-4 p.m., and Saturday November 4, 11 and 18, from 11 a.m. - 3 p.m., at the Littman Gallery in the PSU Smith Memorial Student Union (SMSU), rm. 250 (1825 SW Broadway). The exhibit is not suitable for most children under 12. For more information please contact the Littman Gallery at 503-725-5656. + Sasao Akira, a survivor of the nuclear attack on Nagasaki will give a talk, "The Personal Account of a Survivor of the Nuclear Attacks," Friday, November 3, 2006, at noon in SMSU rm. 228. + Lisa Yoneyama presents, "Competing Views on the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima," Friday, November 10, 2006, at 6 p.m. Yoneyama is from the University of California, San Diego, and author of "Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space and the Dialectics of Memory" and "Violence, War, Redress: The Politics of Multiculturalism." + The film, Black Rain will be shown Monday, November 13, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the 5th Avenue Cinema (SW 5th and Hall). Launched in 1995 by the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, the traveling exhibition's goals are to convey the realities of the atomic bombings and the present status of nuclear issues in the hope of arousing international sentiment toward nuclear weapon abolition. Since its creation the exhibition has been hosted in over 30 cities around the world. Their goal is to hold the event a few times a year, mainly in nuclear nations, suspected nuclear nations and cities active in nuclear abolition campaigns. For more information on the lectures or on the exhibition please contact Laurence Kominz, director of the Center for Japanese Studies and professor of Japanese literature at Portland State University at 503-725-5288. For more information on Japanese studies at PSU, go to ©2006 NewsAshland.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 79 [NukeNet] Y-12 confirms fire in uranium warehouse Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:55:43 -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 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5056170,00.html Y-12 confirms fire in uranium warehouse By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com October 10, 2006 OAK RIDGE A spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant today confirmed there was a fire Sept. 22 in a key warehouse where highly enriched uranium and other materials are stored. But he said the uranium itself did not catch on fire and the entire incident was over in a "matter of minutes." The Project On Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog group, was the first to report on the incident. Peter Stockton, an investigator with POGO, said the group has long been concerned about the Y-12 warehouse, Building 9720-5, because it is constructed of wood and is considered vulnerable. Bill Wilburn, a Y-12 spokesman, said the incident occurred while workers were using a protective "glove bag" to examine a package of highly enriched uranium that was wrapped in plastic and masking tape. A glove bag allows workers to examine uranium without the possible release or direct exposure to the radioactive material, Wilburn said. During the procedure, a small piece of the uranium apparently oxidized upon exposure to air and caused some combustion of the plastic packaging and masking tape, he said. Neither the uranium nor the glove bag caught fire, Wilburn said. Workers immediately put out the fire using powdered graphite, known as coke, he said. "There were no injuries and no release of contamination," the Y-12 spokesman said. "They responded quickly, and the other folks evacuated the building. The whole incident only lasted a matter of minutes." Wilburn said an investigation of the incident was being conducted, but he said he did not know the status of it. He said he could not comment on POGOs comments about the building being constructed of wood. "I cant discuss the building or what its made out of," he said. Wilburn said safety was the top priority, and he said the Y-12 workers responded quickly and properly. He said there are procedures in place to deal with a uranium fire, if that had occurred. The workers were dealing with a "legacy" material that has been in storage at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility since the 1970s, Wilburn said. He said Y-12 is in the process of "de-inventorying" Building 9720-5, as part of the preparations for moving into a new storage facility for highly enriched uranium. The new $500 million storage center is under construction and about 35 percent completed. Y-12 officials typically do not like to discuss their storage facilities in depth for safety and security reasons. According to a study guide for workers published in 1997, Building 9720-5 is used for storage and shipping of safeguarded nuclear materials. "The mission carried out in the warehouse includes the shipping and receiving of nuclear materials, materials management, material verification, storage, container unpacking and glove-box operations," the document states. "The warehouse, Building 9720-5, contains storage vaults, modular storage vaults, storage cages, weighing stations, confirmatory measurement, forklifts and criticality accident alarm stations. The materials handled in the warehouse include uranium, lithium, beryllium, and thorium and come in the form of canned subassemblies, fuel assemblies, oxides, metals and alloys." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Mason Lowe Administrative Coordinator Alliance for Nuclear Accountability phone 206.547-3175 fax 206.547-7158 www.ananuclear.org ------ End of Forwarded Message __._,_.___ 209666.jpg SPONSORED LINKS Market intelligence Emotional intelligence Military intelligence Nuclear medicine Nuclear radiation Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Attachment Converted: 209666.jpg: 00000001,1bb9cffb,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 80 KnoxNews: Special controls accompany plant experiments By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com October 16, 2006 Because scientists are genetically manipulating plants at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, special controls are required to prevent their spread in the environment. Currently, all genetic experiments are conducted inside the lab's greenhouses, and the plants are sterilized -- using an autoclave -- before disposal, according to Stan Wullschleger, one of the research leaders. There are plans to move the experiments outdoors at some point. "Our next step would be to take the information that we learn here -- and even the plants that we are developing -- and put them into a field trial," the senior scientist said. "We can study plants in the greenhouse for maybe three to six months before they get too tall. So, if we want to do studies longer than that, we need to go to the field." However, before transgenic plants can be grown in the field, a number of approvals are required from the lab, the sponsoring agency (the Department of Energy, in this case), and a unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "It's a lengthy and costly process," Wullschleger said. "We will have to jump through regulatory hoops to make that happen." 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 81 KnoxNews: Scientists learning about genes through work with plants By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com October 16, 2006 Cause and effect. A couple of years ago, Oak Ridge National Laboratory invested a few million dollars in computer-controlled greenhouses for the lab's environmental research division. Now it's paying off with expanded work in plant genetics. At one of the twin greenhouses, lab scientists are tinkering with hybrid poplar trees (Populus) to learn more about the function of individual genes. The results could lead to: + Transgenic trees that can sequester greater amounts of carbon dioxide in stems, roots and underground systems and help reduce the climate-altering effects of greenhouse emissions. + Faster-growing trees that provide an economical feedstock for biofuels. In the lab's other high-tech greenhouse, ORNL researchers are growing mutant versions of Arabidopsis -- the common mustard plant -- to study the impact of genes on an ecosystem. "We would not have been competitive for these projects two or three years ago. We didn't have the capabilities," Stan Wullschleger, a plant physiologist and head of the laboratory's plant molecular ecology research group, said during a tour of the site. There's potential for more projects in this hot-growth research field, Wullschleger said. "It's a pretty positive time for us right now," he said. Science research depends on the ability to replicate experiments and control factors important to the studies, and the new plant labs are a keen improvement over the previous ones, which depended on the wavering wishes of Mother Nature. At the new facilities, scientists use computer programs to control the temperature, light and relative humidity throughout the day and the season. "The plants don't notice the clouds outside," Wullschleger said inside the brightly lit research venue. "They will think it's a nice, summery day." Two of the plants featured in ORNL's research activities are among three -- the other being rice -- whose genetic makeup has been fully sequenced. That information allows scientists to proceed with studies of gene function and, eventually, tailor plants for specific purposes. The hybrid poplar is a fast-growing plant, which allows scientists to get a quick read on genes of interest. But there's still a lot to learn. "We now know in poplar there are about 45,000 genes, but we know the function of only a handful of those," Wullschleger said. "We're stepping through the process of better understanding what those genes do and how we could use that information for carbon sequestration or bioenergy." Scientists were aware of one gene that was associated with elongation of the tree's stem, so they disabled the gene to better understand its role. "It's very dramatic," Wullschleger said, pointing to a three-month-old poplar sapling that was about 3 feet tall with a rangy stem. Another tree of the same age was nearby, but it was short and stocky, barely a foot high, full of leaves with the stem hardly showing at all. "Obviously, we know the function of that gene," the environmental scientist said. "We can take that information and instead of knocking out that gene, maybe we could instead up-regulate that gene and get even more elongation than we currently have." Quick growth is important, either for storing carbon or producing feedstock for ethanol. Another gene being studied apparently affects the radial growth of the tree stem, and for biofuel use, it might be better to have a thick stem than a long one, Wullschleger said. How big a role can scientists play? "We're not sure how much we can alter growth rate in hybrid poplar," Wullschleger said. "In order to be maximally beneficial as a bioenergy crop, we probably need to increase the yield by 50 percent or more -- even up to doubling the current yield -- and that's our challenge." Traditional plant-breeding techniques allow researchers to alter properties, such as growth rate, but probably only by 1 percent to 2 percent a year, he said. "We don't have the time to wait," the Oak Ridge researcher said. In the second greenhouse, Wullschleger and his team have set up a series of mesocosms, experimental systems inside Plexiglas boxes that simulate real-life conditions as closely as possible. Researchers are trying to evaluate what effects a single gene change can have on an ecosystem. In this case, they planted a series of wild mustard plants and a comparable number of mutant plants, which have an altered gene that restricts the nitrogen uptake. "Over several years, we hope to monitor how that ... affects a population, a community, an ecosystem," Wullschleger said. "Ecologists have traditionally not used molecular techniques in their research. ... We're testing the hypothesis that there is value in studying genes in ecosystems. It's an idea that's been tossed about, but one that hasn't been addressed very often." The life cycle for the mustard plant is about a month, which makes it ideal for this type of research. After that time, the plants produce seed and germinate in about another month, starting the process again, and again. "We're now into about the second generation. ... We're very early in the study, but we hope to do 15 to 20 generations," Wullschleger said. 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 82 Knox News: Oak Ridge facility to expand for security contract By FRANK MUNGER, news@knoxbusinessjournal.com October 16, 2006 Connecticut-based Canberra Industries won a huge contract this summer from the Department of Homeland Security to develop new radiological detectors for U.S. ports and borders. It could be a boon for the company's Oak Ridge operations. Canberra's Oak Ridge facility on Union Valley Road produces crystals of high-purity germanium that will be used as sensors in the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals. The subsidiary of AREVA currently employs about 35 workers at its Oak Ridge site, which also manufactures portable nuclear instruments and performs some support services for the Department of Energy. Steve Mettler, Canberra's program manager for the Homeland Security project, said the Oak Ridge office already has submitted paperwork for 10 new hires, and the facilities likely will be expanded to accommodate the growing work. The Oak Ridge capabilities were a "critical component" in landing the work for Homeland Security, Mettler said in a telephone interview from his office at corporate headquarters in Meriden, Conn. The new portal monitors are supposed to greatly enhance the ability to detect the presence of special nuclear materials - such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium - that could be used by terrorists to manufacture a nuclear bomb. According to the Homeland Security Department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, the new systems will differentiate between naturally occurring radioactivity, such as is found in fertilizers, kitty litter and other products, and nuclear materials of concern. The improved portal detectors should eliminate many of the false alarms that happen with the current monitors and provide a detailed accounting of what radioisotopes are involved, the agency said. After a lengthy contract competition, which included testing of prototypes at the government's Nevada Test Site, three companies were selected to produce the "next-generation" portal monitors. The systems will use spectroscopy to replace the existing detection technology based on "polyvinyl toluene." The other winning companies in the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal competition were Raytheon Co.-Integrated Defense Systems and Thermo Electron Corp. The government vendors were awarded one-year base contracts, with four one-year options. In the initial round, Canberra received $11.7 million, Raytheon got $18.2 million, and Thermo Electron got $14.6 million. Those numbers apparently will jump significantly in the next few years, depending on the demonstration results with the first units produced by each of the companies and the evolving strategy by the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the contracts under the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal program would total $1.157 billion, but Mettler said it's not clear how that money will be divided among the vendors. He wouldn't specify how much money is headed to Oak Ridge or project the five-year employment impact, but he said there was a lot of excitement regarding the contract. "It's a very important award for us," he said. Mettler said another round of tests are to be conducted at the Nevada Test Site and another location, which he declined to name, sometime this winter. Those tests will be with the detectors assembled during "low-rate" production activities by each of the contractors, he said. According to a news release from the Homeland Security Department, "The priority for the base year is development and testing of the fixed radiation detection portal that will become the standard installation for screening cargo containers and truck traffic" at U.S. entry points. All systems under development will use spectroscopic isotope analysis, but Canberra's system uses sensor technology based on the use of high-purity germanium while Thermo Electron and Raytheon will deploy systems using sodium-iodide sensors. Germanium is described as a hard, silver-white metal that is chemically similar to tin and used in industry for semiconductors. As for the Oak Ridge work and its application to the new rad detectors, Mettler said, "What you're trying to do is grow a very pure crystal of germanium, which has very good charge collection - the capability to convert an incident gamma ray into an electrical signal that can be measured." The gamma ray spectroscopy identifies different materials according to the different energies. In addition to its facilities in Connecticut and Oak Ridge, Canberra has operations in Albuquerque, N.M., and Dover, N.J., as well as operations in Canada and offices in Europe. UT-Battelle, BWXT cooperating? During a recent interview, Frank Akers, director of national security programs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, emphasized the cooperation between UT-Battelle and BWXT Y-12 on a series of nuclear nonproliferation projects and other efforts. UT-Battelle, the government's managing contractor at ORNL, and BWXT, the operating contractor at Y-12, haven't always paired up so well. In fact, there were widespread reports of a big chill, especially after a federal program - with its nuke experts in tow - was relocated from Y-12 to ORNL. Other Y-12 employees chose to jump ship and swim to ORNL, too. Without sullying any names from the past, Akers (who once held dual positions at ORNL and Y-12) offered praise of the current leadership team at Y-12. "I would tell you that Randy Spickard and George Dials have been a breath of fresh air," Akers said. New federal deputy at Y-12 Kevin W. Smith, a onetime fighter pilot whose career has included stints with the Department of Energy as well as the military, will become the No. 2 federal official at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. Smith, an assistant manager at DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina since March 2004, will become deputy manager in the National Nuclear Security Administration's site office at Y-12. His Oak Ridge assignment begins in mid-October. He will report to Ted Sherry, the former deputy manager who replaced Bill Brumley as Y-12's federal boss earlier this year. According to Smith's bio, he once commanded the 308th Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. In his pilot days, he flew a range of combat aircraft in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States, including the F-4, F-16 and the F-117 stealth fighter. "He was also certified and extensively involved in nuclear weapons operations," the biography from the Department of Energy said. Smith holds a bachelor's degree in physics from the Air Force Academy and a bachelor's in math and a master's degree in management from Troy State University. Malosh stays in Washington George Malosh, who oversaw ORNL operations from his management position at DOE's Oak Ridge office the past several years, is now chief operating officer for DOE's Office of Science in Washington. Malosh had been serving in that position in an acting role since May. The announcement was made by Ray Orbach, the federal agency's undersecretary for science. Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge manager, congratulated Malosh on his new assignment. "George was responsible for many of our recent achievements with Office of Science projects and programs in Oak Ridge. We are very happy for him personally and look forward to many opportunities to work with him in his new leadership role." DOE spokesman John Shewairy said Johnny Moore, Malosh's former deputy, is the acting assistant manager for science in Oak Ridge. "We will do a national search through a competitive process to identify a replacement (for Malosh)," Shewairy said. Who'll follow Bechtel Jacobs? Bechtel Jacobs Co.'s contract is due to expire Sept. 30, 2008, and one of the big questions in the contracting world is who will replace the company - a partnership of Bechtel National and Jacobs Engineering - as DOE's cleanup manager. Bechtel Jacobs has held that role since 1998, when DOE split up the umbrella management contracts in Oak Ridge and hired individual contractors for specific management or operating tasks. At this point, it looks like Bechtel Jacobs won't complete all of its assigned responsibilities - including the final decommissioning of the K-25 plant - by the end of the contract. So that issue will have to be handled by extension or some other means. Also, DOE's Oak Ridge office is hoping to get an additional budget windfall (estimated to be about $1.5 billion over five or six years) to accelerate the demolition of dozens of old nuclear facilities at ORNL and Y-12. If that gains approval in Washington, there might some desire to keep the current cleanup manager in place for continuity. While many of the biggest, high-risk projects will be done by the end of 2008, a lot of cleanup work will be left on the table for another decade or so. DOE isn't revealing much about its contract strategy. In response to questions, DOE spokesman Walter Perry offered this response by e-mail: "The department is currently undergoing the necessary steps which will lead to uninterrupted cleanup efforts at the Oak Ridge site. The department will continue to develop acquisition strategies for moving forward with the remaining Oak Ridge scopes of work. Included in these strategies would be the option for multiple contracts. No decisions have been made at this time." Meanwhile, DOE confirmed that the existing contract setup for the Oak Ridge toxic-waste incinerator will remain as it is - for now. Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure operates the incinerator under a subcontract to Bechtel Jacobs. There had been speculation that Shaw's contract might be converted to a prime federal contract, reporting directly to DOE, because the Oak Ridge incinerator is expected to be around longer than Bechtel Jacobs. "After thorough evaluations, DOE has determined that the incinerator scope will remain with BJC through the life of the current BJC contract," Perry said in another e-mail response. Caddell-Blaine and a host of subs Caddell-Blaine, a partnership of Caddell Construction of Montgomery, Ala., and Blaine Construction of Knoxville, has the lead responsibility for building the new storage facility for bomb-grade uranium at Y-12. Construction is about 35 percent complete, and the total project cost is expected to reach about $500 million, which covers more than just the structure itself. Although Caddell-Blaine is handling the construction, much of the actual work is subcontracted. Bill Wilburn, a spokesman for BWXT Y-12, said Caddell Blaine is performing about 28 percent of the work with direct hires. The rest is subcontracted. According to Wilburn, those subcontractors include United Forms (concrete), BESCO (electrical), Foley (mechanical), Avisco (underground utilities and excavation), Williams (structural steel), Masco (fire protection/sprinkler systems), Metro Painting (painting and coating), Rivet (roofing) and Honeywell (instrumentation and controls). "All of these subcontractors work closely with the Knoxville Building Trades to provide the highly skilled craftsmen needed to perform the work," Wilburn said. Fowler, Reafsnyder retire at DOE Jennifer Fowler and Jim Reafsnyder, two members of DOE's Oak Ridge management team, retired at the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30). Fowler was chief counsel for DOE since 1995. She joined the Oak Ridge office in 1974 and at the time was the first female staff attorney there. Snyder most recently served as director of DOE's partnerships and program development, overseeing the Oak Ridge "work for others" - particularly ORNL's work for other federal agencies. According to information provided by DOE, Reafsnyder began his federal career in 1967 as a technical intern with the Atomic Energy Commission. Frank Munger is a senior writer at the News Sentinel. He may be reached at munger@knews.comor 865-342-6329. 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 83 SF Chron: Appeals court questions Livermore biodefense lab By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer Monday, October 16, 2006 (10-16) 19:48 PDT San Francisco (AP) -- The federal government's plan to research lethal agents such as HIV and anthrax in a San Francisco Bay area suburb hit a legal snag Monday when an appeals court ruled the Energy Department must consider what would happen if the lab were attacked by terrorists. Acting in a case brought by neighbors of the Livermore facility, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Energy Department conducted an inadequate assessment of the lab's environmental impact because the agency did not adequately examine the repercussions of a terrorist attack. The new biodefense lab was initially set to open in August at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, but lawsuits have so far held up the project. The facility would test airborne agents, including hantavirus, influenza, hepatitis, Q fever, brucellis, herpes and salmonella, on live animals. Steve Wampler, a spokesman for the lab, said the Energy Department was studying the decision and weighing its options. The government told the appeals court during oral arguments this summer that the administration concluded there was little risk of disaster striking the lab. The case was brought by Tri-Valley Cares, which claimed the government did not adequately prepare or analyze what might happen if the proposed biodefense lab were attacked. Executive Director Marylia Kelley, who lives across the street from the lab about 50 miles east of San Francisco, said she was concerned the facility might still open without sufficient consideration of its risks. "The planned 60 shipments of pathogens in and out of Livermore each month have been halted for now, but we must stay vigilant because the Energy Department may still try to approve this plan without serious consideration to terrorist risks and other security concerns," Kelley said. It's not the first time the court has ordered terror studies on government property. In June, the San Francisco-based appeals court also blocked approval of an Energy Department proposal to store additional radioactive waste at a nuclear energy installation in Central California. The court said federal regulators had to first consider the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the facility. The case decided Monday is Tri-Valley Cares v. Energy Department, 04-17232. Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade. The San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 84 Oak Ridger: Report: Guns cant fit through Y-12 barriers Story last updated at 2:06 pm on 10/16/2006 KNOXVILLE (AP) The government discovered after completing 90 concrete barriers around the high-security Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge that special holes in the walls for guards to shoot through were too small for their guns. The weapons ports were found to be about 2 inches too small and unable to adequately accommodate the sight system on the protective force weapons, the Energy Departments inspector general said in a report Friday. As a result, the ability of security police officers to maneuver their weapons when firing was severely limited, Inspector General Gregory Friedman wrote. Y-12, located about 20 miles west of Knoxville, makes parts for every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal and is the nations primary storehouse for weapons-grade uranium. The problem was later corrected at a cost of $300 per hole, or about $27,000. But the National Nuclear Security Administration refused to bill the guard contractor, Wackenhut Services Inc., that provided the incorrect port dimensions. Instead, NNSA charged it to contingency funds, NNSA Associate Administrator Michael Kane wrote. NNSA, which oversees nuclear weapons programs for DOE, also refused to take back a $525,000 performance bonus to Y-12s managing contractor, BWX Technologies, which completed the project in December 2005, some seven months past deadline. In our view, managements disagreement with the recommendations to recoup moneys from the contractor ignores the factual record and places the burden on the taxpayers to pay for the contractors failure to provide due diligence in the design of the barriers and the timely completion of the West Fort project, Friedman wrote. Friedman said the probe began after his office received an allegation that weapon port openings in newly constructed security barriers at Y-12 were designed without space required to accommodate the sight system of protective force weapons. In due time, he wrote, We substantiated the allegation. The problem was discovered when the barriers were put to the test during a protective force exercise or mock assault on the Y-12 complex, the report said. Wackenhut has been cited for cheating on these exercises in the past for getting advance briefings on what would occur. The barriers were installed to meet security requirements ordered in 2003 under the DOEs design basis threat risk analysis for Y-12 to withstand a terrorist assault. Although Wackenhut provided incorrect dimensions for the weapons ports, NNSAs Kane said that at the time of the original design, the size of the weapons ports was correct. A later upgrade in weapons led to the ports being too small, he said. However, the inspector general said it found that Wackenhut first ordered the upgraded weapon sights in December 2003, almost a year before Wackenhut provided the outdated specifications to BWXT. We concluded, based on the timing of the available information, that Wackenhut had the opportunity to provide the correct sizing specifications to BWXT prior to construction, but that it failed to do, Friedman wrote. Still, NNSAs Kane said there was no basis for the contractor to reimburse the government since the government benefited from the changes made once the weapons ports were widened. Y-12 Plant: http://www.y12.doe.gov DOE Inspector General: http://www.ig.energy.gov The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 85 KnoxNews: Nuclear Fuel workers vote to end strike By ASSOCIATED PRESS October 16, 2006 ERWIN, Tenn. Although union employees of Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. voted to end their five-month strike, company management and labor leaders say it is unclear when workers will return to their jobs. Company spokesman Tony Treadway said management would meet this week to decide how it will respond to the union vote on Sunday to go back to work. The union said its members didn't vote, however, on the terms of a new contract. Nearly 370 union workers walked out May 15 with the expiration of a four-year contract after rejecting a six-year contract proposal that would have changed workers' retirement and health insurance plans. "The union has given the company an unconditional offer to return to work, effective immediately," James Carvin, a representative for United Steelworkers, said following the vote Sunday. Picket lines were dismantled immediately after the vote, according to a news release from the union on Monday. Nuclear Fuel Services, located about 15 miles south of Johnson City, makes fuel for the U.S. Navy and converts highly enriched uranium into fuel used at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama. NFS hired replacement workers and implemented a new contract in September. The company inserted new language into the contract during negotiations on Thursday and Friday intended to alleviate union concerns "regarding erosion of the work force," NFS spokesman Scott Emerine said Friday. Carvin wouldn't elaborate on the details of the union vote. Labor leaders have said the company acted illegally by imposing the contract and that the union would not let the membership cast a ballot on an unacceptable contract proposal. "Our expectations were that they would vote to ratify the contract (Sunday), and we were surprised with their vote in an effort to come back to work without full ratification of the contract," Treadway said. Treadway said the company could lock out employees until they vote on the new contract or allow them to return under the terms of the new contract and continue to negotiate. The result of Sunday's vote is uncertain for employees who have been standing on the picket line. "The company management will meet (Monday), and they'll put a plan in action, and we'll sit down over the week and put that together," Carvin said. ___ On the Net: Nuclear Fuel Services Web site: Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 86 KnoxNews: Report: Poor security at Y-12, ORNL Officials deny claim that OR facilities are at high terrorism risk By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com October 16, 2006 OAK RIDGE - If terrorists were to gain access to nuclear materials stored at vulnerable Oak Ridge sites and detonate an improvised bomb, thousands of people would likely die, a watchdog group claims in a new report. The Project On Government Oversight called for immediate upgrades in security at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to forestall a terrorist intrusion. "Currently, both Y-12 and ORNL are at high risk because their guard forces cannot meet the required security strategy that would deny a terrorist access to the fissile materials stored at these sites," the Washington-based group said in its report. Oak Ridge officials strongly disputed the conclusions. "There are better odds that an asteroid would hit Oak Ridge than the likelihood that terrorists would have the access and time to build and detonate an IND (improvised nuclear device)," Y-12 spokesman Steven Wyatt said in response to questions. "POGO's views are not shared by those who understand security," said Billy Stair, ORNL's communications chief. A six-week audit last winter by 60 members of the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight "verified a high level of proficiency for ORNL security," Stair said. The report, which was embargoed for release today, called ORNL "the most poorly protected site in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex" and said Y-12 had been granted special waivers in order to meet security standards. POGO said tests have shown that terrorists could quickly overcome Oak Ridge security to gain access to bomb-making materials and that the result would be an "unmitigated disaster" in East Tennessee. "Unfortunately, creating an IND is extraordinarily simple," the report states. The watchdog group compiled and summarized information from a number of government documents, some dating back to the mid-1990s, and vulnerability reports by security analysts. The new report hammers on many of the same issues identified previously by POGO investigators and other critics. The latest document, however, details the potential consequences if terrorists acquired materials needed to make an atomic bomb. According to the report, the Natural Resource Defense Council calculated what would happen if a 10-kiloton nuclear explosion - similar to the A-bomb blast at Hiroshima in World War II - occurred in Oak Ridge. The scenario is based on the location of a uranium storage facility at Y-12. The report states that the nuclear blast would "immediately" kill all 13,000 workers at Y-12 and ORNL, with total fatalities in the area reaching 18,000. The number of "casualties," including those with radiation sickness, would be about 60,000, the report states. "The calculation assumed that the explosion was caused by a fission reaction, and was at ground level at Y-12 on a clear November day with winds blowing eastward at four meters per second," a footnote in the report states. "In this scenario, the most intensely radioactive zone in the fallout plume is calculated to extend no more than 10 miles from the explosion site." Y-12 is known as the "Fort Knox of Uranium" because it is the nation's principal storehouse for weapons-grade U-235. The amount of the inventory is classified, but POGO estimates that there is enough uranium at Y-12 for 14,000 warheads. Because of security waivers from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Y-12 has not hired as many guards as needed to protect the plant's nuclear assets, the report states. POGO said Y-12's protective force (estimated at about 525) is about 300 short of federal requirements in the Design Basis Threat, which is based on the latest intelligence on terrorist threats. If nothing changes, the plant will be at "high risk" for at least the next seven years, until construction of hardened facilities for uranium storage and processing is completed, the group said. Among the report's recommendations is that Y-12 immediately increase the number of guards and provide them with added firepower to combat terrorists. The report focuses on Y-12 weaknesses, but POGO suggests that the situation at ORNL is equally worrisome. ORNL has a large inventory of uranium-233, which also is a strategic nuclear material that could be used to make an atomic weapon. POGO said the laboratory has not had an approved security plan since 1997. "Given the danger of uranium-233, it is extraordinary that the ORNL does not have the security systems required for housing weapons-grade materials," the report states, citing problems with Building 3019. Stair said ORNL invests more resources in security than any of DOE's science laboratories. The investment has "increased dramatically" during the last two years, he said. POGO reiterated concerns from a year ago when the group's senior investigator, Peter Stockton, and another security analyst visited ORNL and made an unauthorized side trip to 3019, where the U-233 is stored. "If the investigators had intended to do harm, they could have quickly detonated a device to blow up the building," the new report states. ORNL said that allegation is more fantasy than fact. "POGO's story about 3019 would be good if only it was true," Stair said. "Videos clearly show that the building they went to was actually a museum." The new report states that the Oak Ridge lab is "missing fundamental aspects of a basic security system," such as a double-fence line with sensors and cameras between them; an adequate number of guards; and an on-site security team with SWAT capabilities. The report emphasizes the group's long-standing concerns about the design plans for Y-12's new storage facility for highly enriched uranium. The government and its contractor, BWXT Y-12, opted for an above-ground facility, which POGO said is more expensive and difficult to defend. Construction of the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility is about 35 percent complete, and it's too late to put it underground, but POGO urges the government to add an earthen berm to pad the protection. The group also wants an earthen cover on a proposed $1 billion warhead-manufacturing center, called the Uranium Processing Facility. Wyatt said federal officials at Y-12 have not had a chance to extensively review POGO's report, "but it appears basically to be a rehash of old press releases that are obsolete and irrelevant." He said the plant's security posture has improved significantly since Sept. 11, 2001. "If a terrorist group were able to survive the initial response and enter a building containing enriched uranium, our well-trained and equipped security forces have the strategies and capability to recover control before the terrorists could act (to assemble and detonate a bomb)," Wyatt said. Y-12 officials acknowledged that the plant is operating under an "extension" of the Design Basis Threat requirements issued in 2003 in order to focus on longer-term projects. The government, therefore, avoided "wasting a great deal on money on quick fixes that were only effective for an interim term," Wyatt said. To compensate for the waiver on security requirements, Y-12 took other measures, such as consolidating nuclear materials, adding technologies and improved weapons, hiring more guards, and making physical upgrades at the plant, the spokesman said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************