***************************************************************** 01/18/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.14 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: High-Level Iran Delegation Visits NKorea 2 Guardian Unlimited: ElBaradei Frets Over Sanctions on Iran 3 BBC: Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' 4 BBC: Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq 5 Reuters: U.S. officials say rumor of Iran strike not true 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns It's Ready for Nuke Standoff 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI diplomats to be freed soon 8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Majlis to pass nuclear law soon - MP 9 AFP: Iran angered by new UN chief's nuclear talk - 10 AFP: Ahmadinejad slams domestic nuclear critics 11 AFP: IAEA suspends some technical aid to Iran 12 AFP: Sanctions could escalate Iran standoff - UN's ElBaradei - 13 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Iran May Start Enrichment 14 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Resists Seeking Talks With Iran 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Hears Encouragement From Mideast 16 [NYTr] Sanctions and War on the Korean Peninsula 17 AFP: US-NKorea talks conclude in Berlin - 18 Korea Herald: N.K., U.S. talk nukes in Berlin 19 Korea Times: Hill Visits Seoul to Tune Nuke Talks 20 AFP: Ex-US defense chief suggests military action against North Kore 21 US: [NYTr] Pick Your Armageddon: Climate Change, or Nuclear War? 22 [NYTr] Doomsday Clock Moves 2 Minutes Closer to Midnight 23 US: The NewStandard: Feds Biased Against Green Plan for Nuke Weapons 24 [NYTr] "Wiped Off the Map" - The Canard of the Century 25 RIA Novosti: General Gareyev: Russia changing its military doctrine 26 Xinhua: Chinese apathetic about environmental protection NUCLEAR REACTORS 27 US: [NukeNet] Monticello accident prompts alert to other nuclear 28 US: IPS-English JAPAN: Powering Ahead on Nuclear Technology 29 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Draft Environmental Impact R 30 US: sacbee.com: Nuclear power gets PG ally - 31 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear power vs. global warming 32 HindustanTimes.com: N-cooperation high on agenda 33 US: Indybay: The Economics of Building a Nuclear Power Plant in Fres 34 US: NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission 35 US: The NewStandard: Environmentalists Want Nukes Out of Climate Cha 36 US: newsobserver.com: N.C.'s greener energy future 37 IHT: South Africa experiences massive power failures - 38 US: sacbee.com: PG chairman calls for 'national conversation' on nuc 39 CBC News: Public input on nuclear power first - minister 40 Telugu Portal: Read fine print of n-deal, caution experts - 41 US: BFP: Vermont Yankee alerted to check for potential safety proble 42 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 43 IHT: Swedish nuclear reactor restarts after 5 months of repairs - 44 US: TomPaine.com: Funding An Energy Alternative 45 US: Federal Times: Nuclear Regulatory Commission struggles with staf 46 US: Guardian Unlimited: 4 Northeast Nuclear Power Plants Warned 47 US: Morris Daily Herald: Exelon holds another info session for publi 48 US: New London Day: Energy Costs Dampen State Economy 49 AFP: Power cuts across South Africa after summer demand surges - 50 UPI: U.S. group monitors Pakistan nuke plant NUCLEAR SECURITY 51 US: AP Wire: Missing box of radioactive material found 52 US: UPI: Doomsday Clock marks five before midnight NUCLEAR SAFETY 53 [DU-WATCH] Arabic Edition of War Crimes Report published 54 US: San Bernardino County Sun: I-40 lanes shut after truck with plut 55 US: Spectrum: Divine Strake meeting tonight in St. George 56 US: Spectrum: Divine Strake hearing in Idaho 57 US: NPR : Planned 'Divine Strake' Bomb Test Incenses Locals 58 US: PE.com: Rialto to prepare backup plan on contamination NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 59 Piketon, Ohio 60 reviewjournal.com: DOE official upbeat on Yucca Mountain 61 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Containment drum with plutonium didn't ruptu 62 Independent: Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up' 63 US: NRC: Request To Amend License To Import Radioactive Waste 64 US: Roswell Daily Record: Shipment of hot waste one step closer to W 65 News & Star: Time to open up at Sellafield 66 US: Business Weekly: Nuclear waste storage issue tackled PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 67 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Radiation release, false data prompt Han 68 Tri-City Herald: 1,000 pause work at Hanford 69 ABQJOURNAL: Mock Bomb Taken From Los Alamos Scrap Yard 70 DOE: Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; Replacement Fuel Goal 71 DOE: Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium an 72 KnoxNews: Nuclear engineer/attorney named to Baker Center post 73 lamonitor.com: Last ditch plea for science funding ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: High-Level Iran Delegation Visits NKorea From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 10:46 AM SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the North's media reported, as the two hardline regimes face international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs. The Iranian Foreign Ministry delegation, led by Vice Minister Mahdi Safari, arrived in Pyongyang, the Korean Central News Agency reported in a one-sentence dispatch without giving any further details. North Korea and Iran - both labeled by President Bush as part of an ``axis of evil'' along with prewar Iraq - are under growing international pressure to give up their pursuit of nuclear programs. North Korea is believed to have sold missiles to Iran. Although North Korea's publicly acknowledged nuclear weapons program uses plutonium, Iran's is based on uranium. The North claims it has the right to nuclear weapons as a deterrence against alleged U.S. attempts to overthrow the communist regime. Pyongyang conducted its first-ever nuclear test in October. Iran insists it only wants energy, while Western powers suspect it is seeking nuclear arms. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: ElBaradei Frets Over Sanctions on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 1:01 PM By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer PARIS (AP) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Thursday he was concerned that the U.N. sanctions on Iran could escalate the standoff with Western powers over its suspected weapons program. Mohamed ElBaradei called for a resumption of negotiations. Only applying pressure, he suggested, could prompt the Islamic republic to follow the path of North Korea, which kicked out U.N. inspectors, pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003 and then conducted its first-ever nuclear test last October. ``My priority is to keep Iran inside the system,'' said the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, speaking in Paris. ``My worry right now is that each side is sticking to its guns,'' he said. ``The international community ``is saying 'sanctions or bust.' Iran is saying 'nuclear enrichment capability or bust' and we need somebody to reach out and be able to find a solution.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week in Europe that now is not the time for the United States to talk to Iran and that Iran appears unready to accept a conditional U.S. offer to join European talks over its nuclear program. On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was prepared for any possibility in the standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear activities. ``Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path,'' state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. France says it is mulling sending an envoy to Tehran for discussions that would focus on Middle East peace, Lebanon and other regional issues rather than the specific question of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But officials at the presidential palace and the Foreign Ministry insist that a decision has not been made and that Iran must first show willingness to negotiate. ElBaradei, who was to meet later Thursday with France's foreign minister, said: ``Any effort by anybody to get the Iranians and the Europeans - and the Americans in particular - engaged would be something I welcome. ``The idea that a dialogue is a reward for good behavior I disagree with,'' he said. ``You have to engage. You have to see where they are coming from, their concerns, their paranoia, their obsessions and then try to change hearts and minds. ``I don't think sanctions will resolve the issue ... sanctions in my view could lead to escalation on both sides.'' The Security Council imposed limited sanctions to punish Iran for defying a resolution demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fissile material to fuel nuclear reactors or, at purer concentrations, the core of nuclear weapons. Iran insists it only wants energy, while Western powers suspect it of seeking nuclear arms. ElBaradei said the pressure has failed to break a consensus in Iran that the oil-rich nation needs to master the complex process of uranium enrichment. Iran this week said it is moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material. He also suggested that any military strike of Iranian nuclear facilities would ultimately not thwart its ambitions. ``What we know is that Iran has the knowledge, but you cannot bomb knowledge,'' he said. ElBaradei's said three to four years of intensive inspections in Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency that he heads have not found indications of any undeclared nuclear facilities. But ``we never are able to provide 100 percent guarantees,'' he added. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 BBC: Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' Last Updated: Thursday, 18 January 2007 [Hezbollah fighters] Iran gives millions of dollars to support the Hezbollah movement Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion. Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility. But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said. The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities. In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members. But as soon as it got to the White House, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself Lawrence Wilkerson Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion. One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled. "We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself." Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now. Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon. Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank. The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons. ***************************************************************** 4 BBC: Iran condemns US 'kidnap' in Iraq Last Updated: Thursday, 18 January 2007 [Hassan Kazimi Qomi] Hassan Kazimi Qomi said the men were "kidnapped" by the US Iran has accused the US of kidnapping five of its citizens who were arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. The US has denied the men were diplomats - it says they were linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and were arming Shia fighters in Iraq. Iran's ambassador to Iraq called last week's arrests "an insult to the Iraqi people". He urged the US to prove that they were helping Iraqi militants. Hassan Kazimi Qomi denied Iran has been involved in the violence in Iraq. He said the "kidnapped" men were diplomats engaged in legitimate tasks. "These actions are against international conventions which guarantee diplomatic immunity and they are also against the framework of the agreement between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr Qomi told the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad. He denied Iran had any interest in destabilising Iraq, saying the unrest and a flood of refugees could spill over Iran's border. Diplomatic row Mr Qomi's comments follow a similar statement made to the BBC on Wednesday by one of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who condemned the arrests as an attack on Iraq's sovereignty. The five men were detained - along with one other who has now been released - at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, in the northern, Kurdish part of Iraq. Iran said the building was a consulate, but the US disagreed, saying it had no official diplomatic immunity, and nor did the men. [A US Navy jet launches from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower] This undoubtedly signals a ratcheting up of pressure on the Iranians US flexes muscles Mr Qomi said it was not the first such incident targeting Iranians in Iraq. Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials. They were later released. He said other diplomatic staff and Iranian businessmen had been detained in the past. Washington has often accused Iran, or factions within the Iranian government, of aiding Shia groups in Iraq militarily and politically. US Vice-President Dick Cheney said on Sunday that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence. President George W Bush has accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and warned that the US would make a tough response. Tehran denies the claims and has demanded to see proof. ***************************************************************** 5 Reuters: U.S. officials say rumor of Iran strike not true Thu 18 Jan 2007 10:05 AM ET WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - U.S. defense officials on Thursday said a rumored Iranian missile strike on a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf was not true. "No such event took place," said one of the officials on condition of anonymity. The bond market briefly pared losses on talk of possible military engagement between the United States and Iran, but turned back down after the Defense Department said the incident did not occur. Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran. The United States accuses Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq and charges that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian energy program. The Pentagon has increased the U.S. military presence in the Gulf in recent weeks, a move widely seen as a warning against provocative actions by Iran. © Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns It's Ready for Nuke Standoff From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 12:16 PM TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran was prepared for any possibility in the standoff with the West over its controversial nuclear activities. ``Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path,'' state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Thursday. Ahmadinejad also denounced critics of his nuclear diplomacy at home, saying that they will not affect his government's handling of the nuclear issue with the West. Conservatives and reformists have in recent weeks openly challenged Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy tactics, with many saying his provocative remarks are doing more harm than good. The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, an allegation Tehran denies. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI diplomats to be freed soon 2007/01/18 Iraq has assured Tehran that five Iranian diplomats kidnapped by American troops will be released soon, AFP quoted IRI Ambassador to Baghdad as telling reporters Thursday. "Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari assured me that he is optimistic and they will be released soon," Ambassador Hassan Kadhimi said. "IRI appreciated Iraq's honourable attitude," Khadimi aid. "The kidnapping of diplomats will not affect relations with Iraq," said Kadhimi. "This kidnapping violates Iraq's sovereignty and it is a humiliation of the Iraqi government. It will make other countries stop sending diplomats to Iraq," he added. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Majlis to pass nuclear law soon - MP 2007/01/17 A parliamentarian said on Wednesday that Majlis would pass a law on the nuclear issue in the near future so the world would know that the Islamic Republic of Iran has finally gained complete access to nuclear technology. An MP from the central Iranian city of Isfahan, Hassan Kamran, made the disclosure during his pre-agenda speech in Majlis. "The world should know that we will not give up even one iota of our nuclear right," he said. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday gave notification of a law that mandates the government to revise its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and called for its implementation. The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) on December 27, 2006 passed a double-urgency bill urging the government to accelerate IRI's peaceful nuclear activities and to revise the country's cooperation with the IAEA to meet the interests of the nation. M/D Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Iran angered by new UN chief's nuclear talk - Thursday January 18, 10:48 [Ban Ki-moon] TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has condemned remarks by the UN's new Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that its nuclear ambitions posed a threat to international security. "The remarks by Ban Ki-moon are contrary to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which emphasises the right of nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful ends," said foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini on Thursday. "We think that the positions and attitudes of the secretary general should be in line with the United Nations charter," Hosseini added, according to the ISNA news agency. Hosseini told the new secretary general, who succeeded Kofi Annan at the start of this year, to concentrate instead on the "serious dangers and threats to world peace represented by Israel's nuclear arsenal". Ban said he and US President George W. Bush agreed earlier this week that Iran's nuclear programme was "one of the serious issues which threaten peace and security of the world". He also said Iran's sensitive uranium enrichment "has very serious and wide implications for not only the Middle East but also all around the world". The UN Security Council in December imposed its first ever sanctions against Iran over its failure to suspend uranium enrichment, which Western powers fear could be used to make a nuclear weapon. However Iran insists that its nuclear drive is solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population. Ban rejected any preemptive military action on Iran by states that felt threatened by Tehran's nuclear activities, saying it "should be discussed" at the Security Council. Annan himself visited Tehran in September last year for talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Iranian nuclear programme, but failed to obtain any concessions from the Islamic republic. AFP ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Ahmadinejad slams domestic nuclear critics Thu Jan 18, 8:02 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lashed out at domestic critics of his confrontational stance in the standoff on Iran" /> 's nuclear programme, accusing them of "repeating the ememies' slogans". "Unfortunately, certain people at home are falsifying information in a bid to tarnish the great pride of the Iranian people," state television quoted the president as saying in a speech Thursday. "They favour compromise and repeat the slogans of the enemies, but this will have no effect," he added. While political factions and the press remain strongly in favour of Iran's right to a nuclear programme, criticism has mounted in recent weeks even among conservatives over the president's fiery handling of the issue. Two conservative newspapers, Jomhuri Eslami and Hamshahri, published editorials lambasting Ahmadinejad for commenting on the nuclear issue during speeches in provincial towns. The president has also been the subject of criticism by conservative MPs for his government's handling of the economy and the timing of a recent trip to Latin America. Ahmadinejad also said on Thursday the UN Security Council's decision to impose sanctions would not stop Tehran pressing ahead with its nuclear programme, saying Iran had now become a "nuclear" country. "Today, Iran has become nuclear and the actions and the propaganda of the enemies will not affect the determination of the people," he said. "The question of sanctions is something that goes back 30 years. The (sanctions) resolution, which aims to stop the Iranian nuclear programme, has the objective of weakening the will of the people but they will not succeed." "Thanks to God, we have conquered even more difficult summits and we are ready to face all eventualities." The UN Security Council's sanctions were imposed over Iran's failure to suspend uranium enrichment, which Western powers fear could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Iran insists that its nuclear drive is solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: IAEA suspends some technical aid to Iran by Jean-Michel Stoullig Thu Jan 18, 3:02 PM ET VIENNA (AFP) - The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyhas halted some of its technical aid to Iran" /> Iranfollowing the United Nations" /> United Nations' sanctions against Tehran's nuclear programme, the chairman of the agency's board of governors said. "The (IAEA) secretariat has put on hold, suspended, some projects which are prima facie under the sanctions" imposed in December by the UN Security Council, Slovenian ambassador Ernest Petric, who this year heads the agency's 35-member board of governors, told AFP. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will submit a report on technical cooperation with Iran "at the beginning of February", before handing in a comprehensive report, requested by the Security Council, on Tehran's uranium enrichment, Petric and other diplomatic sources said in Vienna. The Security Council passed a resolution on December 23 imposing sanctions on Iran following Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Highly-enriched uranium can be used to build an atom bomb and the West fears that Tehran could use its civilian programme to acquire a nuclear weapon. ElBaradei sent a letter on December 27 to the Slovenian chairman of the IAEA board to say his secretariat "will evaluate all IAEA technical cooperation projects for Iran in light of resolution 1737 and will prepare a report including a list of the projects which could, in the Secretariat's judgement, continue to be implemented." The number of projects to be suspended was not stated but they involve cooperation measures, including regional cooperation, that could have military implications, diplomatic sources said. The Security Council directed all states in its December 23 resolution "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs." No extraordinary reunion is expected ahead of the board of governors' regular meeting on March 5, where they will discuss technical cooperation among other issues, Petric said. At this time, the board's members will examine the list of technical cooperation projects and decide which of them should be put on hold, he added. "Neither I nor any board members wants to meddle at this point in the secretariat's work," he said, adding that some projects will be suspended, but others such as humanitarian or water projects may be continued. In November 2006, the IAEA rejected Tehran's request for technical help in building a heavy-water reactor in Arak that the West fears could provide weapons grade material. But Iran has said it is determined to maintain its nuclear programme and announced Monday that it was aiming to install at least 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium at a key nuclear plant in defiance of Western warnings to freeze the sensitive activity. IAEA inspections are however still underway at the Natanz enrichment plant, a diplomat close to the agency said. Another added that to start 3,000 centrifuges could take months and the machines seemed to be "relatively primitive." ElBaradei warned Thursday in Paris that the UN's limited sanctions against Iran -- a result of differences between the United States, the European Union" /> European Union, China and Russia -- were not a solution and could instead "lead to escalation" between Tehran and the West. He voiced support for French plans to send a special envoy to Tehran, saying he "would support any effort by any side to engage Iran into comprehensive negotiation." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Sanctions could escalate Iran standoff - UN's ElBaradei - News UK [Mohammed ElBaradei] PARIS (AFP) - The UN's nuclear chief Mohammed ElBaradei has warned that international sanctions imposed last month over Iran's atomic programme could escalate the standoff between Tehran and the West. "I don't think sanctions will resolve the issue," the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general told reporters in Paris Thursday. "I think sanctions could lead to escalation." The UN Security Council in December imposed its first ever sanctions against Iran over its failure to suspend uranium enrichment, which Western powers fear could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Asked whether he supported French plans to send a special envoy to Tehran, ElBaradei said he "would support any effort by any side to engage Iran into comprehensive negotiation." "My worry right now is that each side is sticking to its guns," ElBaradei said. "We need someone to reach out." France's foreign ministry said this week it was discussing plans to send an envoy to Tehran to discuss "regional issues" including Lebanon and Israel -- but that he "would not attempt to tackle the nuclear question." "My priority is to make sure that Iran will not go industrial (with the enrichment of uranium), that Iran will not stop inspections" by the UN's nuclear watchdog, ElBaradei said. "We need to find a way to create the conditions to restart negociations," he said, adding that "the idea that dialogue is a reward for a good behaviour is wrong for me." ElBaradei was to meet later Wednesday with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy to discuss the question of international civilian nuclear cooperation. Iran insists that its nuclear drive is solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats: Iran May Start Enrichment From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 11:16 PM AP Photo ANK109 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran is ready to start assembling thousands of centrifuges to produce enriched uranium - a possible pathway to nuclear arms - after finishing most preliminary work on an underground facility housing such machines, a diplomat and a U.N. official said Thursday. The two - who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss confidential information - said much, but not all, of the hardware needed for the installation of the centrifuges was now in place at the Natanz facility designated to house Tehran's industrial-scale enrichment program. Both men emphasized that the facility had been ready for some time, and there was no sign that actual work on putting in the centrifuges would begin at any particular date. Still, there has been speculation that the hardline leadership might start doing so next month, to celebrate the 28th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that brought the clerical leadership to power. The revelations - based on reports by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency visiting Natanz this week - appeared to strengthen claims from Tehran that it is moving toward large-scale enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material. Low-enriched uranium can be used to generate power, while highly enriched levels serve as the fissile core of nuclear warheads ``We are moving toward the production of nuclear fuel, which requires 3,000 centrifuges and more than this figure,'' government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told reporters Monday. ``This program is being carried out and moving toward completion.'' Iran's leaders have suggested those machines would be in place by March 20, the end of the Iranian year. But the diplomat and official said quick completion of such a large-scale project was unlikely, saying the complicated process takes months. The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran denies this, saying its program is only for generating electricity. The IAEA has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, but it has criticized the country for concealing certain nuclear activities, conducting experiments that seem to have no peaceful nuclear applications and failing to answer questions about the program. Iran plans to ultimately expand its enrichment program to 54,000 centrifuges. That would give it the capacity to produce dozens of nuclear warheads a year, if it chose to develop weapons. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Resists Seeking Talks With Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 6:46 AM AP Photo ZBER104 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer BERLIN (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says now is not the time for the United States to talk to adversary Iran and that the United States is not trying to escalate a confrontation over Iraq. The top U.S. diplomat, in Europe to debrief German and British leaders on Mideast peacemaking efforts, said Iran is apparently not ready to accept a conditional U.S. offer to join European talks over its nuclear program. Rice was meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on Thursday before diplomatic sessions in London. ``For reasons that perhaps the Iranians understand, they've been unable to take up that offer because they refuse to do what the international community insists that they do,'' Rice said Wednesday, a reference to a United Nations demand that Iran roll back nuclear activities. Until the Iranians comply, ``this is not the time to break a long-standing American policy of not engaging with the Iranians bilaterally,'' Rice said during a press conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Allies in Europe and elsewhere, numerous lawmakers and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all urged President Bush to engage Iran and Syria in hopes those nations could help curb violence in neighboring Iraq. The administration refuses, saying both nations would demand too high a price. The United States is building up its troops in the region in what appears to be a message to Iran. Last week, U.S. troops captured six Iranians working at a liaison office in the northern city of Irbil. One of the six was released; the rest were said to be connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. ``The United States is not escalating this in Iraq,'' Rice said. ``We are simply responding to the fact that there are Iranian efforts to assist those who are building explosive devices that are dangerous to our forces.'' Continuing an intensified push to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace, Rice said both sides will need international help to bridge ``difficult moments.'' ``Undoubtedly they will reach difficult moments, they will reach times when things are not moving forward,'' Rice said in announcing that U.S., German and other diplomats will convene a Mideast strategy session early next month in Washington. The meeting of the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations will come before a U.S.-backed summit in the Mideast among Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas. Rice came to the German capital after five days in the Mideast spent pushing a renewed Mideast peace process and seeking support for Bush's new Iraq plan. In Jerusalem and the West Bank, Rice won agreement for a three-way meeting she said would help build confidence after years of fighting. Rice was careful to repeat that that session does not supplant a dormant 2003 peace plan, although it skips past difficult requirements the plan makes of each side. The group gathering in Washington represents would-be administrators of the plan, which Israelis and Palestinians have endorsed but never put in force. The group has become something of a Greek chorus as the mood between Israel and the Palestinians generally soured over the past three years and as Abbas struggles for internal control against Palestinian Hamas radicals. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Hears Encouragement From Mideast From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday January 18, 2007 9:46 AM AP Photo ZBER104 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer BERLIN (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she heard strong encouragement from Israeli and Palestinian leaders and their neighbors for quick progress toward a Middle East peace agreement. Before a session in which Rice was to update German leaders on her recent trip to the Middle East, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Europe and others are eager to help. ``There is no doubt there could be a very important effect on the entire region if we are able to make progress on Middle East peace,'' Rice said. ``I did find the parties very desirous of making progress,'' she added. ``I believe the whole region is looking for ways to make progress and drive toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.'' At the start of her Berlin visit Wednesday, Rice said now is not the time for the United States to talk to adversary Iran and that the Bush administration is not trying to escalate a confrontation over Iraq. The top U.S. diplomat is in Europe to bring German and British leaders up to date on Mideast peacemaking efforts. She was seeing British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett later Thursday. Germany holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, making it a party to an international group dedicated to guiding Israel and the Palestinians through a three-year program to set up an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. ``The impression we have gained of late is that indeed movement is noticeable,'' Merkel said. ``We are ready to make a political contribution and we are very interested in seeing the conflict settled,'' she said. On Thursday, Rice said that Iran is apparently not ready to accept a conditional U.S. offer to join European talks over its nuclear program. ``For reasons that perhaps the Iranians understand, they've been unable to take up that offer because they refuse to do what the international community insists that they do,'' Rice said Wednesday, a reference to a United Nations demand that Iran roll back nuclear activities. Until the Iranians comply, ``this is not the time to break a long-standing American policy of not engaging with the Iranians bilaterally,'' Rice said during a press conference with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Allies in Europe and elsewhere, numerous lawmakers and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all urged President Bush to engage Iran and Syria in hopes those nations could help curb violence in neighboring Iraq. The administration refuses, saying both nations would demand too high a price. The United States is building up its troops in the region in what appears to be a message to Iran. Last week, U.S. troops captured six Iranians working at a liaison office in the northern city of Irbil. One of the six was released; the rest were said to be connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. ``The United States is not escalating this in Iraq,'' Rice said. ``We are simply responding to the fact that there are Iranian efforts to assist those who are building explosive devices that are dangerous to our forces.'' Continuing an intensified push to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace, Rice said both sides will need international help to bridge ``difficult moments.'' ``Undoubtedly they will reach difficult moments, they will reach times when things are not moving forward,'' Rice said in announcing that U.S., German and other diplomats will convene a Mideast strategy session early next month in Washington. The meeting of the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations will come before a U.S.-backed summit in the Mideast among Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas. Rice came to the German capital after five days in the Mideast spent pushing a renewed Mideast peace process and seeking support for Bush's new Iraq plan. In Jerusalem and the West Bank, Rice won agreement for a three-way meeting she said would help build confidence after years of fighting. Rice was careful to repeat that that session does not supplant a dormant 2003 peace plan, although it skips past difficult requirements the plan makes of each side. The group gathering in Washington represents would-be administrators of the plan, which Israelis and Palestinians have endorsed but never put in force. The group has become something of a Greek chorus as the mood between Israel and the Palestinians generally soured over the past three years and as Abbas struggles for internal control against Palestinian Hamas radicals. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 [NYTr] Sanctions and War on the Korean Peninsula Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:39:24 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Foreign Policy in Focus - Jan 17, 2007 http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3913 Sanctions and War on the Korean Peninsula by Martin Hart-Landsberg and John Feffer The risk of war on the Korean peninsula remains high, and the U.S. government is raising it higher by opening an economic front. In September 2005, one day after regional negotiations produced an agreement with the potential to defuse North Korean-U.S. tensions, the U.S. government charged North Korea with counterfeiting $100 bills. Calling this alleged North Korean effort a direct attack on U.S. sovereignty and technically an act of war, Washington imposed an ever-tightening and ever-widening web of financial restrictions on the country. This economic campaign, which broadened and intensified after Pyongyang's missile launches in July and nuclear test in October 2006, is the latest attempt to isolate and weaken the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The charges fit a pattern of actions that have so far succeeded in disrupting promising movements toward peace on the Korean peninsula. In the latest round of Six Party Talks, held in December, the restrictions proved to be the biggest obstacle in the path of reaching an agreement. Tensions generated by the restrictions are already fueling a new arms race in East Asia and raising the social costs for Koreans, especially in the North. The economic campaign, if unresolved, is likely to lead to a higher level of tensions in the coming months. Washington's economic gambit, launched in 2005 and strengthened by UN sanctions in 2006, raises questions concerning timing, threat escalation, morality, and efficacy. With no further rounds of multilateral talks currently planned, the hard-line economic approach toward North Korea has been a counterproductive detour from the more pressing issue of denuclearization and diplomatic normalization. The restrictions and sanctions have acted as too blunt a stick to push North Korea back to the negotiating table and have become instead the main stumbling block in the negotiations. Deployed as an alternative to the less palatable military approaches to regime change, the economic campaign proved counterproductive when the DPRK responded with its missile and nuclear tests. Finally, this economic approach undermines North Korean efforts at reforms and opening, the very process that many argue needs to be supported on moral, as well as strategic, grounds. Thwarted Rapprochement Motivated by the negative economic consequences of the loss of its Soviet bloc trading partners and a series of horrific storms and droughts, North Korea has been actively seeking to normalize relations with the United States for more than a decade. Such rapprochement on the economic level would involve the removal of the sanctions that Washington has maintained against Pyongyang for over fifty years (although some were partially lifted by the Clinton administration) as well as enlisting U.S. support for membership in multilateral institutions (which Washington has hitherto blocked). North Korea has discovered that only one thing will draw the United States into negotiations -- Washington's concerns over its nuclear program. Thus, the North Korean government has aggressively played its nuclear card. The 1994 Agreed Framework, which resolved the first nuclear crisis on the peninsula, represented a limited but promising start for improved relations. The DPRK promised to freeze and eventually dismantle its graphite-based nuclear program. In exchange, the U.S. government agreed to provide new, less-threatening light water nuclear reactors, end its economic embargo, and normalize relations. Sadly, the U.S. never completely fulfilled its commitments. Confident that economic problems would lead to the collapse of the North Korean government, the Clinton administration made little effort to overcome opposition from a hostile Congress to pursue normalization or even ensure the timely construction of the new reactors. While Pyongyang seemed more committed to the agreement, it, too, threw obstacles in the way of completing the reactors and, possibly, explored an alternative nuclear program. Still, thanks in part to South Korean efforts -- in particular the historic meeting between South Korean president Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in June 2000, which was followed four months later by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's visit to Pyongyang -- a real improvement in U.S.-DPRK relations seemed possible. The current U.S. administration, however, actively undermined these promising developments. Even before taking office, George W. Bush announced his opposition to the Agreed Framework. In 2001, upon assuming the presidency, he publicly criticized Kim Dae-Jung for his efforts at reconciliation and declared his determination to topple the DPRK government. In his January 2002 State of the Union address, Bush declared North Korea a member of an "axis of evil." In October 2002, ratcheting up its regime-change strategy, Washington accused the North of pursuing nuclear weapons using a secret highly enriched uranium (HEU) program in violation of the Agreed Framework. The North has denied this accusation, and the United States has yet to produce evidence that satisfies other governments in the region. Even if such a HEU program does exist, it is likely to have been at a rudimentary level, nowhere near the actual production capabilities of the North's plutonium facilities. Nevertheless, the HEU charge served as the excuse for the Bush administration to formally end its participation in the Agreed Framework that it deemed was helping sustain the North's regime. In response to this U.S. decision, the North withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and unfroze its nuclear program. Fearing the consequences of this steady escalation of tensions, the Chinese government pushed vigorously to play a mediating role by hosting Six Party Talks that began in August 2003 and involved the PRC, South Korea, North Korea, the United States, Japan, and Russia. Yet, the talks were stymied by U.S. refusal to engage in extensive, direct negotiations with North Korea. Only when the Chinese threatened to publicly blame the United States for the failure of diplomacy was an agreement finally signed in September 2005. This September 19 agreement called for a step-by-step process in which the North would freeze and abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for U.S. provision of a proliferation-resistant reactor and normalization. It is this process that died a quick death with the U.S. designation of a bank in the Chinese port city of Macao as a "primary money-laundering concern." Restrictions and Negotiations In September 2005, the Treasury Department designated Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macao as a suspected conduit for counterfeit $100 bills, so-called "super notes" that North Korea was allegedly producing. In response, the Macao bank froze North Korea's accounts. The timing was suspect. U.S. concerns over counterfeit bills date back to 1989. For many years, in fact, U.S. government officials thought Iran was behind the counterfeiting and some experts doubt North Korea's capacity to print such super notes. Again, like the suspected HEU program, the threat paled in comparison to the larger risks of nuclear proliferation. According to the U.S. Treasury, the total value of identified counterfeit notes is $50 million. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department encouraged other countries to follow the U.S. lead and freeze bank accounts that North Korea maintains overseas, a de facto attempt to cut off monetary flows in and out of the country. As Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey put it, "the U.S. continues to encourage financial institutions to carefully assess the risk of holding any North Korea-related accounts." Levey further argued that it was impossible to distinguish between North Korea's licit and illicit transactions, which threw all of North Korea's economic interactions with the outside world under suspicion. Although it is unclear how many countries have adopted such restrictions on Pyongyang's financial transactions, Tokyo is leading the pack by limiting economic transactions with Pyongyang and prohibiting North Korean ships from entering its ports. China, too, placed restrictions on its banks doing business with North Korea. There is little evidence so far that the financial restrictions have affected North Korea's overall economic transactions with outsiders. However, the $24 million frozen in BDA has clearly become the main stumbling block in efforts to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula and improve relations between the United States and DPRK. Pyongyang is refusing to proceed with the September 19 agreement because it views the measures - termed "designations" by Washington because they apply to a bank and not a country and considered "sanctions" by Pyongyang because of their overall impact -- to run counter to one of the key bargains struck. In that agreement, Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," in return for Washington's agreement that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations." In Pyongyang's eyes, the financial sanctions infringe upon its sovereign right to engage in legal transactions, raise doubts about Washington's will to peacefully coexist, and represent steps away from normalizing relations. U.S. financial auditors have reportedly been analyzing the records seized from BDA for over a year without making a formal charge. Bilateral discussions between Treasury Department officials and North Korea negotiators that took place in parallel with the December round of Six Party Talks also did not yield any breakthroughs. Some commentators have suggested that the Treasury Department release those BDA accounts not involved in illegal counterfeit activities. The North Koreans have offered to collaborate with American authorities to allay American concerns. The Bush administration's silence in the face of these proposals adds to the perception that it remains opposed to meaningful negotiations with Pyongyang. Its refusal to respond has indeed given Pyongyang the motivation to forge ahead with its nuclear production. Sanctions and War After North Korea's missile tests in July and nuclear test in October, the United States and Japan pushed through UN resolutions that condemned Pyongyang's acts and called for explicit economic sanctions. The July resolution focused on limiting North Korea's ballistic missile program. The more far-reaching October resolution attempts to shut down all DPRK transactions connected to the production and distribution of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The most politically challenging of the sanctions applies to the regulation of trade in and out of North Korea involving some aspect of WMD. The main instrument for implementing this trade embargo - primarily the inspection of North Korean cargo -- is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). First announced by President Bush in 2003, the PSI is touted as a key instrument of counter-proliferation. The initiative supports the use of military means, under euphemisms such as "interdiction" and "active defense," to stop countries from developing or proliferating nuclear weapons and materials. This reliance on military means derives from the 2002 "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" that stipulates the United States must have the capabilities, including "preemptive measures," to "prevent the movement of WMD" and "to detect and destroy an adversary's WMD assets before these weapons are used." The PSI has grown in membership and operational scope. Some member countries have already staged military exercises to simulate the use of military ships to stop, board, and seize boats suspected of carrying WMD in the high seas. This proposed use of military force troubles many international legal scholars who view it as a violation of the freedom of movement in the high seas as institutionalized by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If applied to North Korean ships, furthermore, the PSI runs the risk of triggering a military confrontation. Pyongyang has asserted that it would consider such an implementation of sanctions an act of war, which is consistent with the consensus view of international law. Acknowledging the dangers, Seoul and Beijing have so far refused to join the PSI. Sanctions and Morality Those who call for sanctions claim the high moral ground, arguing that North Korea has defied international norms concerning nuclear weapons by exiting the NPT in 2003 and moving quickly toward a nuclear test. It also stands accused of counterfeiting U.S. currency, selling large quantities of narcotics, and laundering the profits from various illicit activities through various financial institutions. And Pyongyang's human rights record, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Special Rapporteur Vitit Muntabhorn among others, is dismal. Civil society organizations point to Burma and South Africa as comparable cases where sanctions have had moral appeal. Despite some similarities, however, the internal situation in North Korea differs substantially from that in Burma and apartheid South Africa. Most importantly, no domestic group within North Korea supports sanctions, as did the African National Congress in South Africa and the National League for Democracy in Burma, both of which saw the sanctions as strengthening their respective domestic struggles for democratic transformation. As a result, should sanctions indeed lead to regime change in North Korea, no viable domestic movement waits in the wings to provide a new policy direction. The institution most likely to take over in a situation of chaos, the military, is unlikely to have a different approach to the nuclear or human rights issue. South Korea, meanwhile, has rejected the "absorption" scenario, in part because of consideration of cost, in part to facilitate a more humane and stable inter-Korean reconciliation. Washington's own behavior in recent years also undercuts the arguments that sanctions are the appropriate response after repeated failures to achieve a negotiated settlement to the current crisis. For the last six years at least, Washington has refused to pursue the most obvious and likely productive option--sustained direct negotiations with Pyongyang. Furthermore, Washington's insistence on maintaining the "first-strike" option and developing new nuclear weapons, in particular, has not only undercut its moral standing but also given Pyongyang an additional rationale for its own nuclear program. And, perhaps most critically, because of the increased risk of war in and around the Korean peninsula, the sanctions are not only a blunt instrument but possibly a very dangerous one as well. While North Korea's human rights record is deplorable, a war on the Korean peninsula, which would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Koreans in the first months of conflict, would be a human rights disaster of much greater magnitude. Will They Work? A final consideration is the efficacy of the sanctions. Here, too, sanctions fail the test. North Korea has its own indigenous capacity to produce nuclear weapons and missiles, so cordoning off the country will not necessarily eliminate these programs. Nor do the sanctions have consistent buy-in. China, in particular, is reluctant to police its border to such a degree to prevent the flow of proscribed goods. South Korea is not willing to interdict North Korean ships. The United States, meanwhile, has claimed that the October UN sanctions applied to all alleged activities that finance WMD production, including money-laundering, counterfeiting, and drug trafficking, a position that is neither consistent with the language of the resolution nor universally accepted by the signatories. Equally problematic is the fact that the sanctions are all-or-nothing. They offer North Korea no incentives to commit to the negotiating process or comply with the requirements set out by the resolutions. As sanctions experts David Cortright writes, "Sanctions are most effective when combined with incentives, as part of a carrot-and-stick diplomacy designed to resolve conflict and bring about a negotiated solution." In short, sanctions are unlikely to succeed in either forcing North Korea to accept an agreement it opposes or collapsing the regime. In fact, in the case of North Korea, economist Ruediger Frank concludes that economic sanctions are not only costly for the participants, they also challenge the very processes of economic reform and democratization that the sanctioning countries presumably want to encourage. How to Proceed Although they enjoy some measure of support from the international community, the sanctions levied against North Korea only add fuel to the fire. Moreover, they fit a disturbing pattern of Washington's non-diplomacy toward Pyongyang. The economic campaign begun in 2005 pushed North Korea toward accelerating its nuclear program. The more recent sanctions, if implemented with naval interdiction, increase the risk of war. Clearly a change in U.S. policy is needed. More specifically, the United States should first work with China and North Korea to separate out licit from illicit financial activities so that BDA can unfreeze the North Korean assets that support its legitimate practices. Next, the U.S. should directly confer with North Korea on how best to ensure financial transparency in the latter's financial activity. To tackle the more recent UN sanctions, both sides must be willing to make concessions according to an "action for action" sequence that can remove the immediate threat that naval interdiction poses for sparking a military conflict. Finally, mindful of the priority of averting war in and around Korea and satisfying the legitimate security needs of both North Korea and the United States, Washington must be willing to suspend its economic campaign against, and commit to direct bilateral talks with, North Korea, with the aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and normalizing relations. Normalization is not a reward. Rather, it is the framework within which the United States and North Korea can best deal with their outstanding concerns. In sum, the Bush administration and the new Democratic Congress can, and must, take clear, preventive steps to ensure that Northeast Asia doesn't descend into the kind of violence that continues to convulse the Middle East. [FPIF contributor Martin Hart-Landsberg is a professor of economics and the director of the political economy program at Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon. John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the International Relations Center. Both are members of the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea (www.asck.org).] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: US-NKorea talks conclude in Berlin - January 19, 03:28 AM BERLIN (AFP) - The US envoy to six-way talks on North Korea's nuclear arms has met for the third time in three days with his Pyongyang counterpart in hopes of resuming full-scale negotiations later this month, a US embassy spokeswoman said. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill spoke with North Korean negotiator Kim Kye-gwan at an undisclosed location, the spokeswoman said Thursday, after six hours of talks at the US embassy in Berlin Tuesday and one to two hours of discussions at the North Korean embassy Wednesday. The talks concluded in the early afternoon but the spokeswoman could not say how long they had met or give any details on the substance of their talks. She said Thursday's meeting would be the last bilateral talks in Berlin ahead of visits to South Korea, China and Japan, who along with the United States and Russia are involved in the six-party negotiations with North Korea. "Ambassador Hill will be leaving today for Seoul and then onward to Beijing and Tokyo and then back to (Washington) DC," the spokeswoman said. Hill was upbeat early Wednesday about his first meeting with the North Korean. "When you have six hours of conversations and you're going to have some more... certainly you can characterize them as useful discussions," Hill said. The six-party talks aimed at convincing North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program were suspended in late 2005 after North Korea walked out in protest at US financial sanctions imposed on a Macau bank accused of illicit dealings on behalf of Pyongyang. The talks resumed in December last year -- after North Korea carried out its first nuclear test explosion on October 9 -- but ended in deadlock as Pyongyang insisted the financial sanctions be lifted before it would discuss nuclear disarmament. For Washington and its partners, the talks focus on implementation of a September 2005 agreement-in-principle under which North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for security guarantees and aid. In a concession to Pyongyang, the United States agreed to hold parallel discussions on the financial sanctions issue. A first round of those talks took place on the sidelines of the last six-party negotiations in Beijing in late December. Copyright © 2007 AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Korea Herald: N.K., U.S. talk nukes in Berlin Top nuclear negotiators from the United States and North Korea continued with a rare and exclusive meeting in Berlin yesterday to discuss the denuclearization of the communist regime. Christopher Hill of the United States and Kim Kye-gwan of North Korea met in Germany's capital without the presence of China, which is hosting the six-party talks and often arranged meetings between the two hostile players. After ending the first day of talks early Wednesday Korean time, Hill said he had a useful discussion and that he hoped to see the multilateral talks resume this month. North Korea suggested meeting bilaterally with the United States early this month, according to sources. Berlin, where Hill was scheduled to deliver a speech, is considered an appropriate location because of its convenience and significance, they said. There was no breakthrough in the first direct talks in Europe between the two but officials said the lengthy meeting at the U.S. Embassy set the pace for a resumption of the six-party talks. "I don't think that there is any particular conclusion from them to share with you, but the goal here ... is to ensure that we are appropriately setting up and laying the groundwork for the next round of talks," Tom Casey, deputy State Department spokesman, told reporters. He said "It was a good exchange of views that certainly was conducted in a positive atmosphere." South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said he expected the Berlin rendezvous between Hill and Kim to develop a basis on which the members can work out the first stage of denuclearization measures. The Berlin meeting is believed to be the first time Washington held direct talks with North Korea under President George W. Bush's administration, which had so far confined the meetings to Beijing and New York. While sources said they are imminent, no date has been fixed for the next round of six-party talks that gather the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. Calling the Berlin meeting an "intercessional meeting," Song Min-soon said that North Korea appears to have come to Berlin with a response to the proposal presented by the United States at the last round of talks. During the Clinton administration, the United States and North Korea held landmark talks in Berlin in 1999 that ultimately led to the lifting of half-century old trade, travel and banking restrictions against North Korea after it agreed to a moratorium on missile tests in 1999. The Berlin meeting on Tuesday came ahead of Hill's visits, beginning Friday to South Korea, China and Japan to continue consultations with key partners in the six-party talks on how to make progress in the next round of negotiations. China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States met for five days in December after a year-long break, but no progress was made toward dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The six-party negotiations were suspended in late 2005 after North Korea walked out in protest of U.S. financial restrictions imposed on a Macau bank accused of illicit dealings on behalf of Pyongyang. North Korea demands that the financial restrictions are lifted before any serious talk of dismantling its nuclear program begins. Financial officials of Washington and Pyongyang are set to gather for the second time since last month and discuss the Banco Delta Asia issue next week. Song Min-soon said the Berlin meeting, however, did not mean North Korea has changed its position on BDA. He said the Berlin talks were being conducted with an acknowledgement that the BDA issue is indirectly intertwined with the nuke talks. Casey said the meeting between Hill and Kim on Tuesday "focused more on some of the follow-up to some of the proposals and ideas expressed in the last round of talks." At the Beijing talks, North Korea reportedly told the United States to lift the financial restrictions while Washington demanded the communist state report all of its nuclear facilities and programs, and accept inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for economic aids. The United States was also said to have demanded that the North close its plutonium-producing nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and seal off underground nuclear facilities from where it conducted the atomic test. Song Min-soon said it was possible for the intercessional meetings to open again in the future. "It is agreed between South Korea and the United States that it is necessary to hold intercessional meetings flexibly without bothering too much about the venue in the future as well." (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee and news reports 2007.01.18 ***************************************************************** 19 Korea Times: Hill Visits Seoul to Tune Nuke Talks Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter Christopher Hill, the top U.S. negotiator to the six-party talks, will arrive in Seoul on Friday after finishing talks with his North Korean counterpart in Berlin, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Seoul said on Thursday. The Berlin talks between Hill and Kim Gye-gwan raised hopes for an early resumption of the denuclearization talks. But a date is yet to be determined, officials said. Still not clear is whether the United States intends to make some concession regarding its financial restrictions on the North for Pyongyang's alleged counterfeiting of U.S. bills and money laundering. The American envoy will also travel to Beijing on Saturday and Tokyo on Sunday presumably to arrange the opening date of the multilateral dialogue that entered a recess after a five-day gathering in Beijing in December. Seoul's top diplomat, Song Min-soon, will travel to Beijing from Jan. 25 to 27 to hold meetings with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, and other ranking officials, with whom Song is expected to discuss how to move forward with the six-party talks. The American envoy and Kim met in Berlin for the third time in three days on Thursday, the first meeting since December. Although details of the discussion were not made public, Seoul officials said Kim might have attended the Berlin meeting with an answer to proposals made by the U.S. last time. In December, Kim returned to Pyongyang after being presented with a four-page plan that is designed to ``make it possible for the North to live without nuclear weapons,'' apparently because he did not have the mandate to make a decision on his own. Hill said his meeting with Kim in Berlin was ``useful'' and expressed the hope that the six-party talks would be reconvened before the end of January. It is believed that the two officials discussed early-phase actions the North need to take for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in return for security guarantees and energy aid, as well as Pyongyang's demand that U.S. financial sanctions against it be lifted. But Tom Casey, the U.S. State Department spokesman, said the meeting in Berlin was not centered on the financial sanctions, saying the meeting was focused on ensuring that all concerned parties ``are properly prepared for the next round'' of the six-party talks. ``The question is not somehow that the United States is going to change its law or change its policy on this issue,'' he said. ``This really is a simple matter of law. I don't think the Russian government or the Chinese or Japanese or the South Korean governments think that it would be a good thing to have North Korea continuing to counterfeit currency or take other illicit financial measures.'' Recently, U.S. media reported that Washington was willing to make concessions on the U.S. financial sanctions imposed in September 2005 on a bank in Macau that had been accused of helping the North launder revenue from illicit trading of narcotics and weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. action led Banco Delta Asia to sever its relations with Pyongyang, freezing $24 million in North Korean accounts. Pyongyang interpreted it as a ``hostile'' policy of the United States to isolate the North from the international financial system. im@koreatimes.co.kr01-18-2007 21:39 ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Ex-US defense chief suggests military action against North Korea by P. Parameswaran Thu Jan 18, 6:03 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States should consider military action against North Korea" /> if China and South Korea" /> refuse to prod Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program, former US defense secretary William Perry proposed. Although the move is dangerous, there is no alternative left if China and South Korea, the two key economic lifelines to North Korea, do not join any US-led "diplomatic coercive" action against Pyongyang, he told a Congressional hearing. Perry, the Pentagon" /> chief under former president Bill Clinton" /> , said the United States should consider destroying a large reactor under construction in North Korea capable of making about 10 nuclear bombs a year. In addition to the Yongbyon reactor, which produces spent fuel that can be "reprocessed" to yield plutonium for a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang is reportedly building a large reactor in Taechon. Perry said that the danger of the North Korean nuclear weapons program was by now obvious to China and South Korea and that they should be willing to join the United States in any concerted diplomatic initiative. "An additional inducement for China and South Korea would be the concern that if they did not provide the coercion, the United States might take the only meaningful coercive action available to it -- destroying the reactor before it could come on line," Perry said. "Clearly, this is a dangerous alternative," he said. "If China and South Korea do not agree to applying coercion, the United States may be forced to military action which, while it certainly would be successful, could lead to dangerous unintended consequences," he said. But, he said, there were no alternatives left that were not dangerous. "Allowing North Korea to move ahead with a robust program that is building 10 nuclear bombs a year could prove to be even more dangerous that exercising coercive diplomacy," he said. But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Perry was "being imprudent" when he suggested threatening bombing the North Korean nuclear facility. "The reality is that the North Korean nuclear program is a grave security threat but threatening to bomb a reactor that is not yet completed could itself trigger a deeper crisis, impede diplomacy that still has the potential to free North Korea's existing and still limited nuclear program," he said. Furthermore, Kimball said, a pre-emptive strike on any North Korean facility risked a war on the Korean peninsula that was sure to take tens of thousands of lives in South Korea and among US troops deployed there. Together with China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, the United States has been involved in three years of six-party talks with North Korea aimed at disbanding its nuclear program but to no avail. But Perry said the talks were necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. The United States, he said, should return to these talks with a "viable negotiating strategy, which includes a credible coercive element, and which included significant buy-in from the other parties. "The most feasible form of coercion could come from the Chinese and South Koreans, who could threaten to cut off their supply of grain and fuel oil if North Korea does not stop work on the large reactor," he said. But this alternative has been resisted by the two nations. North Korea agreed in principle during the six-party talks in September 2005 to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for diplomatic, financial and security guarantees. But it walked out in protest at US financial sanctions imposed on a Macau bank accused of illicit dealings on behalf of Pyongyang and carried out its first nuclear test explosion on October 9 last year. The talks resumed in December last year but ended in deadlock as Pyongyang insisted the financial sanctions be lifted before it would discuss nuclear disarmament. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 [NYTr] Pick Your Armageddon: Climate Change, or Nuclear War? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:42:35 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Independent - 18 January 2007 http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2162862.ece Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change By Steve Connor, Science Editor Climate change stands alongside the use of nuclear weapons as one of the greatest threats posed to the future of the world, the Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking has said. Professor Hawking said that we stand on the precipice of a second nuclear age and a period of exceptional climate change, both of which could destroy the planet as we know it. He was speaking at the Royal Society in London yesterday at a conference organised by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists which has decided to move the minute hand of its "Doomsday Clock" forward to five minutes to midnight to reflect the increased dangers faced by the world. Scientists devised the clock in 1947 as a way of expressing to the public the risk of nuclear conflagration following the use of the atomic weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War. "As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces," Professor Hawking said. "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. "As citizens of the world, we have a duty to share that knowledge. We have a duty, as well, to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change. "We are here today to outline the results of the Bulletin's recent deliberations and to warn the public about the deteriorating state of world and planetary affairs by moving the hand of the clock," Professor Hawking said. "Lord Rees of Ludlow, president of the Royal Society, said humankind's collective impacts on the biosphere, climate and oceans were unprecedented. These environmentally-driven threats - 'threats without enemies' - should loom as large in the political perspective as did the East-West political divide during the Cold War era. Technology in the 21st century could offer immense opportunities to everyone but it would also present new threats that were more diverse and more intractable than those posed by nuclear weapons, Lord Rees said. "To confront these threats successfully - and to avoid foreclosing humanity's long-term potential - scientists need to channel their efforts wisely and engage with the political process nationally and internationally. "We shall need, in all fields of science, individuals with the wisdom and commitment of the atomic scientists who founded the Bulletin," he said. The board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said the threat of nuclear apocalypse was now almost matched by the environmental threats posed by climate change. "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices," the board said in a statement issued yesterday. "North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed US emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth. "As in past deliberations, we have examined other human-made threats to civilisation. We have concluded the dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm." * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 22 [NYTr] Doomsday Clock Moves 2 Minutes Closer to Midnight Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:40:28 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit [See Statement of the Board following the first item.-NYTr] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Jan 18, 2007 http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/20070117.html "Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer to Midnight 18 January 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Adjusts Clock From 7 to 5 Minutes Before Midnight; " Deteriorating" Global Situation Cited on Nuclear Weapons and New Factor: Climate Change. WASHINGTON, D.C. and LONDON, ENGLAND /// January 17, 2007 /// The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. It is now 5 minutes to midnight. Reflecting global failures to solve the problems posed by nuclear weapons and the climate crisis, the decision by the BAS Board of Directors was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. BAS announced the Clock change today at an unprecedented joint news conference held at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC, and the Royal Society in London. In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the BAS Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change. In articles by 14 leading scientists and security experts writing in the January-February issue of theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org), the potential for catastrophic damage from human-made technologies is explored further. Created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted only 17 times prior to today, most recently in February 2002 after the events of 9/11. By moving the hand of the Clock closer to midnight -- the figurative end of civilization -- the BAS Board of Directors is drawing attention to the increasing dangers from the spread of nuclear weapons in a world of violent conflict, and to the catastrophic harm from climate change that is unfolding. The BAS statement explains: "We stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth." The BAS statement continues: "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival." Stephen Hawking, a BAS sponsor, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society, said: "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change." Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: "As we stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age and at the onset of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering." Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, professor of cosmology and astrophysics , master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge, and a BAS sponsor, said: "Nuclear weapons still pose the most catastrophic and immediate threat to humanity, but climate change and emerging technologies in the life sciences also have the potential to end civilization as we know it." Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, an a BAS sponsor, said: "In these dangerous times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power especially if it might provoke actions to reduce threats from the preventable technological dangers currently facing humanity. To do anything else would be negligent." Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, said: "Although our current situation is dire, we have the means today to successfully address these global problems. For example, through vigorous diplomacy and international agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, we can negotiate and implement agreements that could protect us all from the most destructive technology on Earth--nuclear weapons." Highlights of the new statement from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists include the following: * "The second nuclear era, unlike the dawn of the first nuclear age in 1945, is characterized by a world of porous national borders, rapid communications that facilitate the spread of technical knowledge, and expanded commerce in potentially dangerous dual-use technologies and materials. The Pakistan-based network that provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea, and Iran, is an example of the new challenges confronting the international community." * "Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, following substantial reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, the two major powers have now stalled in their progress toward deeper reductions in their arsenals." * "More than 1400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and approximately 500 tons of plutonium are distributed worldwide at some 140 sites, in unguarded civilian power plants and university research reactors, as well as in military facilities." * "Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. Through flooding and desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources." * "The prospect of civilian nuclear power development in countries around the world raises further concerns about the availability of nuclear materials. Growth in nuclear power is anticipated to be especially high in Asia, where Japan is planning to bring on line five new plants by 2010, and China intends to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020." * "Several factors are driving the turn to nuclear power-- aging nuclear reactors, rising energy demands, a desire to diversify energy portfolios and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and the need to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change. Yet expansion of nuclear power increases the risks of nuclear proliferation." The BAS statement also outlines a number of steps that, if taken immediately, could help to prevent disaster, including the following: * Reduce the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and completely remove nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries. * Reduce the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years, as well as greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere. * Stop production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--w hether in military or civilian facilities. * Engage in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves. ABOUT BAS AND THE CLOCK The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. In 1947 the Bulletin introduced its clock to convey the perils posed by nuclear weapons through a simple design. The Doomsday Clock evoked both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). In 1949 Bulletin leaders realized that movement of the minute hand would signal the organization's assessment of world events. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Bulletin's Doomsday Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. Additional information is available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org. CONTACT: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com. EDITORS NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org as of 6 p.m. ET and 11 p.m. in London/2300 GMT on January 17, 2007. ) 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board Statement - Bulletin of Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/weekly-highlight.html 5 Minutes to Midnight Board Statement 17 January 2007 We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed U.S. emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth. As in past deliberations, we have examined other human-made threats to civilization. We have concluded that the dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival. This deteriorating state of global affairs leads the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists--in consultation with a Board of Sponsors that includes 18 Nobel laureates--to move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" from seven to five minutes to midnight. Nuclear weapons present the most grave challenge to humanity, enabling genocide with the press of a button. In 1945, scientists warned the world about the nearly unimaginable destructive power of the atomic bombs they had created. As Eugene Rabinowitch, one of the cofounders of the Bulletin, wrote, "The Bulletin's Clock is not a gauge to register the ups and downs of the international power struggle; it is intended to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which mankind lives in the nuclear age, and will continue living, until society adjusts its basic attitudes and institutions." As inheritors and trustees of the Clock, we seek to warn the world that this level of danger has escalated precipitously. The second nuclear era, unlike the dawn of the first nuclear age in 1945, is characterized by a world of porous national borders, rapid communications that facilitate the spread of technical knowledge, and expanded commerce in potentially dangerous dual-use technologies and materials. The Pakistan-based network that provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea, and Iran is an example of the new challenges confronting the international community. The current period of globalization coincides with an erosion of the global agreements and norms that have constrained the spread of nuclear weapons since 1970 when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force. The NPT provided standards, set up protocols for inspections and regulation through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and held out a promise of disarmament by the nuclear powers in exchange for restraint by those countries that did not have nuclear weapons. Compliance has always been voluntary, and until the last five years, nearly all governments felt that their interests were served by adhering to the NPT provisions. The 2005 NPT Review Conference, however, ended in failure, without any consensus on the core issues of verification of safeguards on national nuclear programs, the peaceful use of nuclear power, and disarmament. Iran, which is a signatory state of the NPT, has violated its IAEA obligations and obstructed efforts to determine the extent of its activities. North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, followed through on its declared intention to test a nuclear weapon three years later. Although this test prompted stern global condemnation, the international community essentially acquiesced. The dominant concern was that North Korea might sell its nuclear weapons abroad. In effect, the message from the international community was "don't proliferate" rather than "don't become a nuclear power." In this regard, the North Korean test was doubly dangerous and sets an unfortunate example for other would-be nuclear powers. The five NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states have failed in their obligation to make serious strides toward disarmament--most notably, the United States and Russia, which still possess 26,000 of the 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. By far the greatest potential for calamity lies in the readiness of forces in the United States and Russia to fight an all-out nuclear war. Whether by accident or by unauthorized launch, these two countries are able to initiate major strikes in a matter of minutes. Each warhead has the potential destructive force of 8 to 40 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. In that relatively small nuclear explosion, 100,000 people were killed and a city destroyed; 50 of today's nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people. While the possibility of launching these powerful weapons may seem remote, experts in Russia and the United States are concerned about command and control systems that depend on complex electronic communications and information. Past incidents suggest that technical failures, misperception, and miscommunication happen in even the best-maintained systems. Such errors could lead to an accidental launch already programmed in the event of attack. Experts have documented four nuclear false alarms--in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 1995--where either the United States or Soviet/Russian forces were placed on the highest alert and missile launch crews were given preliminary launch warnings. Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, following substantial reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, the two major powers have now stalled in their progress toward deeper reductions in their arsenals. Equally worrisome, the United States, in its 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, declared that nuclear weapons "provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats," including chemical and biological weapons, as well as "surprising military developments." In early 2004, this new concept, which espouses the quick use of even nuclear weapons to destroy "time urgent targets," was put into operation. That the United States--a nation with unmatched superiority in conventional weapons--would place renewed emphasis on the need for nuclear weapons suggests to other nations that such arsenals are necessary to their security. In the face of the major powers' continued reliance on nuclear weapons, other nations are following suit. Since the end of the Cold War, three countries have announced the possession of nuclear weapons--India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel possesses weapons but chooses not to declare them. The director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, believes up to 30 countries have the capacity, and increasingly the motivation, to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time span. Such developments have prompted some to declare the NPT a "failure." Yet this assessment ignores the decades-long success of the treaty in stemming nuclear proliferation. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy warned of the possibility of the United States facing a world "in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations" would have nuclear weapons. In the decades following the entry into force of the NPT, only six countries have embarked on nuclear weapons programs and many others have shut down their programs, including Argentina, Brazil, Libya, and South Africa. Even at the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy worried about U.S. allies' acquisition of nuclear weapons technology. In recent years, however, the United States appears focused on denying nuclear weapons only to its adversaries, while accommodating its friends. Yet, as history demonstrates, countries that are deemed allies can quickly become adversaries. And the success of the illicit, Pakistan-based nuclear procurement network, which extended into Europe, shows how even friendly governments can fail to guard against the theft and smuggling of sensitive nuclear technology. Reducing global nuclear arsenals is a key to keeping such weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the United States and Russia have succeeded in finding, consolidating, and securing about half of Russia's nuclear bombs and fissile material in just over a decade. European countries have also pledged to aid this effort to ensure that existing nuclear materials are kept out of the hands of terrorist groups. But bureaucratic and legal disputes, as well as inadequate funding, have frequently slowed the process. The problem of unsecured fissile material is not confined to Russia, however. More than 1,400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and approximately 500 tons of plutonium are distributed worldwide at some 140 sites, in unguarded civilian power plants and university research reactors, as well as in military facilities. The first report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials in September 2006 focused on the ease with which unauthorized groups, including terrorist groups, could obtain sufficient highly enriched uranium to make nuclear or radiological bombs. The prospect of civilian nuclear power development in countries around the world raises further concerns about the availability of nuclear materials. Growth in nuclear power is anticipated to be especially high in Asia, where Japan is planning to bring on line five new plants by 2010, and China intends to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020. Over the next five years, some two-dozen nuclear power plants are scheduled to be refurbished or rebuilt worldwide, and countries as diverse as Nigeria, Poland, and Vietnam have expressed interest in nuclear energy. In November 2006, the IAEA announced that four Mideast nations--Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia--had declared their intentions to embark on nuclear energy programs. Several factors are driving the turn to nuclear power--aging nuclear reactors, rising energy demands, a desire to diversify energy portfolios and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and the need to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change. Yet expansion of nuclear power increases the risks of nuclear proliferation. Enrichment facilities that produce low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel can be easily modified to produce weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium. Moreover, spent plutonium fuel from reactors is weapons-usable after reprocessing. It does not require much nuclear material to construct a fissile weapon: 1 to 3 kilograms of plutonium or 5 to 10 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is all that is needed for a single bomb. The international community faces a dilemma: How to mitigate climate change without increasing the dangers of nuclear materials proliferation. Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. The most authoritative scientific group on these issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has concluded, "Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Carbon dioxide, principally from fossil fuel burning, has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up its surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. Observations of changes in the atmosphere, on land, in the oceans, in glaciers, and in polar ice cores have led to worldwide scientific consensus about the causes of climate change. The most distinguished scientific bodies in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have come to conclusions similar to those of the IPCC. Disruptions in climate already appear to be happening faster in some regions than earlier predicted. In some areas warming has interrupted normal patterns, allowing insects to spread into new habitats, carrying diseases and destroying flora and fauna in zones that have no evolutionary protection. Through flooding or desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. Coral reefs will disappear, forest fires will be more intense and more frequent, and heat waves and storms more damaging. In coming years, coastal cities will bear the brunt of sea-level rise, as we have already witnessed in New Orleans, compelling major shifts in human settlement patterns. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources. Indeed, a "business as usual" scenario--wherein we take no further measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--would raise the global temperature 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, causing a sea-level rise of about 80 feet. The United States would lose most of its cities on the East Coast: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami, and nearly the whole state of Florida. China would have 250 million displaced people; India, 150 million. Because climate change is a global problem, it will require global action. As China and India develop their economies, for example, they will need to find ways to reduce or neutralize their contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Currently, however, the United States is the single largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. Efforts in this one country would have disproportionately large effects on world climate. As a wealthy and technologically advanced country, the United States is well positioned to reduce its carbon emissions. Such reductions do not necessarily depend upon nuclear power as a panacea. Carbon emissions can be cut by implementing auto emissions limits, reducing subsidies for oil and coal production, supporting carbon-trading regimes, increasing taxes on gasoline, increasing energy efficiency by establishing manufacturing standards for appliances and lightbulbs, subsidizing solar and wind power development, and planting more trees, among others. Government funding and private investments are required to develop innovative technologies, such as fuel cells, biomass, and carbon sequestration. If we do not take measures in the next several years to reduce carbon emissions, the costs of disruption from climate change could be as high as 5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, according to the October 2006 report authored by British economist Nicholas Stern. By contrast, the costs of mitigating climate change could be limited to about 1 percent of global GDP each year. Turning back the Clock will depend on humanity's ability to think in new ways about how to cooperate to achieve common goals. We ask scientists, in the words of Eugene Rabinowitch, not to "retire in resignation and despair to their laboratories" but to publicly engage these issues and make their voices heard. And we implore governments to actively engage the scientific community for sound, nonpartisan technical advice. We urge immediate attention to climate change and caution those who believe nuclear energy is a problem-free solution. Finally, and most importantly, we call upon policy and opinion leaders, business and civic leaders, and the public to place the dangers of nuclear weapons at the top of their agendas for action. More specifically, major progress toward a safer world would include: * Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries; * Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years; * Greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program has provided an example of how even former adversaries can cooperate to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. Extending the principles of that program, including working side by side with other countries, establishing transparency, and initiating partnerships between government and the private sector to downblend highly enriched uranium, would be constructive; * Disavowing the development of new nuclear weapons and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). To date, the CTBT has been ratified by 137 nations, but notable holdouts include the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel; * Stopping production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities. The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be taken up by the nuclear powers as a major step toward achieving this goal; * Engaging in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. As a means of addressing the threats from climate change, nuclear power should be considered as an alternative energy source. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves. As such, any contemplation of the expansion of nuclear power must be predicated upon a thorough assessment of the technological and legislative safeguards required to curb these risks; * Providing nuclear fuel for energy production in ways that drastically reduce the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. A number of arrangements have been proposed, beginning with the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan of 1946. More recent plans have called for international consortia that would oversee the production, distribution, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials; * Implementing stricter controls over trade in and shipment of nuclear technologies and materials. Harmonizing domestic laws across countries and enforcing these uniformly, as required under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, would be a step in the right direction; * Building on the strengths and successes of the IAEA by giving more authority to the agency to monitor and inspect nuclear facilities worldwide and by providing more financial and staff resources. The agency already has shown that it can effectively dismantle nuclear weapons programs and monitor internal developments over a period of years, as it did in Iraq from 1991 to 2001. It has proven its capacity and should be rewarded and its programs expanded; * Providing meaningful international fora to spur innovative solutions that halt nuclear proliferation and provide blueprints for radical reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. The NPT Review Conferences could provide such an ongoing forum, if nuclear weapon countries would recognize the benefits of this institution for impeding the spread of lethal technologies. The terrible and still unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons led Albert Einstein to observe, "With nuclear weapons, everything has changed, save our way of thinking." As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and at the onset of an era of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering. The Clock is ticking. ) 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 23 The NewStandard: Feds Biased Against Green Plan for Nuke Weapons Lab by Catherine Komp Jan. 18 A coalition opposed to nuclear weapons is fighting the federal government over rejection of its bid to turn a national laboratory that engages in nuclear-arms research into an environmental science center. The US Department of Energy is considering bids to manage and operate the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California. This is the first time the federal government has initiated a competitive bid to run the $1.6 billion dollar "national interest" research facility since its creation in 1952. The current contract with the University of California, which has run the lab since its inception, expires in September 2007. But groups opposed to nuclear weapons have a different vision for the Livermore Lab, which focuses largely on war-related research, and they have banded together to turn it into a "world class center for civilian science" within five years. The coalition, Livermore Lab Green Renewable Energy and Environmental Nexus (GREEN), is made up of two nuclear-watchdog groups – Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment and Nuclear Watch of New Mexico – as well as the New College of California, and the renewable-energy firm WindMiller Energy. In its proposal submitted last October, GREEN said its plan discouraged nuclear proliferation, provided energy independence through sustainable sources, and addressed national-security goals. The group says the Department of Energy has unfairly eliminated it from the competition because NNSA officials objected to its non-nuclear agenda for the facility. "We propose to phase out the Lab’s nuclear weapons programs over time, and to subordinate them under a new Associate Directorship of Nuclear Nonproliferation in the interim," wrote GREEN in its proposal. "We will direct science toward resolution of long-term national-security needs such as energy independence, conservation, environmental remediation and related technologies, and understanding and addressing global climate change." But the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) rejected the bid in December, stating it found GREEN’s proposal "grossly and obviously deficient." The NNSA said GREEN did not "demonstrate an understanding of the requirements of the solicitation." In the NNSA’s request for proposals, it stated the chosen contractor would need to take measures that "result in improvements in performance of the Nuclear Weapons Complex" and "strengthen the Laboratory’s role as an important element in the nuclear weapons complex supply-chain." Appreciate the effort it takes to bring you quality
journalism? Support The NewStandard! But GREEN argues its proposal would support US obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NNSA itself began reducing plutonium and highly enriched uranium from Livermore last month, stating it would remove nearly all of it by 2014. The group says the Department of Energy has unfairly eliminated it from the competition because NNSA officials objected to its non-nuclear agenda for the facility. In a letter of protest sent to NNSA Tuesday, GREEN charges the agency with using deficient grounds in rejecting the bid, and acting "in a biased and prejudicial manner … by treating the Livermore Lab GREEN and its proposal differently than it treated competitors." GREEN called for an immediate reinstatement of its bid to manage the lab. The University of California, which manages two other US nuclear-research labs in addition to Lawrence Livermore, partnered with the firm Bechtel to submit its proposal. Weapons giant Northrop Grumman is also vying for management of the facility. © 2007 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 [NYTr] "Wiped Off the Map" - The Canard of the Century Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:41:41 -0600 (CST) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Kevin Zeese - Jan 18, 2007 "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century by Arash Norouzi Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom. Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote--- they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to /Khomeini/ and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office. THE ACTUAL QUOTE: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: /rezhim-e/. It is the word "/Regime/", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "/eh/" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli /regime/. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a /regime/ off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem). So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: /nothing/. That's because the word "map" was _never used_. The Persian word for map, "/nagsheh/", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel". THE PROOF: _The full quote translated directly to English:_ "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site: http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT: While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is. In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East. Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years: (1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch (2) The Soviet Union (3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for /regime change/, not war. THE ORIGIN: One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy. Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'jtre to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies. It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language. THE REACTION: The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis. Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe /Iran/ off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide. The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel", as do senior officials in the United States government. President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel", and insists, "The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' ". The consensus is clear. Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201306_pf.html in September 2006: Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth? We need to look at the scene in the Middle East --- 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza --- what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem. Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land. You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief? What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago... So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth? Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people. The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he /never/ confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map". Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled _Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats_ released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, /"Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel."/ These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran. As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, /openly/, /explicitly/ /and publicly/ threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY: On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was _Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out' _, while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out' . Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [_Iran president says Israel's days are numbered _], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out ]. The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies", are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the Jewish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical. The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA. He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner." Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..". It gets more interesting. The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0612134902101231.htm There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated". Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom". In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will /vanish/ just as the Soviet Union /disappeared/. /Vanish/. /Disappear/. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out". And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was". Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements. What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation. This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century. Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time". [Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project .] * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 25 RIA Novosti: General Gareyev: Russia changing its military doctrine Opinion &analysis - 18/ 01/ 2007 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Viktor Litovkin) Part 2 of the interview with General Gareyev. Q: What threats to Russian security will be covered by the new military doctrine? What will the armed forces have to do in this context? A: This is one of the most complicated questions and the one where opinions differ the most. There are two approaches to the problem. The first one is included in the new doctrine, which is oriented only to military threats and means of resisting them militarily. The advocates of the second approach suggest proceeding from the fundamental military-political changes in the world and taking into account a broad range of military and other threats, for instance, in politics, diplomacy, the economy and information. The Soviet Union's disintegration, Yugoslavia's collapse, and "color" revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan make it plain that the main threats are carried out not so much militarily as by covert methods. This leads to the conclusion that military and non-military threats should be viewed as an integral whole. Social, political, economic, territorial, religious, national and ethnic disputes between regions and states remain the main potential causes of an aggravation of the military-political situation in Russia. To begin with, if we were to generalize about the numerous and versatile threats we face today, the list would include above all the efforts of certain international forces and leading countries to encroach on Russia's sovereignty and prejudice its economic and other interests; different forms of political and informational pressure and subversion, as was the case in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan; and territorial claims along the entire length of our borders. The threat to energy security is becoming particularly serious for us. Top NATO leaders view even a change in prices for energy resources as a kind of aggression. Hence, our task is to prevent, localize and neutralize such threats by political, diplomatic, economic, informational, and other non-military methods. Secondly, the use of nuclear arms and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continue to threaten Russia. The nuclear weapons of all major nuclear powers are ultimately designed to be used against Russia, whether we want to admit it or not. In this context, the task of curbing a potential aggressor by means of a strategic nuclear deterrent is becoming more important than in the past. Thirdly, there are military threats to Russia, including a risk of armed conflicts and even a large-scale war. The leading powers are clearly trying to leap towards military-technical predominance; powerful armed formations on Russia's borders are sharply upsetting the military balance. NATO is expanding its sphere of operations and intends to act on a global scale. At home, the most dangerous threats are terrorism and separatism, which are usually provoked from outside to disrupt Russia's unity and territorial integrity. In this context, the military doctrine should provide for the readiness of the armed forces and other troops to carry out combat missions in local armed conflicts and counterterrorist operations, and to be mobilized for large-scale regional wars. The world's leading countries (Russia, China, the U.S. and other NATO members) face common threats that can only be neutralized by common efforts. In view of this, the Russian military doctrine should contain provisions that align it with the military doctrines of other countries, particularly in the fight against terrorism. Transnational dangers can only be resisted by transnational mechanisms. It is also possible to demarcate zones of responsibility between NATO and the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization]. Q: What do you think about the doctrine's provision on a possible first strike using nuclear arms? A: Future wars are likely to be conducted with high-precision conventional arms in the context of a permanent nuclear threat. If Russia is faced with an extremely unfavorable alignment of forces in all strategic directions, nuclear weapons will remain the most important and reliable strategic deterrent against foreign aggression. At the same time, the effectiveness of nuclear weapons should not be overestimated. It would be wrong to assume that Russia's security is guaranteed as long as it has nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union had nuclear arms, but it does not exist anymore. These weapons are not universal. They cannot be used in such conflicts as in Chechnya, or to neutralize economic, information, and other forms of aggression. Now that the potential of our space-based weapons, missile warning system, and strategic nuclear force has decreased, we may not be capable even of effective retaliation against a potential enemy, not to mention a launch-under-attack strike. Therefore, we should maintain and build up our nuclear deterrent. The doctrine should also pay attention to the development of general-purpose forces: the air force, navy, and ground troops. Russia has a vast territory, and it will not be able to cope without strong general-purpose forces if it has to deal with an invasion by ground troops of a potential enemy in the east and south. The new military doctrine pays attention to the transformation of the armed forces, the development of an integrated air and space defense system, the use of contact and non-contact methods of warfare, the conduct of active pre-emptive strikes, and other vital issues of military development, including the formation of mixed units and detachments consisting of professionals and draftees, all of which simply cannot be described in a short interview. Nevertheless, the new doctrine will be based on the concept of active defense. The Russian president will endorse it in line with our Constitution. But it will become viable only when it wins the support of the military community and public, and when it unites the majority of our people, who are not indifferent to the fate of our homeland. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 26 Xinhua: Chinese apathetic about environmental protection www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-18 15:28:45 BEIJING, Jan. 18 (Xinhua) -- While 86 percent of Chinese think environmental pollution has had a negative impact on their health, a national report released Monday showed that most of them are apathetic about environmental protection. The annual national report on environmental awareness, released by the State Environmental Protection Administration, surveyed 4,482 residents from 28 cities nationwide. The report comes amid mounting concern about the environmental cost of China's breakneck economic growth. "Chinese people are dissatisfied with the state of the environment but they seldom take part in environmental protection activities," said the report, adding that food safety, drinking water and air pollution are the environmental issues that worry people most. More than 10 percent of metropolitan residents and 7.5 percent of rural dwellers think their living environment is "unfit for habitation". Both urban and rural residents are unsatisfied about garbage treatment, and 52 percent rural respondents consider garbage disposal "a big problem". About 61 percent of the people surveyed said the Chinese government "pays a lot of attention" to environmental protection and 70 percent applauded the government's "environmental impact evaluation" carried out before each industrial or construction project. But the survey failed to ask respondees about how to resolve the Chinese dilemmas: how to reconcile the desire to limit the environmental cost of growth with the need to keep the economy humming in order to provide jobs, and how to wean local officials away from their growth-at-all-costs attitudes. Local environmental departments received about 600,000 pollution reports from the public in 2006, up 30 percent over 2005. But 76 percent of respondees did not know the national environmental protection hotline number "12369". Editor: Gao Ying ***************************************************************** 27 [NukeNet] Monticello accident prompts alert to other nuclear Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:34:01 -0800 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=(192.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61] X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61 X-Sender-Host-Name: X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Entergy Nuclear owns three reactors affected by the steam valve weld failure in MN. *Monticello accident prompts alert to other nuclear plants* Tom Meersman , Star Tribune Federal officials have alerted the owners of four nuclear power plants about a potential safety problem that caused an automatic shutdown last week at Xcel Energy's Monticello nuclear plant in Minnesota. "Typically when there's a problem at one plant, we look to see if any aspects have the potential of applying to other plants," said Jan Strasma, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It's a precautionary or prudent notification." At the time of the Jan. 10 incident, Monticello had been operating for a record 637 consecutive days, 161 days longer than ever before, according to Xcel officials. Typically nuclear plants shut down for refueling every 18 to 20 months, and are out of service for four to five weeks, during which utilities also schedule major maintenance and inspections. The Monticello plant remained closed Wednesday, one week after a 35,000-pound control box broke loose from its support beams and fell about a foot onto a large pipe carrying radioactive steam. The pipe did not rupture or leak. Strasma said his agency has notified managers of four Northeast plants similar to Monticello in age, design, and layout about the incident in Minnesota. The plants are Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Nine Mile Point in New York and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, he said. The Monticello plant, about 45 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, began operating in 1970. Two months ago Xcel received federal permission to extend the plant's license for 20 years after its current license expires in 2010. State regulators have! also gi ven the utility permission to expand radioactive-waste storage in casks outside the plant, but the Minnesota Legislature has the option to review that decision. Suspicion has focused on the control box's welds, which may have been weakened by vibrations. Charles Bomberger, Xcel's general manager for nuclear asset management, said the steam pipe struck by the falling box didn't rupture. He said steam pipes are designed, anchored and tensioned to withstand much more severe shocks and stresses, including earthquakes. Even if the pipe had leaked, only a small amount of steam would have been released and isolated within the plant, Bomberger said. "I don't want to sugarcoat it; this was a significant problem," Bomberger said. "It's got the full attention of Xcel." The utility will fully evaluate the cause of the problem, repair it, check for other possible damage and report everything to federal authorities, he said. "We anticipate a relatively short-term outage that will be measured in days, not weeks," he said. "I think we have our arms around what caused it." George Crocker, a nuclear safety advocate in Lake Elmo, said the incident should be a warning for several reasons. "Market forces that push nuclear plants to the limit, coupled with aging issues, coupled with the lack of understanding about how these components and materials perform over time as they're subjected thermally and radiologically -- all of these factors are increasing the likelihood that a really unforgiving event will occur," said Crocker, executive dirrector of the North American Water Office. The group is a nonprofit organization that has raised concerns about nuclear problems for more than two decades and also works on renewable-energy policy. Bomberger rejected the notion that Monticello has been pushed to the limit, or that it's risky. Nuclear plants have multiple backup systems to provide layers of safety, he said. Maintenance occurs on many parts and sy! stems ev en while the plant is at full power production, he said enabling Monticello to run for longer periods between shutdowns. Bomberger said that setting records for consecutive days of operation shows that Monticello is being operated more efficiently, and that equipment failure and other problems are more likely when a plant is stopped and started than when it's running at a constant rate. "I firmly do not believe that just because we have a long continuous run that we are running the equipment harder and that's it's going to wear out faster," he said. Tom Meersman • 612 673-7388 • meersman@startribune.com _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 28 IPS-English JAPAN: Powering Ahead on Nuclear Technology Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:50:30 -0800 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (192.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 ROMAIPS AP DV EN IF IP SC NU=20 JAPAN: Powering Ahead on Nuclear Technology Suvendrini Kakuchi TOKYO, Jan 19 (IPS) - Rapidly growing energy needs in the world coupled w ith a warm winter season, attributed to global warming, have boosted Japa n's nuclear power sector especially the export of nuclear technology to o ther countries, say experts here. ''Yes, there is no denying that environment concerns and a new energy cri sis has dealt a deadly blow to movements against nuclear power and that s upport safer renewable energy sources.'' said Prof. Hiroaki Koide, a nucl ear scientist and researcher at the prestigious Kyoto University. 91'But this is a wrong solution.'' Koide says his research has illustrated that nuclear power will not contr ibute to long-term reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) as claimed.20 91'There is a need to balance the merits of nuclear power. While nuclear energy does not discharge such gases as carbon dioxide, the downside is that pollution is caused by the construction of facilities. Also the runn ing of nuclear reactors and waste storage rely on electricity from other sources such as coal. Moreover, if there is a nuclear accident, the destr uction of the environment will be extremely serious. These aspects must b e considered when examining plans to increase this dangerous power,'' he told IPS in an interview.20 Still, signs in Japan indicate that the government is pushing ahead with the expansion of nuclear power at a time when the public is worried about climate change and the rising prices of oil. Indeed, this winter has raised the profile of nuclear energy given the wa rm temperatures that has led to a scarcity of snow affecting the business es of hotels and ski facilities now faced with reservation cancellations and a drop in visitors. 91'Snow started falling just a few weeks ago and this year the pile-up h as only reached 7 cm compared to 88 cm last year. Something must be done quickly to reverse the situation,'' said Keiko Azumi, an inn owner in Aom ori prefecture, northern Japan.20 Aomori prefecture, home to several nuclear power sites, was forced to can cel an annual student ski competition this year due to scanty snowfall -- the lowest in its 34-year history.20 Electronic goods manufacturers and department stories are reporting 60 pe rcent drop in sales of heating products and winter clothes as a result of warmer weather. 91'Developing nuclear power is an important means of protection against global warming. Japan's 40 -year experience in developing nuclear power t echnology and its good record of safety has given it a role to expand the energy for the sake of the environment,'' said Shinichi Mizumoto, an off icial at the economy, trade and industry ministry that spearheads the Jap anese nuclear power industry. Mizumoto brushed away concerns over several accidents that have occurred in Japanese nuclear plants -- in 2004 five workers in Mihama reactor died from radiation after an accident -- pointing out the government has incr eased inspections and raised safety standards. 91'Japan is the only country that has been pursuing nuclear power energy in the world. As a country that suffered when it was atom bombed in 1945 , the government is sensitive to ensuring a safe programme,'' he told IPS . 20 Taking steps towards this goal, the National Resources and Energy Agency outlined a plan this month to increase government subsidies for local gov ernments that accept the construction of nuclear-waste sites. Public oppo sition has been a thorn in the side of nuclear power policies.20 Municipal officials in Rokkashomura, a village in Aomori prefecture, have accepted Japan's first commercial nuclear fuel recycling plant that will use plutonium. They say the site is an important revenue earner for the village and the government has revised subsidy grants of more than 16 mil lion US dollars to construct the facility. 91'When nuclear power is promoted as an environment saver, public opposi tion is weakened. People feel a kind of responsibility. Economic benefits such as subsidies and jobs are also a genuine concern for the people as they face hard choices,'' said Masamichi Seido, a researcher at the Aomor i Institute of Regional Studies. Japan already operates 55 nuclear power plants and is planning to build 1 1 more.20 At the international level, Japan is also expected to lead the way for nu clear technology exports to Asia. China's booming economy has made it th e biggest market followed by India, Indonesia and Vietnam and the busines s is estimated to be worth billions of dollars. 91'Japan is ready to respond to requests from Asian countries looking to expand nuclear power as an energy resource. With our excellent record of using nuclear power for peaceful means, we insist that Asia satisfy secu rity requirements that include membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferatio n Treaty,'' said Mizumoto. Last September the energy agency moved to establish a nuclear fuel cycle system that calls for a multinational framework to supply and control nuc lear fuel such as uranium that is expected to face a shortage with surgin g demand. Japan lacks energy resources and is heavily dependant on suppliers of the raw material such as Australia, Canada and Kazakhistan. 20 This month, the government also managed to steer around the sticky posit ion of India not being a member of the NPT by recognising a U.S. law sign ed last month to allow the sale of nuclear fuel and reactors to India. Th is will enable Japanese companies to participate in expansion of nuclear plants to India, according to 91Yomiuri' newspaper.20 Miname Suzuki, energy consultant at Greenpeace, Japan, believes that econ omic interests and national pride rather than public safety are at the he art of the government's nuclear power programme. He points to the fact th at only six percent of the energy budget is spent on safe renewable power compared to over 30 percent for nuclear energy.20 =91'Nuclear power is yet another tool for Japan in its growing strategy t= o play an active global role. Public opposition must be heeded,'' she to= ld IPS. (END/IPS/AP/IP/IF/NU/SC/EN/DV/SK/RDR/07)=20 ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant License Renewal Application News Release - Region I - 2007-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-07-003 January 17, 2007 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Members of the public will have an opportunity on Wednesday, Jan. 31, to comment on a draft report that assesses the environmental impact of extending the operating license for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vt. On Jan. 25, 2006, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., which operates the plant, submitted an application to renew the license for an additional 20 years. The NRC report, known as the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, was issued on Dec. 13, 2006. As part of its license renewal application, the company submitted an environmental report. The NRC staff reviewed the report and performed an on-site audit. The staff also considered comments made during the environmental scoping process, including comments offered at public meetings held on June 7, 2006, in Brattleboro, Vt. Based on its review, the NRC staff has prepared and issued its draft environmental impact statement, which preliminarily recommends that the Commission determine the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Vermont Yankee are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on: 1) the analysis and findings in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement used for license renewal reviews; 2) the plant-specific environmental report submitted by Entergy; 3) NRC consultation with other federal, state and local agencies; 4) the NRC staffs own independent review; and 5) the NRC staffs consideration of public comments received during the environmental scoping process. The NRC will hold two meetings on Jan. 31 to accept comments on the report. The first session will begin at 1:30 p.m., the second one at 7 p.m. Both meetings will take place at the Latchis Theatre, 50 Main St. in Brattleboro. (Directions are available on the theatres web site at: http://www.latchis.com/location.html.[exit icon] ) NRC staff will be available for an hour prior to the start of each meeting for informal, one-on-one discussions of the report. Those interested may pre-register to attend or speak at the meetings by contacting Richard L. Emch, Jr., NRC Senior Project Manager for the Vermont Yankee application, at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 1590, or by sending an e-mail to VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.govby Jan. 24. Members of the public may also register 15 minutes before each session to provide oral comments. The duration of individual comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of speakers who register. Written comments on the draft report will also be considered by the NRC staff. Comments can be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. They can also be submitted electronically to VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.gov . The public comment period ends on March 7, 2007. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating license for Vermont Yankee is due to expire on March 21, 2012. The draft report is posted on the NRC web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437 /supplement30/. The Vermont Yankee license renewal application is posted at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/vermont-yankee.html#appls. Additional information about the license renewal process is available at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. The draft report is also available for review at the following libraries: Ď The Vernon Free Library, 567 Governor Hunt Road, Vernon; Ď Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main St., Brattleboro; Ď The Hinsdale Public Library, 122 Brattleboro Road, Hinsdale, N.H.; and Ď Dickinson Memorial Library, 115 Main St., Northfield, Mass. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Last revised Thursday, January 18, 2007 ***************************************************************** 30 sacbee.com: Nuclear power gets PG ally - The utility's boss says it's needed to halt global warming. By David Whitney - Bee Washington Bureau Published 12:00 am PST Thursday, January 18, 2007 Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4 PG Corp. Chairman Peter Darbee said Wednesday that it may not be possible to bring global warming under control without building more nuclear power plants. PG and its utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., serves customers through Northern California and as far south as Bakersfield. The company owns and operates the twin-reactor Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Darbee's comments came in an interview after he accepted an award from one of the country's leading environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council. The citation applauded PG's work to reduce global warming, calling it "the most effective supporter of energy efficiency in the utility industry." Darbee also appeared at a news conference with other power company executives as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., announced the introduction of legislation intended to steadily lower greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. The Feinstein bill, introduced with Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., would reduce emissions from power plants by 25 percent in 12 years. "This is the most aggressive global warming bill the industry has agreed to," said Feinstein, who had turned to Darbee for help in organizing the industry behind it. Power plant emissions contribute a third of the greenhouse gases emitted annually in the United States. Much of the emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, are from coal-burning plants, none of which are located n California. In a speech after receiving the award, Darbee said the country needs to transform the way it produces power if it is to stem "the potential environmental disasters associated with global warming." He urged Congress to set targets and timetables for lowering emissions and write standards for energy-efficient buildings and appliances. He stressed the need for more research into renewable energy sources such as solar power, adding that PG is looking at tidal and wave power off the coast of San Francisco. "We are also hearing the beginnings of a national conversation about the future of nuclear power in our country," Darbee said. "For now, we believe it is an option that should be on the table with all others." In an interview, however, Darbee said emissions from coal-fired power plants must be sharply reduced to beat global warming, and "it's not clear the technology is there and at a certain cost" to do that. Without clean-burning coal plants, Darbee said, nuclear power is about the only remaining option for cleaning the air. Nuclear plants release no greenhouse emissions but produce radioactive waste. No new nuclear plants can be built in California until there is a permanent waste repository. "Nuclear is there, it is well tested and it's well known," he said. "We've moved from earlier generations to new generations that are much safer." Darbee said he thinks Congress should reconsider its policy on nuclear waste and allow used fuels to be reprocessed into new fuels. Reprocessing was stopped in the Carter administration because of concern that it would lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons. "The reality is that the world situation has changed dramatically," Darbee said, adding that terrorists and others can find other sources for the material at less risk. Meanwhile, Darbee said he has no concerns about keeping the used fuels in dry storage at the power plants while the debate over what to do with it continues. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must examine the risk of a terrorist attack on stored waste casks at Diablo Canyon before licensing the site. About the writer: + The Bee's David Whitney can be reached at (202) 383-0004 or dwhitney@mcclatchydc.com. [The Sacramento Bee] Unique content, exceptional value. Peter Darbee, PG Corp. chief, backs legislation carried by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in background. McClatchy Tribune/Chuck Kennedy Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000 Contact The Bee: (916) 321-1000 | E-Mail ***************************************************************** 31 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Nuclear power vs. global warming 01/18/2007 | By David Whitney WASHINGTON — The chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s parent company said Wednesday that building nuclear power plants could be critical to bringing global warming under control. Peter Darbee’s comments came in an interview after he accepted an award from one of the country’s leading environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council. That citation applauded PG’s work to reduce global warming, calling it "the most effective supporter of energy efficiency in the utility industry." The utility, owned by PG Corp., operates Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Darbee also appeared at a news conference with other power company executives as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., announced introducing legislation intended to steadily lower greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. The Feinstein bill would reduce emissions from power plants by 25 percent within 12 years. "This is the most aggressive global warming bill the industry has agreed to," said Feinstein, who had turned to Darbee for help in organizing the industry behind the legislation. Power plant emissions contribute a third of the greenhouse gases emitted annually in the United States. Much of the emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, are from coal-burning plants, none of which are in California. In a speech after receiving the award, Darbee said the nation must transform the way it produces power if it is to stem "the potential environmental disasters associated with global warming." He urged Congress to set targets and timetables for lowering emissions and write standards for energy efficient buildings and appliances. He stressed the need for more research into renewable energy sources, such as solar power, adding PG is looking at tidal and wave power off the coast of San Francisco. "We are also hearing the beginnings of a national conversation about the future of nuclear power in our country," Darbee said. "For now, we believe it is an option that should be on the table with all others." In the interview, however, Darbee said emissions from coal-fired power plants must be sharply reduced to beat global warming, and "it’s not clear the technology is there and at a certain cost" to accomplish that goal. Without cleaner-burning coal plants, Darbee said, nuclear power is about the only remaining option for cleaning the air. Nuclear plants release no greenhouse emissions, but produce radioactive waste. No new nuclear plants can be built in California until there is a permanent waste repository. Efforts to build a central repository in Nevada have stalled because of political opposition and other problems at the Yucca Mountain site. "Nuclear is there. It is well tested, and it’s well known," Darbee said. "We’ve moved from earlier generations to new generations that are much safer." Local anti-nuclear groups who have fought many of PG’s proposals for Diablo Canyon could not be reached for reaction to Darbee’s comments after the award presentation. Darbee thinks Congress should reconsider its policy on nuclear waste and allow used fuel to be reprocessed into new fuel. Reprocessing was stopped in the Carter administration because of concern that it would lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons. "The reality is that the world situation has changed dramatically," Darbee said, adding that terrorists can find other sources for the material at less risk. Meanwhile, Darbee said he has no concerns about keeping the used fuel in dry storage at power plants while the debate over what to do with it continues. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must examine the risk of terrorist attack on stored waste casks at Diablo Canyon before licensing the site. Darbee said he doesn’t think that decision will have any lasting consequence, and that the commission ultimately will conclude that dry-cask storage is a "manageable risk." "Nuclear plants generally are not high opportunity targets for terrorists," Darbee said. Ralph Cavanah, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who presented the award to Darbee, said he agrees with the PG chief that nuclear power should be considered in the debate over global warming. But he said he thinks the resurgent interest in it will fade because of high costs of building new plants. ***************************************************************** 32 HindustanTimes.com: N-cooperation high on agenda Nuclear cooperation high on agenda during Putin's visit Indo-Asian News Service New Delhi, January 18, 2007 Civil nuclear cooperation with India will be on top of the agenda during Russian President Vladimir Putin's two-day state visit to India that begins January 25. Putin will be the chief guest at this year's Republic Day celebrations, external affairs ministry spokesperson Navtej Sarna told reporters here Thursday while announcing his visit. Putin will hold talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on an entire spectrum of bilateral ties in areas ranging from business, defence, energy to space and civil nuclear cooperation. This will be the first meeting between Manmohan Singh and Putin after the US enacted a law to permit civil nuclear cooperation with India. Putin's delegation will comprise ministers, top officials, businessmen and scientists connected with the Russian nuclear establishment. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency, is likely to accompany Putin on this important visit. Russia, along with Britain and France, have already expressed support for civil nuclear cooperation with India and this issue will receive high priority during discussions between the two sides. Last year, Russia, an influential member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, bailed out India's fuel-starved Tarapur reactors by supplying nearly 60 tonnes of uranium in the teeth of the American objections. ***************************************************************** 33 Indybay: The Economics of Building a Nuclear Power Plant in Fresno by Alan Cheah and Mark Stout Wednesday Jan 17th, 2007 6:44 PM It was only seven years ago when the promise of cheap electricity through deregulation helped plunge California into a deeper budget crisis and robbed ratepayers of their hard earned money. They are poised to do it again. Nuclear proponents are grateful for our citizenry's short memories. Now, nuclear power advocates promise cheap, clean, safe energy and jobs. This section focuses on the economic viability of nuclear versus renewable energy and conservation. The Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLCis proposing a 1600 megawatt nuclear power plant costing $4 billion. History tells us that projected costs differ vastly from actual costs. Just look at the table below: PROJECTED VS. ACTUAL COST OF SELECTED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (in billions of dollars) Unit Megawatts Initial cost estimate Actual cost Millstone III (Massachusetts and Connecticut) 1,150 .400 3.82 Limerick 1 (Pennsylvania) 1,055 .344 3.80 Wolf Creek (Kansas) 1,055 1.03 2.93 Susquehanna 1 (Pennsylvania) 1,050 .665 2.05 Susquehanna II (Pennsylvania) 1,050 .720 2.05 Source: Public Utility Commissions in the respective states http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_p ower.html As you can see, actual costs range from 3 to 11 times projected costs. Nuclear proponents argue that much of the added costs are because of unnecessary environmental and safety regulations, politics and finance issues. Whatever the reason, the reality is that the actual cost would likely exceed $12 billion. If nuclear is such a good investment, why have no nuclear power plant ever been 100% privately funded? In Dick Cheney’s Energy Policy of 2003, Title IV, subtitle B: New Nuclear Plants , it authorizes the Department of Energy to provide 50% of the costs to build new reactors and there are no guidelines regarding interest rates and repayment of these loans. In layman’s terms, we heavily subsidize the building of the plant. We do not share in the profits of the privately owned plant and there is no guarantee our financing will be paid back? If it is so safe, why does provision Title IV, subtitle A: The Price Anderson Act limit the liability of nuclear power plants to $10B. A serious nuclear accident according to Sandia National Laboratories could cost upwards of $300B. Taxpayers will pay the difference. John Hutson, Chairman of the PUC and President/CEO of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, claims nuclear will bring jobs. Undoubtedly, but let’s look at the job creation comparison for different energy sources: Table 1. Jobs Involved in Producing 1000 Gigawatt-hours of Electricity Per Year Number of jobs: 10 116 248 542 Energy source: Nuclear fission Coal Solar thermal Wind This 1993 finding by the Worldwatch Institute should still apply today on a comparative basis. There is no doubt that job creation for renewable energy exceeds that of fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Many states are ignoring the direction of the Federal government and finding more economic benefits in pursuing green energy. Since 1980 the cost of wind power has declined from $.30 - $.45 per kWh to $.05/kWh . The Federal Production Tax Credit, currently at 1.9 cents/kWh and indexed to inflation , further drives down the cost of wind power to ratepayers, allowing utility power purchase agreements to be signed as low as 3.5 cents. Solar photovoltaic (PV) is about $.20/kWh, and is now reduced with an expanded 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit, and the California Solar Initiative’s incentives for customer self-generation . Nuclear power arguably costs $.03/kWh, only by ignoring large construction capital costs. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA) report $.03/kWh represents operational costs and waste and decommissioning costs. How they account for waste cost is suspect since the Yucca mountain waste site still has not been approved. If it is approved today it will not be ready till 2017 . Meanwhile thousands of tons of nuclear waste from San Onofre, Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Bay are waiting. What’s not accounted for is construction and financing costs and most importantly, an investor’s required return on capital. According to the Ontario Power Authority’s assessment of the proposed CANDU 6 nuclear power plant, the cost per kWh to the consumer would probably be $.21/kWh when accounting for the required return on capital. Let’s look at this from a more meaningful perspective. Regarding nuclear, there are four things the consumer needs to consider: 1) How much am I going to pay per kWh?; 2) Will the fuel cycle and generation cycle pollute our environment?; 3) Is it safe?; 4) How does it affect our national security? Each of these issues has a major economic impact. What am I going to pay per kWh? Currently, the average PG residential electricity rate is over $.16/kWh even though it costs about $.06/kWh for fossil fuel based generation. This should highlight the distinction between what you pay and what it costs to generate one kWh of electricity. Similarly what you will be paying for nuclear will far exceed the reported generation cost of $.03/kWh. As the Ontario Power Authority learned, it could be as high as $.21/kWh. It is expected that uranium 235 will be depleted by 2055 . As that limited resource gets scarce, we will see the cost per kWh rise. Will the fuel cycle and generation cycle pollute our environment? Conventional and in situ leaching methods of mining Uranium 235 result in radioactive contamination, lung cancer, respiratory diseases and contamination of ground water. Enrichment of uranium produces toxic hydrogen fluoride gas and large amounts of depleted uranium. Millions of gallons of water which will be radioactively contaminated are required to cool fuel rods. Our other featured articles will cover this more comprehensively. Is it safe? Since 1952 there have been about 301 nuclear accidents and 22 nuclear disasters . Maybe that’s why the Price-Anderson Act limits a nuclear corporation’s liability to $10 billion . How does it affect our national security? In an age where terrorism is such a major threat, putting in a nuclear power plant only makes Fresno a more attractive terrorist target. How can we better use $12 billion? If the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group is able to suppress local resistance, overturn the 30 year old State moratorium on siting new nuclear reactors, and overcome nuclear power’s equally old losing streak in the US investment capital markets, it will still have an uphill financial battle ahead, in the face of more promising alternatives. The proposed nuclear plant will have a capacity of 1600 MW which, assuming a manufacturer-specified 92% plant availability, translates to 12,895 GWh/yr . 92% plant availability is comparable with recent US nuclear plant fleet capacity factors published by the Department of Energy . 12,895 GWh/yr is roughly 4.5% of California’s annual consumption, which was 208,245 GWh in 2005. For comparison, we will take the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group at their word that this plant could be operational as soon as 2015. Let’s look at what $12 billion can buy us invested in truly clean energy. The investors could put $12 billion into a solar power capital fund, which would be leveraged by Federal tax credits, Federal five-year accelerated depreciation, California Solar Initiative (CSI) incentives, rising utility rates, and rapidly falling solar photovoltaic/solar thermal electric costs. This solar power capital fund would be available for the development of residential, commercial, agricultural, and public sector solar energy systems, using existing, commercialized technology. Rather than selling hardware, the investors could sell power from customer-sited solar power equipment they own, to Valley energy consumers (via “solar power purchase agreements”), at a guaranteed discount compared to PG and Edison (10-25% to guarantee rapid adoption). These solar power purchase agreements are a high yield, low risk return on investment. The combination of Federal and State incentives lead to a short payback period of roughly five years, with an ongoing “solar annuity” from the sale of power. For the purposes of illustration, $12 billion could be used to develop 1.5 GW of customer-sited solar photovoltaic at $8/watt (CEC AC) in year 2006 prices . The California Solar Initiative will reduce over time, offset by reductions in PV system costs. Here is how the cash flow would look in this solar capital fund : Initial capital investment: $12 billion Federal 30% tax credit (first tax year): $3.6 billion 5 yr Accelerated Depreciation (net present value): $4.1 billion CSI incentive/system cost reduction (five years): $5.4 billion ---------------- Capital investment – Federal/CA incentives: ($1.1 billion) From this analysis, it is clear that the investors will have more than made their money back (a $1.1 billion profit, in fact), simply considering the Federal and State incentives returned to them in the first five years. For example, the solar capital fund will have been replenished by 2014 if the systems are installed over 2007-2008. The exciting part: the investors’ solar capital fund would constantly be refilled by incoming Federal and State incentives, ready to roll into the next round of solar expansion. The Solar Energy Industries Association is optimistic that the 110th Congress will deliver an eight year extension of the Federal 30% solar Investment Tax Credit, recently extended through 2008. From 2009-2014, before the proposed nuclear plant could have sold a single kWh, a second 1.5 GW solar photovoltaic network could be financed by income from Federal and State incentives. This second 1.5 GW network will receive substantially less money from the California Solar Initiative than the first, but the planned decline in rebates will be synchronized with a decline in installed system costs. The first 1.5 GW of solar photovoltaic systems will also be generating an estimated 2,800 GWh/yr (at 5.1 hours/day of noon-equivalent sun, based on Department of Energy data for Fresno) . If the average solar power purchase agreement retail cost of power starts at 10 cents/kWh, and the associated Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) trade at a conservative two cents/kWh, this first 1.5 GW phase of development will be generating $336 million/year, or over two billion dollars in accumulated profit by 2014. By 2014, before the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group hopes to have an operational reactor, the solar capital fund would have fully manifested all 3 GW of the Governor’s California Solar Initiative, generating 5,600 GWh/yr, with roughly $1 billion/year in annual power and RECs sales. Since the Federal and California incentives for commercial solar development are so generous, they would have also returned the initial $12 billion investment back to the investors, twice over before a nuclear plant could be built. The same $12 billion could then be used to capitalize a third round of solar power: 3 GW of solar thermal electric for wholesale power purchase agreements. PG and Edison have an obligation to by an increasing percentage of their supply from renewable energy resources under the Renewables Portfolio Standard, now 20% qualifying renewables by 2010. Governor Schwarzenegger is backing a goal of 33% qualifying renewables by 2020. Edison, SDG, and PG have recently signed one to two GW of solar thermal electric power purchase agreements to meet their 2010 goal. An unprecedented amount of renewables capacity will have to be added by 2020, creating significant market opportunities. This 3 GW, at an estimated $4/watt capital cost, would be based on single-axis tracking for higher output/watt capacity, yielding 7,665 GWh/yr. We are now looking at 6 GW of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electric systems, all developed on the same timetable as a 1.6 GW nuclear reactor, with substantially better tax effects and return on investment than a nuclear power investment could dream of. In fact, most of their original money is back in the investor’s accounts thanks to the Federal 30% Investment Tax Credit and five year Accelerated Depreciation. The solar investors are producing 5,600 GWh with customer-sited photovoltaic projects, and 7,665 GWh/yr with solar thermal power plants, generating 13,325 Gwh/yr of high value, peak period power. Compare this with 12,895 GWh/yr of baseload nuclear power. Not only do the solar plants generate more power, they generate more valuable power for the investors. The photovoltaic solar power purchase agreements are retail, at over 10 cents/kWh plus REC prices, and the solar thermal electric are peak period Renewables Portfolio Standard contracts, significantly higher than the contract prices a baseload nuclear plant would command. Solar generates power where and when people need it, and California’s markets now reflect that. The solar investment delivers a higher ongoing electricity production and profit, at a much safer and lower after-tax investment. How do we know that this solar power purchase agreement model works? It is already being using by a growing list of investors and project developers: GE Commercial Finance, Chevron Energy Systems, Honeywell, PowerLight/DEPFA Bank, MuniMae/MMA Renewable Ventures, HSN Nordbank, Regenesis Power, Nautilus Energy, and Solar Power Partners. In fact, the solar power purchase agreement was the financial structure selected by the Fresno Airport administration for their recent, successful one megawatt solar Request For Proposals. On January 10th of this year, Ted Turner announced that he was breaking in on the solar development action with an investment in DT Solar. California is expected to see over $20 billion of private investment in solar power by 2020, driven by the $3.2 billion California Solar Initiative and Renewables Portfolio Standard. Will the San Joaquin Valley take advantage of our natural solar resources to move into the clean energy future, or will we get stuck in the nuclear past? In our own back yard, the City of Fresno and the Farm Bureau are adopting solar PV solutions. OK Produce, in downtown Fresno, installed a 231 kW system in January, 2003, and PR Farms, in Clovis, installed a 1.1 MW system in July, 2005. Major corporations like Citigroup, PNC, Bank of America, Toyota, GM, Ford, Honda, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes and Chipotle, to name a few, are going green . Despite what you have heard, there is a declining use of nuclear throughout the world because of cost, environmental concerns and safety . New nuclear power plant construction around the globe (France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan) have been reduced or eliminated entirely. Seven European plants were shut down in the first two weeks of 2007. Let’s not regress when the rest of the world is moving forward. About the authors: Alan Cheah is a retired electrical engineer and software developer. Mark Stout handles Major Accounts for Unlimited Energy Solar Solutions, and is the Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter Air Quaility/Global Warming Co-Chair. Endnotes: http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/2003%20Sen%20Nucl ear%20Fact%20sht.pdf http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/2003%20Sen%20Nucl ear%20Fact%20sht.pdf http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-09.html National Renewable Energy Lab (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/analysis_tools_benefits.html) http://awea.org/legislative/#PTC http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/tax_credit.html http://www.uic.com.au/neweconomics.pdf “Nuclear burial site delayed” Fresno Bee, 14 Aug 2006, page B7 http://www.cleanair.web.net/resource/fs20.pdf http://www.pge.com/rates/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ned/warming/mills.pdf, page 8 http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/nuclear_disasters/framesource.html http://www.greenscissors.org/energy/price-anderson.htm http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/EPR_US_%20M ay%202005.pdf, page 55 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0902.html http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html http://www.sdenergy.org/ContentPage.asp?ContentID=136&SectionID=1 22&SectionTarget=44 Analysis performed for Fresno area location using the OnGrid Solar Financial Analysis Tool, http://ongrid.net/payback http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=128 IBID http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/hottopics/1energy/r0404026.htm http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/_spotlight/051102_renewableenergy.htm http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm http://www.ceiinc.net/Download/Bethel%20Energy%20Solar%20Hybrid%2 0Project%20Overview%20-%20R3.pdf http://www.dtsolar.com Green Revolution, by Frank Geve, Fresno Bee, 17Dec2006, page E1 http://www.brook.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/nuclear.htm http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/164/164228.nuclear_power_plants [at] en.htm http://sierraclub.org/energyNuclear Power Overtaken by Competitors by Alan Cheah and Mark Stout Wednesday Jan 17th, 2007 6:45 PM © 20002007 SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission FR Doc 07-207 [Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)] [Notices] [Page 2315-2316] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18ja07-114] Date: Weeks of January 15, 22, 29; February 5, 12, 19, 2007. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of January 15, 2007 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 15, 2007. Week of January 22, 2007--Tentative Monday, January 22, 2007 1:25 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-20 (9/ 22/06): Entergy Nuclear Generation Company & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23 (10/16/06) (Tentative) b. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP) (Tentative) 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Grid Reliability (Public Meeting) (Contact: Mike Mayfield, 301-415-0561). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of January 29, 2007--Tentative Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). To be held at Department of Homeland Security Headquarters, Washington, DC. [[Page 2316]] Thursday, February 1, 2007 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Strategic Workforce Planning and Human Capital Initiatives (Public Meeting) (Contact: Mary Ellen Beach, 301-415-6803). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 5, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 5, 2007. Week of February 12, 2007--Tentative Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Edward New, 301-415- 5646). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 19, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 19, 2007. * * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * Additional Information: Affirmation of ``Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-20 (9/22/06): Entergy Nuclear Generation Company & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23 (10/16/06)'' tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 1:25 p.m. has been rescheduled tentatively on Monday, January 22, 2007, at 1:25 p.m. Affirmation of ``Final Rulemaking to Revise 10 CFR 73.1, Design Basis Threat (DBT) Requirements'' tentatively scheduled on Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 1:25 p.m. was cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date. ``Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues'' (Public Meeting) previously scheduled on Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. was cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/[fxsp0]policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: January 12, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-207 Filed 1-16-07; 12:26 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 35 The NewStandard: Environmentalists Want Nukes Out of Climate Change Bill - by Megan Tady Jan. 18 Senators introduced a bill last week that, while attempting to tackle climate change, also offers subsidies to the nuclear industry. Senators Joe Lieberman (I–Connecticut) and John McCain (R–Arizona) reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act last Friday. The Act would mandate a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, until 2050. Greenhouse gases are a major cause of global warming. The bill was first introduced in 2003 and again in 2005 but failed to pass both years. Along with allowing companies to trade, save and borrow their emissions credits, the Act would promote the development of technologies and practices that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The Senators are touting the legislation as a "market-driven" solution to climate change. Environmentalists have applauded the legislation for taking steps to fight global warming pollution. But John Coequyt, Greenpeace energy policy analyst, said in a press statement that target reductions in the bill "fall very short" of what is "necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change." Greenpeace is also critical of a provision in the bill that aims to bolster nuclear-energy development. The Act would provide funding and loan guarantees for new technologies, including three new nuclear power plant design projects. "Regrettably, the senators have also included subsidies for nuclear energy, which is inherently dangerous and provides no real solution to global warming," Coequyt said. Proponents of nuclear power note that it involves far less greenhouse-gas emissions than fossil-fuel-based generation methods, and thus contributes less to climate change. But nuclear plants contribute to other environmental dangers: non-disposable radioactive waste and the potential for catastrophic nuclear accidents. Additionally, Coequyt said, the high cost to build and operate nuclear plants makes them impractical. In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that building a new nuclear plant would cost between $2.1 billion and $3 billion. The CBO also warned that energy companies default on more than half of their guaranteed loans. Giving loans to an industry that has a high chance of defaulting is "not only ineffectual, but foolish and wasteful," Coequyt said. Environmental groups also opposed the Act in previous years because of its nuclear development. Emily Rusch of the New Jersey Public Research Interest Group chastised the legislation in 2005. "There is no need to jeopardize our health, safety, and economy with increased nuclear power when we have cleaner, cheaper, and safer solutions to reduce global warming pollution," Rusch told Environment News Service. Greenpeace is calling on Congress to "strip nuclear subsidies not only from this bill but any piece of legislation to address climate change that comes before Congress." © 2007 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy. © 2007 Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 59 Piketon, Ohio Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:01:12 -0500 X-Sender-Host-Name: elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

 
Charge DOE Using Enrichment Plan To Push Interim Storage
Clip 837 words
Jan 17 2007
Energy Washington Week
English
Copyright © 2007, Inside Washington Publishers. All rights reserved. Also available in print and online as part of www.EnergyWashington.com.
Activists assert that a recently signed agreement between DOE and USEC (United States Enrichment Corporation) to begin construction of the American Centrifuge Plant project in Piketon , OH -- with the goal of deploying advanced technology for uranium enrichment -- is in fact a quiet administration move to open an interim spent fuel storage facility. With last November's elections suggesting the new Congress would be hostile to centralized spent fuel storage at Yucca Mountain, Piketon may evolve into a de facto waste storage area, they warn.
Industry sources and state regulators say the site at Piketon will most likely host two separate programs -- uranium enrichment and fuel reproces sing for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) -- but anything more than that is an "overreaction." Still, a major question overshadowing the project will be what to do with the waste materials remaining from these two programs, activist sources say.
DOE and USEC together hope to use an NRC license for a failed centrifuge project to lobby Congress for a licensing requirement waiver to begin construction of the facility, say citizen groups along with nuclear research activists and residents of the Piketon area.
 
Vina Colley
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
 

***************************************************************** 60 reviewjournal.com: DOE official upbeat on Yucca Mountain Jan. 18, 2007 He says project can proceed without legislation By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Plans to begin storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain by March 2017 should be able to proceed without legislation from Congress, a key Energy Department official said Wednesday. Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told a group of nuclear power executives the department will submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the National Regulatory Commission no later than June 30, 2008. "That's no ifs, ands or buts," said Sproat, who began running the program last June. "We have a firm stick in the sand about when this thing is going to go in." After his remarks at the annual seminar sponsored by the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, Sproat was asked if he was concerned that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may derail legislation to keep the Yucca Mountain Project on schedule. "Those strategic goals I laid out there don't require any additional legislation," Sproat said. Reid is not convinced. "That's wishful thinking on his part," said Reid, who has vowed to use his power as majority leader to slash funding for Yucca Mountain and block efforts to develop the repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In November, Sproat told the National Academy of Sciences that Yucca Mountain should begin storing nuclear waste by March 2017, but later acknowledged lawsuits by Nevada probably would delay the schedule by at least three years. On Thursday, Sproat did not mention the possibility of delays. Sproat said the department plans to begin rail construction in Nevada for Yucca Mountain in October 2009 and make the rail line operational by June 2014. "Transportation is very complex," Sproat said. "We need to get the rail line started wherever it's going to be in Nevada." During peak construction of the Yucca Mountain Project, which should last four to six years, the department will need to spend about $2 billion per year, Sproat said. In recent years, Congress has approved budgets for Yucca Mountain ranging from $450 million to $500 million, and Reid has described those figures as too high. Although he said he would not need legislation to meet schedule demands, Sproat said he will ask Congress to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine Yucca Mountain's capacity for nuclear waste storage. Current law sets the capacity at 77,000 tons, an amount Sproat called "artificially low." Within the next two years, Sproat said, he also will ask Congress to approve a second nuclear waste repository. He did not say where a second repository would be located. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 61 SignOnSanDiego.com: Containment drum with plutonium didn't rupture in SoCal crash ASSOCIATED PRESS 11:39 a.m. January 18, 2007 NEEDLES  A big-rig hauling radioactive plutonium overturned on Interstate 40, shutting down an eastbound lane for 16 hours. The 55-gallon containment drum didn't rupture and there was no danger to the public, authorities said. These securement devices are made so they can be dropped from 2,000 feet and not rupture. They're quite secure, CHP Officer Michael Callahan said. The truck crashed at about 8 p.m. Tuesday near the River Road exit, some 300 miles northeast of Los Angeles near the Colorado River, the California Highway Patrol said. All eastbound lanes were shut down for about three hours, then one eastbound lane reopened. One eastbound lane remained closed for 16 hours because of a diesel fuel spill and unloading of fire extinguishers and other items in the trailer, which had split open. All lanes were open by 2 p.m. Wednesday. The drum contained less than four grams of plutonium-238, which was being used for electrical power generation in Richland, Wash., Department of Energy spokesman Mike Talbot said. It was being taken to New Mexico. Information from: The Sun, www.sbsun.com Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper ***************************************************************** 62 Independent: Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up' Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain, reports Colin Brown Published: 19 January 2007 Two scientists who sat on a nuclear waste committee have alleged that chaotic organistaion drove the committee to approve an option for deep storage of high-level nuclear waste. Labour MPs have responded to their allegations by saying there had been a " cover-up". The scientists, Professor David Ball and Dr Keith Baverstock, left the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in April and May. David Miliband, the Secretary of State for the Environment, subsequently informed Labour MPs that Professor Ball had left for "personal reasons", an assertion dismissed by the professor as "misleading". Professor Ball and Dr Baverstock accused Tony Blair of "manipulating" the committee's decision for "political ends". They believe its recommendation for deep storage of high-level waste was used to push through the Cabinet the decision to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. But they warn that CoRWM's prolonged failure to identify which sites can safely take the waste will cause delays that could open Britain to a terrorist attack on its nuclear stockpiles, which are held on the surface at the Sellafield site in Cumbria. "Science has been manipulated for political ends," said Dr Baverstock. "The time wasted has resulted in continued and unnecessary exposure of the public to the ongoing risk of temporarily stored nuclear waste, surely a legitimate public concern in this age of terrorism," said the scientists. Dr Baverstock is a former senior radiation adviser with 12 years' experience at the World Health Organisation, but was sacked from the committee. He is now head of environmental science at the University of Kuopio, Finland. Mr Miliband, in a letter to the Labour MP Alan Simpson, rejected their criticism, saying the committee had taken the "best available existing scientific knowledge" into account. He added: "I believe it is possible to conclude that the scientific basis for CoRWM's work has been sound." Professor Ball said he had given Mr Miliband substantial reasons for his resignation from the committee, none of which could remotely be described as a "personal reason". He said: "I believed CoRWM to be treading dangerously close to the line and it was overall such an appalling experience that I concluded... that the only option was to resign." He added: "Defra's continuing strategy of total denial and what looks like the attempted rewriting of history is only compounding the problem." The two scientists added that they were unaware that four of the CoRWM's 12 members worked for the committee's largest suppliers until it was revealed by The Independent on Sunday on 8 May 2005. The committee included a paid consultant for NNC, which won the Ł1m contract to project-manage CoRWM's work; an associate consultant for Enviros Consulting, which had a contract worth Ł50,000 to Ł100,000 from the committee; and an associate of the IDM consultancy, which conducted Ł10,000 to Ł50,000-worth of contract work for the committee. Mr Simpson, who organised a private Commons meeting with Labour MPs to hear the scientists' criticism, said: "This blows apart the recommendations for deep storage of nuclear waste. The taxpayer faces an Ł85bn bill for disposing of the last generation of nuclear waste. We now know that no one has a clue how to do this safely. This is no time for a cover-up." He added: "Blair has been allowed to ride the country into another nuclear nightmare before he goes. Someone has to call a halt, and if Brown isn't up to it, he isn't up to the succession." The Prime Minister signalled his determination on Tuesday to take the next step towards the nuclear power programme before he steps down from office. He announced that new licensing conditions for nuclear power stations would be published next month. But a former Labour minister joined MPs in calling on Mr Blair to stop the development of nuclear power stations until he answers the concerns raised by the scientists. A former environment minister, Michael Meacher, said their views had to be considered by the Government rather than being " rubbished". "I think it's very dangerous when reputable scientists have their views not fully taken into account and answered," said Mr Meacher. "It is incredibly irresponsible to go for a further round of nuclear power-station building when we still have not got a safe way of storing the huge volume of nuclear waste already produced." Where the waste goes * Higher activity radioactive waste is stored at facilities around the UK * The amount is estimated at 80,000 cubic metres about the size of Albert Hall. It weighs about 100,000 tons * Even if the Government decides not to build any more reactors, waste will increase by nearly sixfold to 477,860 cubic metres over the next century * The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked to look at all the options for higher activity waste and find a long-term solution * It is expected to take 40 years to build a deep repository so, in the interim, it says the waste should be stored at surface sites as close as possible to nuclear facilities * The most likely candidate is Sellafield. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 63 NRC: Request To Amend License To Import Radioactive Waste FR Doc E7-617 [Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)] [Notices] [Page 2313-2314] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18ja07-112] Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (c) ``Public notice of receipt of an application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received the following request to amend an import license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. Information concerning the exemption from the requirement for a specific import license is as follows: NRC Import License Application ----------------------------------------------- Name of applicant, date of application, date received, Description of material End use Country of origin Application No., Docket No. ----------------------------------------------- Diversified Scientific Services, Class A radioactive For processing, Canada. Inc. (DSSI), December 22, 2006, mixed waste containing incineration and return December 28, 2006, IW004/04, tritium and carbon-14, of resultant residue to 11004982. and mixed fission Canada. product radionuclides. Amend to extend the expiration date from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2008.. [[Page 2314]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 5th day of January 2007 at Rockville, Maryland. Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. E7-617 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 64 Roswell Daily Record: Shipment of hot waste one step closer to WIPP CARLSBAD, N.M. (AP) Radioactive waste that’s handled by machines with robotics arms is one step closer to being shipped to the federal government’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in southern New Mexico. The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday removed one of the final roadblocks to the new shipments. The agency approved preparations at the Idaho National Laboratory, which is the source of the radioactive nuclear weapons waste. But before any waste is shipped, WIPP spokesman Dennis Hurtt said the EPA still must certify the computer system used to keep track of the shipments. In October, New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry and Gov. Bill Richardson approved the U.S. Department of Energy’s application for a permit modification to enable the DOE to ship remote-handled transuranic radioactive waste, or so-called ‘‘hot waste.’’ Since WIPP opened in 1999, the plant has stored more than 83,000 drums of radioactive waste in salt beds 2,150 feet under the New Mexico desert. That waste was low-level things like clothes and tools used by workers at radioactive sites. The new waste has always been part of WIPP’s management plan after the plant had demonstrated it can handle the lesser stuff safely. Citing security concerns, the DOE will not say when the trucks with the hot waste can begin heading to New Mexico. Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Safety Project at the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, said DOE officials are pushing to make the shipment as soon as they can, possibly by the end of this week. ***************************************************************** 65 News & Star: Time to open up at Sellafield Published on 18/01/2007 Once again, an accident investigation is under way at Sellafield. Just a few months ago, a leak of radioactive material at the Thorp reprocessing plant cost ÂŁ2.5m in fines and brought a shaming comment from a High Court judge that it was “worthy of Homer Simpson”. Now we learn that six workers have been contaminated in two separate accidents last week – five in one incident that bosses at the British Nuclear Group refuse to give information on. Yet another urgent review of safety procedures is under way, but BNG should also take a long, cool look at their public relations. As the alarm at the complex goes up, the shutters on information slam down. The days of Soviet-style secrecy are supposed to be long gone. But still they decline to reveal what the second incident was. Why? And while we’re at it, why has it taken so long to find out about the two events? Sellafield has brought vital jobs and money to West Cumbria, but we can’t accept the dangers it brings at any cost. The country is currently involved in a major debate over the direction of future energy provision with many, including PM Tony Blair, backing nuclear power. The more bosses at Sellafield pull the shutters down, the harder it is to support the argument that nuclear is clean, safe, secure and properly managed. ***************************************************************** 66 Business Weekly: Nuclear waste storage issue tackled By Sam Fountain, 18 January 2007 Scientists at the University of Cambridge have been developing tests to assess the suitability of safer, more cost effective storage materials that could solve the multi-billion pound nuclear waste problem. ['Sizewell A in the background and Sizewell B in the foreground, taken from the north looking along the shore Photographer: Brian GrangerCopyright © British Nuclear Group Ltd' width='150'] Sizewell A in the background and Sizewell B in the foreground, taken from the north looking along the shore Photographer: Brian GrangerCopyright © British Nuclear Group Ltd The work, being conducted with a team from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the US, is attempting to create a long-term solution for storing material that will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The team have devised a test to assess the suitability and durability of different mineral and synthetic forms to contain the waste, by measuring the magnetic resonance of the material's crystals. The potential value of the research has been brought sharply into focus by the amount the US Government is currently spending attempting to solve its nuclear waste conundrum. The US has spent $7bn researching a site in Nevada for storing nuclear waste inside the Yucca mountain, with a total spend that could total $100bn if the site is deemed acceptable. The research, being jointly conducted by Cambridge University, could dramatically reduce the investment required and provide a much more accurate assessment of the safety of novel storage approaches. One of the challenges of creating a suitable material for containing the waste is the time frame involved; waste can remain radioactive, and therefore dangerous, for up to a quarter of a million years. At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long time-scales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that," said Dr Ian Farnan, Cambridge University earth scientist who led the research. It has been suggested that mixing highly radioactive substances with a synthetic material would make them more stable. The thinking is that, if combined with a synthetic material at a very high temperature to form a crystal, the radioactive elements would be contained. Initial findings from Cambridge and PNNL suggest that some mineral forms would not be sufficiently effective. The team measured crystals comprising plutonium, silicon and zirconium oxides (zircons) that were created 25 years ago, and the magnetic resonance measurements suggested that the crystals would be more susceptible to leakage within 1,400 years and that the crystal would swell and potentially crack much sooner - perhaps within just 210 years, a long way short of the target. When the materials are combined in a crystal form, alpha particles, which are continually released during radioactive decay, bombard the structure of the crystal. Over time, the crystal eventually breaks down, compromising its integrity and increasing the potential for leakage of the radioactive element. Earth and material scientists believe it possible to construct a crystal which is resistant to this alpha particle enfilade by rebuilding itself over time, containing the radioactive elements for a much longer period. The tests constructed by the Cambridge and PNNL team allow for much more accurate evaluation of a material's durability over the immense time-frames involved in the equations. Herman Cho, PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert said: "The testing method we have developed adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms in general. It has also raised the question: 'How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behaviour of these materials?'" Dr Farnan commented: "By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of pounds worth of savings and improve the overall safety. "We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. "This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." Business NewsWatch Options ***************************************************************** 67 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review [seattlepi.com] Thursday, January 18, 2007 · Last updated 12:11 p.m. PT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RICHLAND, Wash. -- A radiation leak just days after the discovery that an employee had falsified records halted some cleanup efforts at the Hanford nuclear reservation so workers could take a "safety break." The safety review Wednesday affected about 1,000 employees and subcontractors of Washington Closure Hanford, which is cleaning up contaminated areas near former reactor sites along the Columbia River. Workers returned to their jobs Thursday, Washington Closure spokesman Todd Nelson said. On Tuesday, radioactive tritium contamination was found to have spread outside a tent where radiological work was being performed near the closed B and C reactors on the nuclear reservation's north side. The levels of contamination were too low to require reporting and were not believed to have affected worker health, Nelson said. It is too early to say whether the U.S. Department of Energy will fine the company, Nelson said Thursday. [advertising] "They're going to have to say," he said. "We're taking aggressive action to get work going and make sure it doesn't happen again." DOE spokeswoman Colleen French did not immediately return a call for comment from The Associated Press on Thursday. Washington Closure and Energy Department officials were working on a decontamination plan for the tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that spreads easily because it binds with oxygen. The spread of tritium and the problem with landfill compacting records discovered last week "make us concerned about the conduct of operations," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the cleanup project. EPA will discuss its concerns with DOE and Washington Closure officials, he said. Tritium, which is used in hydrogen bombs, was produced at Hanford reactors from 1949-1952 until its production was moved elsewhere. The leak occurred after workers tapped a small canister Friday that was among debris retrieved from a burial ground that held waste from Hanford's B Reactor and nearby buildings. They discovered tritium gas inside. Work inside the radiological tent was halted Monday after tritium contamination was found. Additional tests found the contamination had been tracked outside the tent. Washington Closure has about 700 workers and its subcontractors have about 300. The company is in charge of cleaning 761 waste sites and burial grounds contaminated by radioactive and chemical wastes. The radiation contamination comes on the heels of the discovery last Friday that a subcontractor employee had falsified records at a low-level radioactive waste landfill. S.M. Stoller, which operates the landfill, said that one employee had been recording compaction test data even though he had not performed the test at times over the past year. The test ensures that compacting of waste is adequate so that contents won't settle and possibly affect the integrity of an engineered cap that will cover the landfill. The Energy Department's primary concern has been working with Washington Closure to ensure employees are safe and the environment is protected, French told the Tri-City Herald on Wednesday. The agency is looking at the circumstances surrounding the tritium contamination, she said. "While this is tough work, worker safety is the department's priority and any action or process breakdown that calls that into question is simply unacceptable," she said. "That's what we'll be looking at as we continue to gather facts and examine the causes." --- Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 68 Tri-City Herald: 1,000 pause work at Hanford Published Thursday, January 18th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer About 1,000 workers on the Hanford river corridor closure project stopped work Wednesday to focus on safety and compliance issues after a second operations problem in less than a week was discovered. Radioactive tritium spread outside a tent isolating radiological work in the area near the B and C reactors in north Hanford, contractor Washington Closure Hanford discovered Tuesday. On Friday, in unrelated work, its subcontractor had discovered that data for compaction tests in a low-level radioactive waste landfill had been falsified, potentially affecting the long-term integrity of the landfill. The problems follow an independent review ordered by the Department of Energy that concluded in October that workers questioned whether Washington Closure's safety culture was adequate. The most recent problem occurred after workers tapped a small canister Friday that was among debris retrieved from a burial ground that held waste from Hanford's B Reactor and nearby buildings. They discovered tritium gas inside. Tritium is difficult to detect with Geiger counters in small amounts because its radiation has low energy and it is easily shielded, even by small objects. Instead, workers wiped surfaces and had the swipes tested. On Monday, they found tritium contamination inside the tented area where the work was being done. Work was halted there. Swipes were collected to test surfaces outside the tented area to make sure the tritium had not been tracked outside. Samples were collected from the floors of vehicles, worker shoes and areas where workers walked. Those swipes found more tritium, confirming it had spread out of the radiological work area, but at levels too low to require reporting, said Todd Nelson, Washington Closure spokesman. Washington Closure does not believe worker health was affected. Washington Closure officials met Wednesday to determine how the tritium spread and whether procedures had been followed. They also are working on a decontamination plan. The spread of tritium along with the compaction test problem discovered last week "make us concerned about the conduct of operations," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, the regulator on the project. EPA will discuss its concerns with DOE and Washington Closure, he said. DOE's primary concern so far has been working with Washington Closure to ensure the employees involved were safe and the environment was protected, said DOE spokeswoman Colleen French. Now, DOE is looking at the circumstances, she said. "While this is tough work, worker safety is the department's priority and any action or process breakdown that calls that into question is simply unacceptable," she said. "That's what we'll be looking at as we continue to gather facts and examine the causes." Washington Closure knew that workers might find tritium in the area near the B and C reactors. It spreads easily because as an isotope of hydrogen it binds with oxygen. Hanford had the first pilot program in the United States to produce tritium beginning in the spring of 1949 for what was then called the "super bomb," said Richland historian Michele Gerber. In 1952, the project was moved to DOE's Savannah River nuclear site. Tritium was extracted from irradiated fuel containing lithium in the 108 B Building, she said. The temperature was raised until gas containing tritium was driven off and collected in what were then called "shipping flasks," she said. The container of tritium gas found in the burial ground was about 5 by 10 inches. Today tritium is used in thermo-nuclear, or hydrogen, bombs. Work was halted across the Columbia River corridor at Hanford on Wednesday, the area of the nuclear reservation that Washington Closure is cleaning up. Workers reviewed safety procedures for current and upcoming tasks and discussed ways to perform work that is safe and efficient. In the afternoon, they gathered for an all-employee meeting at the Toyota Center coliseum to further discuss safety issues and the importance of following procedures. Washington Closure has about 700 workers and its subcontractors have about 300. Washington Closure met with DOE and EPA on Tuesday to discuss resuming accepting waste at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility after the falsified data was detected. It received permission to resume operations in previously unused areas. But it is required to revise the compaction test procedures at the landfill, evaluate hazards with the revised work process and retrain workers. Workers have been unable to fill waste containers to be hauled to the landfill this week because temperatures were so cold that the waste would have frozen in the containers. Contaminated soil and materials from buildings that are being torn down along the Columbia River are taken to the landfill for burial. S.M. Stoller, which operates the landfill, discovered last week that one employee had been recording compaction test data even though he had not performed the test at times over the past year. The test ensures that compaction of waste is adequate. If it is not, settling could affect the integrity of an engineered cap that is expected eventually to be placed over the landfill. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 69 ABQJOURNAL: Mock Bomb Taken From Los Alamos Scrap Yard Thursday, January 18, 2007 Albuquerque Journal--> Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — Someone has stolen a fake nuclear bomb. The 500-pound bomb was taken Monday from a Los Alamos salvage store, the Black Hole. The store is run by Ed Grothus, a Los Alamos peace activist who sells salvage from Los Alamos National Laboratory and other places. Grothus said he bought several so-called "practice bombs'' in Oklahoma about three years ago. He joined several of them in a hub to create a sunflower and left another nearby to give people an idea of how the sunflower was made. He said he last saw it Monday morning, but he noticed it was gone when he was ready to go home that evening. Copyright ©2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 70 DOE: Alternative Fuel Transportation Program; Replacement Fuel Goal Modification 10 CFR Part 490 FR Doc E7-607 [Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 2212-2213] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18ja07-21] RIN 1904-AB67 AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE or Department). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy proposed to amend the Replacement Fuel Goal provided under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), Public Law 102-486. 71 FR 54771 (September 19, 2006). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to revise the goal to a level which is achievable, in accordance with requirements under section 504 of EPAct 1992. Due to technical difficulties in receiving the electronic comments on the proposed rule for the Replacement Fuel Goal, the comment period, which originally ended on November 3, 2006, is reopened and comments will be accepted until January 31, 2007, to ensure that all comments submitted during the original comment period are entered in the docket. All comments already received by DOE have been posted in the written comments section of the electronic docket at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ [fxsp0]vehiclesandfuels/epact/[fxsp0]private/plg-- docket.html. If comments were previously submitted but are not posted in this location, the comments should be resubmitted to DOE prior to the new deadline. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on September 19, 2006 which ended on November 3, 2006 is reopened and extended to January 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1904- AB67, by either of the following methods: --E-mail: Submit through both regulatory_info@afdc.nrel.gov and dana.o'hara@hq.doe.gov. Include the number 1094-AB67 in the subject line of the message. -- Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-2G, RIN 1904-AB67, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dana V. O'Hara, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-2G), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121; (202) 586- 9171; or Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of the General Counsel (GC-72), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121; (202) 586-9507. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the proposed rule published September 19, 2006, DOE proposed to modify the 2010 goal of 30 percent of U.S. motor fuel production to be supplied by replacement fuels, established in section 502(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, because it is not achievable. 71 FR 54771. The Department has authority to review the goal and to modify it, by rule, if it is not achievable, and in doing so may change the percentage level for the goal and/or the timeframe for achievement of the goal. (42 U.S.C. 13254(b).) The Department has preliminarily determined through its analysis that the 30 percent replacement fuel production goal could potentially be met, not by 2010, but at a later date. The Department consequently is proposing to keep the replacement fuel goal of 30 percent originally provided in EPAct 1992 (section 502(b)(2)), but extend the date for achieving the goal to 2030. Due to technical difficulties in receiving the electronic comments on the proposed rule, the comment period is reopened until January 31, 2007. During the original comment period, [[Page 2213]] some comments were not accepted by the electronic docket. We believe that all comments originally blocked from submission have since been resubmitted successfully. However, to ensure that all comments submitted electronically during the original comment period are included in the docket for this rulemaking, we are reopening the comment period. If an interested person submitted a comment electronically during the original comment period, and that comment is not posted on the electronic docket (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/private/plg_d ocket.html ), that comment should be resubmitted as directed under the ADDRESSES heading. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2007. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. E7-607 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 71 DOE: Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action at Active Uranium and FR Doc E7-609 [Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)] [Notices] [Page 2271] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18ja07-51] Thorium Processing Sites AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of the acceptance of Title X claims for reimbursement in fiscal year (FY) 2008. SUMMARY: This Notice announces the Department of Energy (DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2007 from eligible active uranium and thorium processing sites for reimbursement under Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For FY 2007, DOE requested Congress to appropriate $20 million for reimbursement of certain costs of remedial action at these sites. As of the date of this notice, a final appropriation has not been received for FY 2007. Therefore, the total amount of funds for reimbursing Title X claims in FY 2007 is not known. The approved amount of claims submitted during FY 2006 and unpaid approved balances for claims submitted in prior years will be paid by April 30, 2007, subject to the availability of funds. If the available funds are less than the total approved claims, these payments will be prorated, if necessary, based on the amount of available FY 2007 appropriations, unpaid approved claim balances (approximately $2.8 million), and claims received in May 2006 (approximately $25 million). DATES: The closing date for the submission of claims in FY 2007 is May 1, 2007. These new claims will be processed for payment by April 30, 2008, together with unpaid approved claim balances from prior years, based on the availability of funds from congressional appropriations. ADDRESSES: Claims should be forwarded by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. David Alan Hicks, Title X Program Box 25547, Denver, Colorado 80225-0547. Three copies of the claim should be included with each submission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact David Mathes at (301) 903-7222 of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Disposal Operations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR Part 765 in the Federal Register on May 23, 1994, (59 FR 26714) to carry out the requirements of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001-1004 of Pub. L. 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.) and to establish the procedures for eligible licensees to submit claims for reimbursement. DOE amended the final rule on June 3, 2003, (68 FR 32955) to adopt several technical and administrative amendments (e.g., statutory increases in the reimbursement ceilings). Title X requires DOE to reimburse eligible uranium and thorium licensees for certain costs of decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, and other remedial action incurred by licensees at active uranium and thorium processing sites to remediate byproduct material generated as an incident of sales to the United States Government. To be reimbursable, costs of remedial action must be for work which is necessary to comply with applicable requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or, where appropriate, with requirements established by a State pursuant to a discontinuance agreement under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for reimbursement must be supported by reasonable documentation as determined by DOE in accordance with 10 CFR Part 765. Funds for reimbursement will be provided from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund established at the United States Department of Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or obligation of funds shall be subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341). Authority: Section 1001-1004 of Public Law 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.). Issued in Washington DC on this 11th day of January, 2007. David E. Mathes, Office of Disposal Operations, Office of Regulatory Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-609 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 72 KnoxNews: Nuclear engineer/attorney named to Baker Center post By FRED BROWN, brownf@knews.com January 18, 2007 Jerry Paul, a nuclear engineer and attorney who recently retired as principal deputy administrator with the National Nuclear Security Administration, has been named the first Distinguished Fellow on Energy Policy at the University of Tennessee's Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy. Paul said there has never been a better time to take the job. "Entire countries recognize their geopolitical strategies are affected by energy supply. It affects the relationship with their allies and relationships and positions on other policies," he said. "The prime role for the Baker Energy Fellow is to help stimulate debate on important energy issues of the day. And right now we are in an unprecedented era of excitement with attention and focus on how we provide clean, safe energy for next 50 years." The Baker Center created the energy fellow position in partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "Our goal with the Energy Fellow program is to stimulate discussion and debate about national energy policy," said Alan Lowe, Baker Center executive director. The fellow will work at the Baker Center and its partners for one year. Other sponsors include the Cornerstone Foundation, the late Lindsay Young and Anheuser-Busch Corp. Paul's background also includes service as a state representative in Florida and in the U.S. Merchant Marine and Navy Reserve. He was a reactor engineer and power-plant operator at fossil and nuclear power plants and also served on the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. "I am glad that the Baker Center, with Jerry's invaluable help, will play a critical role in helping to address our nation's complex energy challenges," former Sen. Howard Baker said. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who counts energy independence among his priorities and chairs the Senate Energy Subcommittee and TVA Caucus, said, "I look forward to the Baker Center's thoughts on how to achieve those goals." Senior writer Fred Brown may be reached at 865-342-6427. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 73 lamonitor.com: Last ditch plea for science funding The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor With much of the federal government now facing a budget freeze until next year, efforts are afoot in Congress to protect science programs that would face severe impacts. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R.-Tenn., have sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter to the other senators, asking them to sign on to a request to the leaders of the energy appropriations subcommittee seeking assurance that DOE's Office of Science budget is not cut this year. The letter is addressed to subcommittee chairman Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and ranking member Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and has been signed by more than 15 senators so far. A similar letter is circulating in the House of Representatives. "The Office of Science funds much of our nation's leading-edge R, and it would be a big mistake to allow the proposed budget to be cut," Bingaman said in an announcement this morning. "We should do everything we can to make sure the Office of Science is adequately funded not only this year, but for years to come." The letter spells out some possible consequences. "Freezing Office of Science funding at the Fiscal Year 2006 level would have a significant adverse impact, such as closure of national user facilities; increased construction costs of new facilities; layoffs of hundreds of scientists and engineers and support staff; a sharp reduction in university programs; and jeopardizing U.S. commitments to domestic industry and international partners," the letter from Bingaman and Alexander reads. Congress adjourned in December having passed appropriation bills for only the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Last month, key Democratic leaders of appropriation committees in both houses announced that they would support a continuing resolution that would keep funding flat for the unfinished funding bills through the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sep. 30. The continuing resolution would also drop all "earmarks" - the special requests by legislators that increase the budget for specific projects. In a press conference Wednesday with the radio press of New Mexico, Bingaman said the continuing resolution would have impacts "across the board" in New Mexico. "From highways to health to national laboratories, there are a whole range of specific projects which will not be funded," he said. A six-page document titled "DOE Program Impacts Under a One-Year Continuing Resolution (CR)" was made available by the American Institute of Physics Wednesday, outlining the effects of the freeze on science programs in the department. Among the items, DOE said the recently announced solicitation to support the Bioenergy Research Centers for new developments in biofuels would be canceled and no research awards made. This was one of the prime efforts of LANL's new Institute for Advanced Studies. Bingaman's communication director, Jude McCartin said this morning by phone from Washington that the senator is hoping to obtain more flexibility in the DOE budget so that key science programs would be funded. The continuing resolution would need to contain a provision that would enable the departments - not just DOE but all the departments covered under the continuing resolution - to transfer funds from one account to another. In its impacts analysis, DOE underlined areas not included in the Office of Science that would suffer under the proposed continuing resolution. Among them: + In Departmental Administration, loss of new funds for cybersecurity could leave the Department "vulnerable to increasing cyber attacks." + In weapons activities, DOE reported, "There is a potential FTE (Full Time Employee) layoffs up to 450 contractor employees in 8 states." The list includes 120 employees in New Mexico employed with Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility project and Sandia's fusion device, the Z-machine. + In the Office of Nuclear Energy, loss of funding for the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would deal a severe blow to recycling technologies that were supposed to reduce proliferation risks and expand the capacity of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository to meet long-term storage needs for high-level wastes from nuclear power plants. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************