***************************************************************** 01/29/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.23 ***************************************************************** 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 UN Nuclear Watchdog Proposes 'timeout' By Both Sides On Iran's Nucle 2 US 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in Bulgaria 3 Guardian Unlimited: US threatens firm response to Iranian meddling i 4 AFP: US rejects call for timeout in Iranian nuclear crisis 5 AFP: Bolton for regime change in Tehran 6 AFP: Bush warns Iran over Iraq, nuclear ambitions 7 UPI: U.N. asks for timeout in Iran nuke impasse 8 UPI: Iran studying IAEA proposal 9 UPI: Outside View: Collision course with Iran 10 Korea Herald: U.S., N.K. open talks on BDA 11 YONHAP NEWS: U.S. ambassador to South Korea to give special lecture 12 YONHAP NEWS: S. Korea makes inroad into basic nuclear technology fie 13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Deal May Include Freeing N. Korea Fu 14 Korea Times: Korea, US to Hold Defense Talks 15 US: Guardian Unlimited: Don't be fooled by Bush's defection - his cu 16 The Australian: Nuclear trio meet for talks 17 The Observer: Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders 18 HindustanTimes.com: 'N-weapons India's strategic compulsion' 19 Independent: US attacks Israel's cluster bomb use 20 Daily Times: Pakistan may join Nuclear Suppliers’ Group in few years NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 US: Nuke Power Defense Impractical Government Admits, "Irresponsible 22 [NukeNet] Scotland: Nuclear plant faces action after worker 23 The Hindu: 'Different countries can help India meet energy goals' 24 NEWS.com.au: New nuclear reactor fires up energy debate | 25 US: Baxter Bulletin: Energy independence? No, energy nonsense 26 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse on the mend 27 US: NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impa 28 US: NRC: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation; Establishment of Ato 29 The Local - Swedish nuclear plant slated for poor safety 30 US: NRC: NRC Solicits Comments on Proposed Enforcement Policy Revisi 31 The Local: Power firms stung by cost of nuclear shutdown 32 ABC: Nuclear reactor's life coming to an end. 33 US: NRC: Statement from Chairman Dale Klein on Commission's Affirmat 34 US: Decatur Dail: TVA plans to add 2 nuclear reactors in N. Alabama 35 US: AFP: Low danger from possible attack on US nuclear plant - study 36 UPI: Analysis: Energy security a priority 37 UPI: Bulgaria wants to reopen nuclear reactors 38 US: KnoxNews: TVA wants more nuclear power NUCLEAR SECURITY 39 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical 40 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical 41 US: Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Tighter nuke site security ordered 42 US: UPI: Walker's World: Nukes and risk NUCLEAR SAFETY 43 US: ContraCostaTimes.com: Rail tankers pose threat of massive destru 44 US: AxisofLogic: Depleted Uranium Poison Explosions Target US Citize 45 US: KTRV FOX 12: Divine Strake Meeting NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 46 reviewjournal.com: REIGNING WOMEN (Yucca Mt) 47 World Nuclear News: McGaffigan speaks out on Yucca 48 Platts: Toyocho town volunteers to host a high-level waster reposito 49 US: DenverPost.com: Uranium boom in the West PEACE 50 The Hindu: Committed to nuclear disarmament - Sonia US DEPT. OF ENERGY 51 SF New Mexican: Congress scrutinizing LANL security 52 KnoxNews: Fire started during Y-12 operation in December 53 KnoxNews: ORNL working on river security ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UN Nuclear Watchdog Proposes 'timeout' By Both Sides On Iran's Nuclear Programme Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:01:07 -0500 UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG PROPOSES ‘TIMEOUT’ BY BOTH SIDES ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME New York, Jan 29 2007 1:00PM The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency is <" http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/iran_timeout.html">calling for a “timeout” on the Iranian nuclear issue, with Iran suspending uranium enrichment and the international community suspending sanctions over a programme that Tehran says is for producing energy but which others maintain is for making nuclear weapons. A key to resolving the issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the United States similar to that with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei stressed in several interviews over the weekend in Davos, Switzerland, where he attended the World Economic Forum. “I call on all parties to take a simultaneous timeout. Iran should take a timeout from its enrichment activity, the international community a timeout from the application of sanctions, and parties should go immediately to the negotiating table,” he said. “The right track is dialogue, negotiation.” The US led successful efforts in the Security Council last month to impose sanctions, maintaining that Iran’s nuclear programme was aimed at weapons production, a claim Tehran consistently denies. In recent reports, Mr. ElBaradei has noted that although the IAEA has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, it also cannot conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The crisis began with the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (<" http://www.opcw.org">NPT). “North Korea is a good example,” Dr. ElBaradei said, stressing the need for US-Iranian talks. “For years, things were not moving. Only when the US talked directly with the North Koreans, we had a positive report. If we are able to talk to the North Koreans, we ought to be able to talk to the Iranians,” he told CNN. He voiced hope that he would be able to report positively to the IAEA Board of Governors on the implementation of nuclear safeguards in Iran at its next meeting beginning 5 March at IAEA headquarters in Vienna. “I’d like to report we’re on the right track,” he added. “The right track is dialogue, negotiation... The key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the US. If I report negatively, and we have escalation and counter-escalation, we are on the wrong track.” On reports that Iran has banned 38 IAEA inspectors, Dr. ElBaradei told CNN that Tehran was not banning inspectors, but attempting to lower their number. “This reduced somewhat the flexibility we have, but I should say we have over 100 inspectors in Tehran, so we have enough people to do the job,” he said. “It is in the interest of Iran for us to be able to do our work and to be able to show that they are transparent and they are proactive.” 2007-01-29 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 US 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in Bulgaria, Romania 29 Jan 2007 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:59:14 -0600 (CST) Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government 29 January 2007 http://www.legitgov.org/ All links to articles as summarized below are available here: http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news America 'poised to strike at Iran's nuclear sites' from bases in Bulgaria and Romania --Report suggest that 'US defensive ring' may be new front in war on [of] terror. 29 Jan 2007 President [sic] Bush is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia. Bush warns Iran against fueling violence in Iraq 29 Jan 2007 [Right, Bush wants to fuel violence in Iraq, all on his own.] U.S. President [sic] George W. Bush vowed on Monday to respond firmly if Iran foments violence in Iraq, but said he had no intention of invading Iran. Washington has accused Tehran of undermining efforts to bring stability in Iraq [LOL!] and of pursuing nuclear weapons. Two U.S. aircraft carriers have been stationed in the Gulf as a warning to Iran. Bush warns Iran against action in Iraq 29 Jan 2007 Deeply distrustful of Iran, Dictator Bush said Monday "we will respond firmly" if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens. ElBaradei's Idea for `Timeout' With Iran Is Rejected by U.S. 29 Jan 2007 The U.S. today rejected a proposal by the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency for a "simultaneous" freeze on Iran's uranium enrichment and on Security Council sanctions adopted last month. Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq 29 Jan 2007 Irans ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital just as the [meddling] Bush regime has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs. Gates: Troops may target any enemy in Iraq 29 Jan 2007 U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is not aware of a change in policy that "allows" Iranian agents in Iraq to be captured or killed. "Our forces are authorized to go after those who are trying to kill them," Gates told reporters Friday. "It's not clear to me it is different. I'm not aware of any change ... of our forces having the authority to go after those who would kill Americans, any foreign fighter in Iraq who would kill Americans," he said. [Can someone please tell the hypocritical *moron* that Americans *are* the foreign fighters in Iraq?] Contractor deaths in Iraq nearing 800 28 Jan 2007 Laboring in a war with no discernible front line, more than 770 'civilian contractors' [mercenaries] have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion began in March 2003. Injury count in Iraq disputed --Some say Pentagon hides full impact of the war toll 28 Jan 2007 Officially, more than 23,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in Iraq. But if the Pentagon also counted soldiers who were hurt in crashes or circumstances not directly involving skirmishes with the enemy, and those so sick that they required air transport, the figure would come to about 50,000, the Pentagon's own figures show. Guardsmen find 'torture house' on Iraq patrol --3 injured captives freed, according to unit 29 Jan 2007 A group of Minnesota National Guardsmen on patrol in the Iraqi city of Fallujah this week walked into a [US] "torture house" with bloodstained walls and three badly injured captives one so horribly abused that he could no longer walk. Kucinich offers plan to end war 28 Jan 2007 A packed and cheering crowd greeted U.S. Representative and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Sunday at St. Matthias Episcopal Church as he campaigned on a plan to end the war on Iraq. Veteran peace protester sent to jail despite prisons crisis 29 Jan 2007 A peace campaigner [Lindis Percy] has been jailed for failing to pay a #50 fine, despite the crisis of chronic overcrowding in Britain's prisons. Israel 'broke US arms deal terms' 29 Jan 2007 Israel probably violated the terms of its arms deals with Washington by using US-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last year, a US government report says. The state department looked into Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas of southern Lebanon during its conflict with Hezbollah. US-made weapons are sold to the Israeli military with restriction on their use. Cluster bombs wound two Belgian soldiers in southern Lebanon 29 Jan 2007 Two Belgian soldiers were wounded in a cluster bomb blast during a demining operation in southern Lebanon, Lebanese and United Nations sources said Monday. Germany preparing for likely air warfare 29 Jan 2007 In apparent response to a NATO request for reconnaissance aircraft, Germany has been having its pilots engage in training for possible future combat missions. Germany's Deutsche Welle said that German pilots in the armed forces are engaging in military training with new technology for possible fighting in Afghanistan. Fleischer: Libby talked of CIA officer during lunch 29 Jan 2007 Testifying at the perjury and obstruction trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said today that Libby told him that the wife of an administration war critic worked at the CIA during a lunch in the White House mess one day after the critic went public with his concerns. Libby Trial Exposes Cheney's Lies By Bill Gallagher 30 Jan 2007 The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's [sic] former chief of staff, is providing a public autopsy of the lengths [Dick] Cheney went to in order to protect one of his favorite and most effective lies -- that Saddam was shopping in Niger to buy uranium for nuclear enrichment. Like the other "evidence" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, this was not an "intelligence failure." It was a pure hoax that Cheney and President [sic] George W. Bush would use repeatedly to sell their claim that only an invasion of Iraq could spare the world from Saddam and his mad scientists. Potshot at Guantanamo lawyers backfires --Big firms laud free legal aid for detainees 29 Jan 2007 Two weeks after a senior Pentagon official suggested that corporations should pressure their law firms to stop assisting detainees at Guantanamo Bay, major companies have turned the tables on the Pentagon and issued statements supporting the law firms' work on behalf of terrorism suspects. CLP leader rebukes Govt over Hicks case 29 Jan 2007 The Northern Territory's Opposition Leader has publicly rebuked the Federal Government for not doing enough to end the uncertainty around Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks. It is the first time a leader of one of the country's conservative political parties has broken ranks on the issue. Mr Hicks has not faced trial, despite being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for more than five years. Dutch Citizen Arraigned On Charges of Terrorism Conspiracy Against Americans In Iraq (fbi.gov) 29 Jan 2007 An Iraqi-born Dutch citizen who was extradited from the Netherlands on Saturday made his initial appearance today in federal court in Washington, D.C., to face charges for allegedly participating in a conspiracy to attack Americans based in Iraq, announced Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Joseph Persichini Jr., Assistant Director in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Washington Field Office. This case represents the first U.S. criminal prosecution arising from terrorist activities taking place in Iraq. Lockheed to Support CDC Terrorism-Response Effort 29 Jan 2007 Lockheed Martin of Bethesda won a five-year, $135 million contract from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support the agency's office for coordinating terrorism preparation [They're preparing it, alright!] and emergency response. Lockheed Martin also will provide communications, training, planning, logistics, administrative, operations and IT support for the Emergency Operations Center, which is the agency's focus when responding to public health emergencies, disease outbreaks and investigations. Terrorism threat lurking like Jaws, says new police chief 29 Jan 2007 West Yorkshire's new police chief has said the threat of terrorism is out there lurking - just like Jaws. Sir Norman Bettison, who took up his role as West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable on Monday, has urged Calderdale residents to come forward with any suspicions about potential terrorists [such as Bush, the most dangerous terrorist on earth!]. His comments follow last week's raids in Halifax when two men were arrested under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of distributing radical material. "The threat of terrorism is lurking out there like Jaws 2," said Sir Norman. Men charged under Terrorism Act 29 Jan 2007 Two men held after police searches of properties in West Yorkshire have been charged under the Terrorism Act. Rizwan Ditta and Mohammad Dilal, both from Halifax, will appear before City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on Tuesday. Mr Ditta faces 13 charges connected to possessing computer files [!?!] and Mr Dilal is accused of two offences in relation to a disc, a computer file and CDs. House Democrat vows scrutiny on homeland security 29 Jan 2007 The new Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives homeland security panel [Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS)] on Monday vowed aggressive scrutiny of Bush administration policies to protect the United States from attack. Nuclear agency: air defenses impractical 29 Jan 2007 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that nuclear power plant operators should not be expected to stop terrorists from crashing an airliner into a reactor, saying that responsibility lies elsewhere. "The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military," the NRC said in a statement. U.S. Park Police Officers Raise Alarm on Safety and Terrorism --Line Cops Cast Resounding No Confidence Vote in Leadership 29 Jan 2007 The officers of the U.S. Park Police lack the funding, force levels and equipment to protect the public, themselves and the national icons in their care, according to survey results released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Surveyed officers also strongly disputed the competence and commitment of their agency's leadership. Silence over airport security scare 29 Jan 2007 Sydney Airport Corporation is refusing to explain why a passenger who sparked a security scare at the domestic terminal last night could not be found. The unidentified person breached security screening at Sydney Airport's T2 domestic terminal about 6.40pm. National Security Whistle Blowers: The 'Undead'? By Jeff Stein 26 Jan 2007 Like so many other disillusioned ex-CIA, FBI and other erstwhile spooks, Haig Melkessetians career was derailed for telling the truth. Today, hes another casualty of Iraq, one of the growing number of national security "undead" in Washingtons intelligence demimonde, "entities that are deceased yet behave as if alive," according to Wikipedias take on the horror flick creatures"animated corpses," bureaucratically speaking. 'Terror-Free' Gas Coming to a Pump Near You 29 Jan 2007 The nation's first "terror-free" gas station is scheduled to open in Omaha, Nebraska, on February 1. The Terror-Free Oil Initiative says that big oil companies, like Exxon Mobil, Gulf and Shell, finance terrorism by importing oil from the Middle East. Russian scientists 'alarmed' as millions of birds begin falling from world's skies 26 Jan 2007 An alarming series of reports from the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Influenza Research Institute are reporting today that millions of avian species have succumbed, while in flight, to a rapidly evolving virus linked to the deadly H5N1 Bird Flu variant. Doctor Scientist Oleg Kiselyov, the head of the Influenza Research Institute, states in these reports that a nematode parasite belonging to the 'Superfamily Subuluroidea' has now become a carrier of a 'mutated' H5N1 Bird Flu Virus with 'sub strains' never seen before. Russia finds H5N1 bird flu strain in southern yards 29 Jan 2007 Russia has recorded its first cases this year of the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of bird flu in dead domestic birds, the country's animal and plant health agency said on Monday. Rosselkhoznadzor said in a statement the virus was detected in dead birds found in three domestic yards in the Krasnodar region of southern Russia. US urges scientists to block out sun 29 Jan 2007 The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming. The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. Experts slam upcoming global warming report 29 Jan 2007 Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures. But that may be the sugarcoated version... Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations. Mysterious falling chunk of ice smashes Tampa car 29 Jan 2007 Raymond Rodriguez was changing a tire when an 18-inch chunk of ice plummeted from the sky with a piercing whistle, then a metallic crunch. The ice chunk crushed the roof of a nearby Ford Mustang on Sunday morning... The Federal Aviation Administration is reviewing flight schedules to see if the ice fell off a plane. Please Contribute for January's expenses. Thank you! [28 Jan lead stories:] Thousands may be involuntarily called for tours 28 Jan 2007 Hundreds of thousands of National Guard and Reserve members previously mobilized for tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are exposed anew to involuntary call-up under a policy change unveiled with President [sic] Bush's plan to "surge" forces into Baghdad. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has rescinded a rule, set in 2002, that barred involuntary mobilization of reserve personnel beyond a "cumulative" 24-month ceiling for a wartime emergency. US military: Afghan leaders steal half of all aid 28 Jan 2007 Corrupt police and tribal leaders are stealing vast quantities of reconstruction aid, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. In some cases, all the aid earmarked for an area has ended up in the wrong hands. Defence officials in the United States and Britain estimate that up to half of all aid in Afghanistan is failing to reach the right people. [See: U.S. to Seek $10.6B for Afghanistan 25 Jan 2007 President [sic] Bush will ask Congress for $10.6 billion to help 'Afghanistan' [Halliburton, Blackwater USA]. The money would be on top of $14.2 billion in aid the United States has already given to Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 that toppled [installed] the Taliban.] Army probes war contractor fraud 28 Jan 2007 From high-dollar fraud to conspiracy to bribery and bid rigging, Army investigators have opened up to 50 criminal probes involving battlefield contractors in the war in Iraq and the U.S. fight against [for] terrorism, The Associated Press has learned. Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg. Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries. CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright ) 2007, Citizens For Legitimate Government . All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: US threatens firm response to Iranian meddling in Iraq [UP] Ewen MacAskill in Washington, and Michael Howard in Sulaymaniya Tuesday January 30, 2007 The Guardian Tension between the US and Iran rose sharply yesterday when President George Bush warned Tehran that he would respond "firmly" if Tehran stepped up its alleged involvement in violence in Iraq. The Bush administration is planning to publish shortly what it claims is evidence that Iran is behind some of the violence. The Bush administration has received a lengthy briefing from the Pentagon about a possible air strike on Iran, but debate is continuing among the inner circle about the options. Two US aircraft carriers were deployed in the Gulf earlier this month and the rhetoric from Washington has become more threatening. Mr Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio, said yesterday: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly." The latest episode of violence in Iraq, however, appeared little connected to Iran, as the Iraqi government concluded major combat operations to subdue an obscure Islamic splinter group suspected of planning attacks on the Shia clerical establishment during today's Ashura celebrations in nearby Kerbala. Defence ministry officials said 200 militants, including the cult's leader, had been killed in the fighting and 60 were wounded. However, estimates for the number of dead and injured varied widely, as did information about the motives and membership of the previously unknown group, known as the Army of Heaven, which believes in the return of the Mahdi, a 9th century imam whose reappearance will signal a world of justice and peace. The US military were largely quiet about the operation, during which two of its soldiers lost their lives when a helicopter was brought down. There was growing concern yesterday at the ease with which the group's followers managed to build up a cache of heavy weapons under the noses of Iraqi security forces - in a part of the country where security is relatively good. The US handed responsibility for security in Najaf province to Iraqi forces last month. Police commanders in Najaf who launched the operation against the group at dawn on Sunday said they were surprised by the ferocity and firepower they encountered. Initially outgunned, they called in US air support. "We found bunkers full of mortars and automatic weapons and anti-aircraft rockets," a police spokesman said. Iran makes no secret of its growing involvement in Iraq's affairs. Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, told the New York Times, that Tehran was taking steps to greatly expand military and economic ties with Iraq. He offered increased help with reconstruction and support to Iraq forces in training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight". His remarks could be interpreted by the Bush administration as an offer of help with reconstruction or as provocation. Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, leaned towards the latter: "We hope Iran plays a constructive role in the region, rather than one that is not being constructive - whether it be in pursuing nuclear weapons or supporting groups that have been committing acts of violence against either US troops, against people within Iraq or destabilising democracies in Afghanistan and Lebanon." · Additional reporting by Emad al Sharaa in Kerbala [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: US rejects call for timeout in Iranian nuclear crisis Mon Jan 29, 4:29 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States rejected a proposal by the UN nuclear chief to call "timeout" in the Iranian nuclear crisis, saying the UN resolutions already being applied were not up for renegotiation. "There is a path laid out for suspension and that is Iranian suspension of their enrichment activities to be responded to by the Council. So that is very clear and it's not subject to reinterpretation," the US representative to the United Nations, Alejandro Wolff, said. "There is a path laid out for suspension and that is Iranian suspension of their enrichment activities to be responded to by the Council. So that is very clear and it's not subject to reinterpretation,&" the US representative to the United Nations, Alejandro Wolff, said." UN nuclear chief Mohamad ElBaradei proposed on Friday that to end the standoff Tehran should stop uranium enrichment and the UN should simultaneously suspend sanctions against the Islamic republic. Washington has led calls for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, accusing Iranian leaders of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. A UN Security Council resolution passed on December 23 imposed sanctions on Iran" /> Iranuntil it suspends uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also produces material for atomic bombs. But Iran continues to defy the international community and has vowed to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, arguing that its nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy purposes. Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, was more upbeat about ElBaradei's proposal however, saying: "All acts would have to be verified. I personally read Mr ElBaradei's remarks as a very useful reminder of the positive clauses that are included in the resolution." Russia is a long-term ally of Iran and Moscow's security chief Igor Ivanov on Sunday vowed to finish on time a nuclear power plant being built with Russian help in Bushehr on Iran's southwestern Gulf coast. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Bolton for regime change in Tehran Mon Jan 29, 7:34 AM ET PARIS (AFP) - Negotiations with Tehran over Iran" /> 's nuclear programme have failed and the only long-term option is regime change, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has said. "We have to recognise it: negotiations have failed. Time is not on our side. I am not sure this view is shared in London, Berlin or Paris. But that is a mistake," Bolton told Le Monde newspaper Monday. "The only response is to isolate (the Iranians) internationally as well as politically and economically. In the long term, in the I hope not very long term, the only real solution is regime change," he said. Asked if this was the policy of the US administration, he said: "No. Regime change is not part of their working framework." On the issue of Iraq" /> , Bolton -- a key supporter of the 2003 invasion -- said that he "continued to think that the basic decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein" /> was the right one." "Retrospectively we should have transferred authority to the Iraqis more quickly," he said. Asked about President George W. Bush" /> 's plans to send in troop reinforcements to stem the violence in Iraq, he said it was the US's "last effort." "If the Iraqis cannot straighten the situation, that's their fault," Bolton said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: Bush warns Iran over Iraq, nuclear ambitions by Olivier Knox Mon Jan 29, 5:34 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushwarned Iran" /> Iran's people that they face "deprivation" over their leaders' atomic ambitions and firmly warned Tehran against sowing "discord and harm" in Iraq" /> Iraq. In an interview with National Public Radio radio, Bush said he had no plans to invade Iran but cautioned: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly." The president promised US soldiers in Iraq and that war-torn country's leaders: "We will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops." Bush last week authorized US forces to capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq, amid charges from Washington and denied by Tehran that the Islamic republic has been helping insurgents who target US troops. And in his annual State of the Union speech on January 23, the US president vowed to crack down on any Iranian and Syrian networks suspected here of funneling weapons and fighters into the insurgency in Iraq. But Bush dismissed warnings from US lawmakers against attacking Iran, saying: "I don't know how anybody can then say, 'well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran.'" "I have no intent upon going into Iran," said the president. Bush also insisted that the United States was working "diplomatically" to defuse the tense standoff over what Washington charges is Tehran's push to develop nuclear weapons. "The message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon," he said. "The message to the Iranian people is that your government is going to cause you deprivation," he said. "If your government continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost opportunity for the Iranian people." At the same time, Bush said he understood "a certain skepticism about (US) intelligence" on Tehran's nuclear plans in the wake of the deeply flawed case for war in Iraq." "I'm like a lot of Americans that say, well, 'if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in (Iran). And so we are constantly evaluating, and answering this legitimate question by always working to get as good intelligence as we can. "I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously even though the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be, and we have to," he said. Earlier, Bush spokesman Tony Snow had reacted warily to Iran's plans to expand military and economic ties with Iraq, saying that Tehran needed to play a "constructive" role but leaving bilateral relations up to Baghdad. "The government of Iraq will have to make decisions about its relations with Iran," Snow told reporters after Iran's ambassador to Iraq told the New York Times that Tehran looked to deepen relations with Baghdad. "The one thing we have said all along is that we hope Iran plays a constructive role in the region," said Snow. "At this point, it has not been constructive; we hope it does become more constructive." The spokesman accused Iran of "pursuing nuclear weapons or supporting groups that have been committing acts of violence against either US troops, against people within Iraq, or destabilizing democracies in The spokesman accused Iran of &quot;pursuing nuclear weapons or supporting groups that have been committing acts of violence against either US troops, against people within Iraq, or destabilizing democracies in Afghanistan and Lebanon." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 UPI: U.N. asks for timeout in Iran nuke impasse United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 1/29/2007 7:07:00 PM -0500 DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.N. nuclear agency suggests Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment in return for a lifting of sanctions imposed by the international community. "I call on all parties to take a simultaneous timeout," Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said this weekend at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "Iran should take a timeout from its enrichment activity, the international community a timeout from the application of sanctions, and parties should go immediately to the negotiating table." The Security Council last December voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran, banning the sale of materials and technology that could be used for Iranian nuclear activities. The resolution specified punitive measures would be lifted if Iran stopped its suspect uranium-enrichment activities. Tehran rejected the sanctions and still claims its nuclear program is for peaceful, energy-related purposes. The agency chief said Iranian authorities might soon announce they would build up a 3,000 centrifuge facility. "ElBaradei's proposal comes at an interesting time," Gary Sick, a professor at Columbia University's Middle East Institute, told United Press International. "The Iranians are about to celebrate a nuclear achievement. At that point, they will have demonstrated their ability and I think they would be willing to consider a suspension, at least temporarily." The IAEA has not reported any diversion of nuclear material to develop weapons, but the agency cannot conclude there are no illegal nuclear activities in Iran. Earlier this month, Tehran barred 38 U.N. inspectors from entering the country, but this didn't prevent the nuclear agency from continuing its work. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 UPI: Iran studying IAEA proposal United Press International - NewsTrack - 1/29/2007 2:33:00 PM -0500 TEHRAN, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The government of Iran says it needs time to review the latest proposal for bringing an end to the standoff with the West over its uranium enrichment program. The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency has proposed a "time-out" which would involve holding off on imposing the sanctions approved by the UN Security Council, the Fars News Agency reports. Mohamed El Baradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued the proposal at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. "Time should be allocated to see if the plan has the capacity to solve the (nuclear) case," said Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator. Larijani appeared at a joint news conference Monday with Russia's national security adviser, Igor Ivanov. Russia is currently in the process of building a nuclear power station in Iran. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 UPI: Outside View: Collision course with Iran United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 1/29/2007 1:40:00 PM -0500 By PYOTR GONCHAROV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- "The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank, when commenting on the decision of President George W. Bush to send a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf. Burns emphasized that the United States is striving for stability in the region and unimpeded oil and gas deliveries in the interests of all other countries. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on the LCI television channel that the international community's demands that Iran stop its dangerous activities in the nuclear sphere were based on the logic of sanctions rather than the logic of war. However, the situation around Iran has apparently turned towards the logic of war, contrary to the will of the international community, if there is such a thing. A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines, are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The United States is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region. The above is Washington's reply to the question: What will happen if Iran drives the United States into a corner? Or was it the other way round? It was believed that if Iran refused to stop its nuclear program, the United States as its main adversary would ensure the adoption of international sanctions and later start a military operation against Iran. The scenarios of their engagement were described as catastrophic, with Iran erasing the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf, blockading the Strait of Hormuz by sinking several oil tankers in it, and starting a war against Iraq, pulling the U.S. deeper into the quagmire. The inevitable conclusion was that a U.S. military operation against Iran would be suicidal, and Washington would never approve it. So, the "what-will-happen-if" question has been answered. Now the world wants to know if Washington will be able to avoid a war against Iran. Tehran is not going to abandon its nuclear program. Moreover, it has said several times that a uranium enrichment system comprising 3,000 centrifuges will be put into operation by the Iranian New Year, which is marked on March 21. From that, there is only one step towards building a nuclear bomb, given the political will, as Washington likes to point out. If Iran reaches the industrial level of uranium enrichment, Washington will either have to swallow the humiliation or will start a military operation against Iran. Russian expert Alexei Arbatov said the United States usually has to choose between two evils, one greater than the other. In this case, the greater evil will be the creation of a nuclear bomb in Iran. Therefore, if Washington refuses to speak directly with Tehran, it will most likely choose war. In fact, the United States has already started preparations. The Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, where Burns made the above statement, has published a special report saying that Iran's nuclear ambitions will inevitably provoke a regional confrontation. Tehran must be aware that if the Gulf Cooperation Council is forced to choose between allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb and letting the United States deliver a strike against Iran, it will choose the latter. The Gulf Research Center is a think-tank of the defense departments of the GCC oil-producing member states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar). Jordan and Egypt have likewise approved Bush's new strategy in the Middle East. In short, Washington has rallied sufficient support in the region. The global media are writing that the plan of a potential U.S. strike on Iran has been worked out in detail, with the strike to be delivered by the end of April. Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who advocated a "diplomatic engagement" with Iran several years ago, has said Tehran should know that the United States, although "tied down in Iraq," remains a dangerous adversary. He denied that his recent decision to deploy Patriot missiles and a second aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf was meant as a threat to Iran. "We need some leverage, it seems to me, before we [diplomatically] engage with the Iranians," he added. Is the second carrier group the "leverage" Gates was referring to? (Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.) (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Korea Herald: U.S., N.K. open talks on BDA Officials from Washington and Pyongyang are in Beijing today for their second round of talks on U.S. financial sanctions against North Korea. The discussions are likely to set the tone for the upcoming round of six-party talks scheduled to resume early next month. The agenda is thought to include North Korea's acknowledgement of illicit financial activity, a pledge to prevent any reoccurrence, and the lifting of a U.S. embargo on North Korean accounts at a Macau bank. Washington imposed financial restrictions against Banco Delta Asia after charging the bank with helping North Korea launder counterfeit dollars and funds raised from smuggling restricted goods. The move prompted Pyongyang to boycott the six-party talks process in 2005. Upon returning to the six-party process in December last year, North Korea demanded it must first solve the financial issue before discussing the nuclear question. The United States remains adamant that the financial measures were separate from the nuclear issue but has offered to discuss it on the sidelines of the nuclear talks. The U.S. side is led by Daniel Glaser, the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes. The North Korean team is led by Oh Gwang-chul, president of the Foreign Trade Bank of Korea, the reclusive regime's window for foreign banking. The two delegations are likely to discuss the technical aspects of the issue, which North Korea claims was a political gesture by the United States as part of its hostile policy. On Sept. 15, 2005 the U.S. Treasury Department banned all American banks from dealing with Banco Delta Asia for allegedly helping North Korean companies launder money from smuggled cigarettes and counterfeit $100 bills. Washington and Pyongyang have been exchanging questions and information regarding the measures since their first discussion in Beijing on the sidelines of the six-party talks last month. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2007.01.30 ***************************************************************** 11 YONHAP NEWS: U.S. ambassador to South Korea to give special lecture 2007/01/29 12:06 KST SEOUL, Jan. 29 (Yonhap) -- The top U.S. diplomat in South Korea is to give a special lecture this week in a forum on the United States' view of security issues in Northeast Asia, including the dispute over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, organizers of the forum said Monday. The U.S. ambassador, Alexander Vershbow, is to give a lecture Tuesday on the "U.S. perspective of changes on the Korean Peninsula and greater Northeast Asia," an official at the Asia-Pacific Policy Research Institute, the forum organizer, said. The forum is to be held at 5 p.m. at Seoul's Yonsei University, the official said. Joining a discussion session following Vershbow's lecture will be Minister Masatoshi Muto, a political attache at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, and Rep. Hwang Jin-ha of South Korea's major opposition Grand National Party, also a member of the National Assembly Defense Committee, according to the official. bdk@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 12 YONHAP NEWS: S. Korea makes inroad into basic nuclear technology field - gov't Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2007/01/29 13:42 KST SEOUL, Jan. 29 (Yonhap) -- South Korea has made a significant inroad into basic nuclear technology by listing important research results with the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) late last year, the government said Monday. The ENDF is managed by the U.S.-based National Nuclear Data Center under the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the information within the files are used as key references for various scientific research and practical applications, the Ministry of Science and Technology said. The information that is listed provides critical information for the building of nuclear reactors, the advancement of human medicine and space exploration. It can also be used to help nuclear non-proliferation and the building of fourth generation atomic reactors. South Korea researchers and labs have before never listed their findings in the ENDF. Due to the need for sufficient research resources, extensive funds and technology needed for such work, industrialized countries have previously monopolized all the data adopted by the data file. The ministry said the 166 nuclide data compiled by researchers at the state-run Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is a landmark achievement. Of the total, 131 were neutron-related information with the remainder being devoted to nuclide reaction data. The research that led to the achievement started in 1998 with Lee Young-ouk leading the research. "The data that is accepted by the ENDF is of vital importance in the field of nuclear energy, life science and the use of space," the scientist said. He added that in the future more detailed and extensive data will have to be researched to meet the growing demand for quality reference. Lee said South Korea needed to upgrade its research capacity in order to reach the level of technology leaders in this field. (END) ***************************************************************** 13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Nuke Deal May Include Freeing N. Korea Funds Updated Jan.29,2007 10:37 KST In effort to resume stalled six-way talks on eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the U.S. may soon put forward a package deal that includes easing financial sanctions on North Korea. Government sources said that the deal includes unfreezing North Korea¡¯s accounts with the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia (BDA). ¡ß Unfreezing BDA funds part of package deal A government official said that the goal of the six-way talks is to persuade North Korea to totally scrap its nuclear weapons, not just halt Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear program. The U.S. has changed its stance and is leaving a side door open as the North has maintained that there would be no progress in the talks if its accounts with the Macau bank remain frozen. In making the six-party talks workable, the easiest way for North Korea is to turn off a 5-MW nuclear reactor, which is now in operation. Such a task would not be difficult for Pyongyang. North Korea turned off the reactor in 1994 and put it back into operation again in 2003. For the U.S., including the BDA issue in the deal means unfreezing North Korean accounts worth US$10-13 million, which are assumed to be legal. The U.S. froze North Korea¡¯s accounts with the Macau-based bank, accusing them of being used for illegal activities like money laundering. Nam Sung-wook, a North Korean studies professor at Korea University, said that the U.S. will be able to continue its investigation into other accounts even if it unfreezes the accounts in question. Unfreezing the accounts would not be a serious loss of face for the U.S., because they can say that the measure was merited by the results of their investigation. ¡ß Agreement on roadmap is uncertain Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said it is uncertain if an agreement would be reached and it is difficult to predict how much progress might be made in the next round of talks. Another government official said that the U.S. wants a roadmap stipulating the detailed process of the disposal of the nuclear program. However, it is uncertain whether the North would accept such a term. It is also uncertain if North Korea and the U.S. can agree on a phase-by-phase abandonment plan and a corresponding rewards program through just one or two sets of negotiations. Kim Yong-hyun, a professor of North Korea studies at Dongguk University, said that the best expected result of the next round of talks is a promise from the North to halt the operation of its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon and the re-admittance of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. In return, the U.S. would agree to resume food and economic aid and document its promise to guarantee the security of North Korea. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 14 Korea Times: Korea, US to Hold Defense Talks Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter Defense ministers from South Korea and the United States will meet next month to discuss a host of issues, including the relocation of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) bases, ministry officials said Monday. Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo is scheduled to make a four-day visit to Washington around Feb. 23 for talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the officials said. It will be the first meeting of the two allies¡¯ defense chiefs since they took office late last year. Agenda items of the Kim-Gates talks will include the base relocation, which is expected to be delayed from the target year of 2008, the agreed plan to transfer wartime operational control from the U.S. military to the South Korean commanders and the provision of an enhanced nuclear umbrella for South Korea in case of an attack from North Korea, they said. On returning home, Kim is scheduled to visit Tokyo for talks with his Japanese counterpart, Fumio Kyuma, they said, adding that the date for the meeting has not yet been fixed. gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr01-29-2007 19:47 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Don't be fooled by Bush's defection - his cures are another form of denial Comment The president's avowed conversion on climate change is illusory. He is just drumming up new business for his chums George Monbiot Tuesday January 30, 2007 George Bush proposes to deal with climate change by means of smoke and mirrors. So what's new? Only that it is no longer just a metaphor. After six years of obfuscation and denial, the US now insists that we find ways to block some of the sunlight reaching the earth. This means launching either mirrors or clouds of small particles into the atmosphere. The demand appears in a recent US memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions. Every scheme that could give us a chance of preventing runaway climate change should be considered on its merits. But the proposals for building a global parasol don't have very many. A group of nuclear weapons scientists at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California, apparently bored of experimenting with only one kind of mass death, have proposed launching into the atmosphere a million tonnes of tiny aluminium balloons, filled with hydrogen, every year. One unfortunate side-effect would be to eliminate the ozone layer. Another proposal, from a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, suggests spraying billions of tonnes of sea-water into the air. Regrettably, the production of small salt particles, while generating obscuring mists, could cause droughts in the countries downwind. Another scheme would inject sulphate particles into the stratosphere. It is perhaps less dangerous than the others, but still carries a risk of causing changes in rainfall patterns. As for flipping a giant mirror into orbit, the necessary technologies are probably a century away. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain. The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his state of the union address last week, he spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" and announced that he was raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else. An analysis published last year by the Sarasin Bank found that until a new generation of vegetable fuels, made from straw or wood, is developed, "the present limit for the environmentally and socially responsible use of biofuels [is] roughly 5% of current petrol and diesel consumption in the EU and US". Bush now proposes to raise the proportion to 24% by 2017. Already, though the rich world has replaced just a fraction of 1% of its transport fuels, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using crops to feed cars has raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors - a means of avoiding difficult decisions. But at least, or so we are told, the argument over whether or not manmade climate change is happening is now over. On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes the first installment of its vast report, which collates the findings of the world's climate scientists. Though conservative in its assumptions, it shows that if you persist in believing that there is no cause for concern, you must have buried your head till only your toes are showing. If even Bush now grudgingly acknowledges that there's a problem, surely we've seen the last of the cranks and charlatans who had managed to grab so much attention with their claims that global warming wasn't happening? Some chance. A company called Wag TV is currently completing a 90-minute documentary for Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Manmade climate change, the channel tells us, is "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit." So it's the same old conspiracy theory we've been hearing from the denial industry for 10 years, and it carries as much scientific weight as the contention that the twin towers were brought down by missiles. The programme's thesis revolves around the deniers' favourite canard: that the "hockey-stick graph" showing rising global temperatures is based on a statistical mistake made in a paper by the scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. What it will not be showing is that their results have been repeated several times by other scientists using different statistical methods; that the paper claiming to have exposed the mistake has been comprehensively debunked; and that the lines of evidence used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes are just a few among hundreds demonstrating that 20th-century temperatures were anomalous. The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997 the director, Martin Durkin, produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamed up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and edit their answers to change their meaning. After complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has made. Are institutional memories really so short? So the whole weary business of pointing out that the evidence against man-made climate change is sparse and unable to withstand critical scrutiny, while the evidence in favour is overwhelming and repeatedly confirmed, must begin all over again. How often must scientists remind the media that a handful of cherry-picked studies does not amount to the refutation of an entire discipline? But with Bush's defection, the band of quacks making these claims is diminishing fast. Now the oil and coal companies that support such people have changed their target. Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth, they are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel. It is another species of denial. George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 The Australian: Nuclear trio meet for talks + January 30, 2007 + Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent INDIA, Russia and China plan to create a new trilateral forum, starting with an official meeting of their foreign ministers in New Delhi next month. The three nuclear powers have met on an informal basis on the sidelines of major international gatherings over the past two years, and according to reports in the Indian capital yesterday they now feel the time has come to form a structured basis for their discussions. According to the reports, the objective is to "co-ordinate their efforts in the international arena", as well to enhance relations among themselves. The Indian Government earlier indicated that issues of mutual concern included terrorism and international crime. The announcement of the meeting, which will be presided over by Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, came as a surprise to South Asia analysts. It seems to run counter to New Delhi's recent foreign policy, which appears to have moved closer to building ties with the West and away from India's long-standing alliance with Russia as the successor to the former Soviet Union. Similarly, New Delhi has long had cautious relations with China, especially in the foreign policy field. Disclosure of the forum's first formal meeting follows visits to New Delhi by Chinese leader Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both visits were regarded as successful, and in the case of Mr Hu, elevated bilateral relations to a new level. Similarly, the visit of the Russian President appeared to most observers to significantly improve relations, with Moscow taking the lead in offering co-operation to India across a wide range of issues, including provision of civilian nuclear power. The development will be watched with some interest by policy planners in Washington, who have recently invested considerable effort in persuading New Delhi to accept a landmark nuclear deal. According to yesterday's reports, while in New Delhi Mr Putin expressed particular enthusiasm for developing the trilateral forum. After his meetings with Mr Putin, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the three countries were focusing on issues including terrorism, drug trafficking and crime. He emphasised that the new forum was in no way directed at any third country. Mr Putin said the three countries had "practically identical" views on major global problems. © The Australian [/] ***************************************************************** 17 The Observer: Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders [UP] Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday January 28, 2007 The Observer Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology. Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes. Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production. The disclosures come as Iran has told the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], that it plans to install a new 'cascade' of 3,000 high-speed centrifuges at its controversial underground facility at Natanz in central Iran next month. The centrifuges were supposed to have been installed almost a year ago and many experts are extremely doubtful that Iran has yet mastered the skills to install and run it. Instead, they argue, the 'installation' will more probably be about propaganda than reality. The detailed descriptions of Iran's problems in enriching more than a few grams of uranium using high-speed centrifuges - 50kg is required for two nuclear devices - comes in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture being painted of Iran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear weapon with which to attack Israel. Instead, say experts, the break-up of the nuclear smuggling organisation of the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadheer Khan has massively set back an Iran heavily dependent on his network. A key case in point is that Tehran originally procured the extremely high-quality bearings required for the centrifuges' carbon-fibre 'top rotors' - spinning dishes within the machines - from foreign companies in Malaysia. With that source closed down two years ago, Iran is making the bearings itself with only limited success. It is the repeated failure of these crucial bearings, say some sources, that has been one of the programme's biggest setbacks. Iran is also believed to be critically short of key materials for producing a centrifuge production line to highly enrich uranium - in particular the so-called maraging steel, able to be used at high temperatures and under high stress without deforming - and specialist carbon fibre products. In this light, say some experts, its insistence that it will install 3,000 new centrifuges at the underground Natanz facility in the coming months is as much about domestic PR as reality. The growing recognition, in expert circles at least, of how far Iran is from mastering centrifuge technology was underlined on Friday by comments by the head of the IAEA, whose inspectors have been attempting to monitor the Iranian nuclear programme. Talking to the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Mohamed El Baradei appealed for all sides to take a 'time out' under which Iranian enrichment and UN sanctions would be suspended simultaneously, adding that the point at which Iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon is at least half a decade away. In pointed comments aimed at the US and Israel, the Nobel Peace prize winner warned that an attack on Iran would have 'catastrophic consequences'. Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants. The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme. Recent months have seen leaks and background briefings reminiscent of the softening up of public opinion for the war against Iraq which have presented a series of allegations regarding Iran's meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, the 'genocidal' intentions of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its 'connections' with North Korea's nuclear weapons programme. It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad. The escalating sense of crisis is being driven by two imminent events, the 'installation' of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz and the scheduled delivery of fuel from Russia for Iran's Busheyr civil nuclear reactor, due to start up this autumn. Both are regarded as potential trigger points for an Israeli attack. 'The reality is that they have got to the stage where they can run a small experimental centrifuge cascade intermittently,' said one Western source familiar with the Iranian programme. 'They simply have not got to the stage where they can run 3,000 centrifuges There is no evidence either that they have been stockpiling low-enriched uranium which could be highly enriched quickly and which would give an idea of a malevolent intent.' Another source with familiarity with the Iranian programme said: 'Iran has put all this money into this huge hole in the ground at Natanz; it has put a huge amount of money in these P-1 centrifuges, the model rejected by Urenco. It is like the Model T Ford compared to a Prius. That is not to say they will not master the technology eventually, but they are trying to master very challenging technology without access to everything that they require.' [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 18 HindustanTimes.com: 'N-weapons India's strategic compulsion' Nuclear weapons 'strategic compulsion' for India, says Sonia Press Trust of India New Delhi, January 29, 2007 Congress President Sonia Gandhi on Monday said that nuclear weapons became a "strategic compulsion" for India, "born out of the failure to persuade the world to abolish them". 'But the commitment to comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament remains our profound conviction which we intend to carry forward," Gandhi said inaugurating an international conference to mark the centenary of the launch of Satyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi. Noting that nuclear weapons have become even more of a terrifying reality since Hiroshima, she said that "they have become the very currency of power". She said the world's nuclear weapon states have more than adequate atomic arsenal to destroy humanity many times over and "it is not just nuclear weapons. We also confront the spectre of chemical and biological weapons". Recalling the blueprint for comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament presented by Rajiv Gandhi in 1988 in UN, she said just a few days ago, four influential Americans who held very different views while in office have drawn attention to his impassioned plea. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are among the four who have called for urgent action on the issue, she added. ***************************************************************** 19 Independent: US attacks Israel's cluster bomb use By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 29 January 2007 The controversy about Israel's use of cluster bombs during its conflict with Hizbollah in July last year will reopen today when the US State Department publishes its draft report, which concludes that the American-made weapons were misused in civilian areas. Israel received widespread condemnation last year after it was accused of littering Lebanon with thousands of unexploded bombs in the final hours of its war. At the time Chris Clarke, the United Nations official in charge of bomb disposal in southern Lebanon, said his staff had identified 390 strikes by Israel's cluster munitions. "This is ... the worst post-conflict cluster bomb contamination I have ever seen," he said. The State Department will reportedly say that Israel breached agreements with the US over its use of the weapons, which can kill or injure a disproportionate number of children when they fail to explode and then are picked up or trod on. A congressional investigation found Israel improperly used US-made cluster bombs during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. President Ronald Reagan's administration imposed a six-year ban on sales of the weapons to Israel. However, the country also makes its own cluster munitions. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 20 Daily Times: Pakistan may join Nuclear Suppliers’ Group in few years, says study Tuesday, January 30, 2007 * Planning Commission study silent on NPT issue By Fida Hussain ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is likely to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in the next few years, as the country has built up a critical base of manpower, technology and expertise in this sector, says a study by the Planning Commission. According to the draft study, Pakistan has attained the ability to design and build small reactors and now plans to expand its existing base and initiate research in fast breeder reactors. The study is silent on the issue of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is yet to be signed by Pakistan. The NSG consists of NPT signatory countries. The group governs the areas of nuclear exports and facilitates development of peaceful nuclear trade by providing means whereby obligations to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation can be implemented in a manner consistent with international nuclear non-proliferation norms. The NSG consists of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to the study, Pakistan’s current installed electricity generation capacity is 19,400 MW, 50.8 percent of which is gas based, 30 percent hydroelectric, 15.8 percent oil, 3.3 percent nuclear and 0.2 percent coal-based. Pakistan plans to generate 8,800 MW from the nuclear source by 2030, the study says, adding that the government has already formulated an Energy Security Plan in this regard. The demand for natural uranium will be 1,600 tonnes per year in 2030. Exploration and mining of uranium in Pakistan will be intensified to meet the projected requirements as far as possible. The study says it is a matter of concern that the current known international resources of uranium are believed to be sufficient to fuel worldwide nuclear capacity requirements only up to 2050. However, the life of uranium resources can be extended by reprocessing spent fuel, which may happen by 2030, in the form of fourth generation fast breeder reactors, the study says. It says nuclear power plants are attractive in the context of the future world energy scenario and the new designs are safer, but worries about waste management or proliferation still persist. Pakistan has proposed a new regime whereby such plants are treated as any power plant being set up by the private sector. The private sector can build, operate and own these plants under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 21 Nuke Power Defense Impractical Government Admits, "Irresponsible To The Extreme" Says Watchdog Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:13:27 -0500 Dear All, In light of Senator Boxer's statement below and that of the highly respected Daniel Hirsch & "The Committee To Bridge The Gap" [NOT "The Community To Bridge The Gap" as the story misstates the name] please immediately call your Rep & Senators, all available via phone at: 202-224-3121 and 1-877-762-8762 and tell them the NRC and the industry they are tasked with overseeing are grossly endangering every single US citizen and act as lapdogs, lying to all of us and that nuclear power plants have to be securized in a realistic manner before being replaced with renewable energy. Ask them to call "The Committee To Bridge The Gap" [ http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid=962&catid=5 ] Committee to Bridge the Gap Nuclear Information and Resource Service [ http://www.nirs.org ] for contact: Daniel Hirsch (831) 336-8003 31 January 2006 ] and have Hirsch testify before congress with other experts like Paul Gunther of NIRS [ http://www.nirs.org ] . The Canadian and Mexican governments as well as most of those throughout the northern hemisphere should also be extremely interested in this material and the lies of NRC and industry. Please forward this to other lists and interested parties as well as media outlets after you make a couple of brief calls. >Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that NRC appears not to have followed the direction of Congress ''to >ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats'' of the >magnitude demonstrated on Sept. 11. >Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear watchdog >group that had urged the NRC to require physical barriers to keep planes from hitting reactors, called the >security measures ''irresponsible to the extreme.'' >''Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming the >existing, woefully inadequate security measures already in place at the nation's reactors,'' said Hirsch. >NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement, adding that plant operators already must be able to >manage large fires or explosions, no matter the cause. Does Klein mean like they did at Chernobyl? How the ___ do you manage Chernobyl? Letting thousands or tens of thousands of people die and polluting the genetic pool and environment as well as extraordinary economic damage is the NRC's idea of management. We must stop these criminal fools before there's another catastrophe [ or more than one]. How these people sleep at night is beyond me. -Bill Smirnow http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Reactor-Security.html Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical a.. Sign In to E-Mail or Save This b.. Print By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: January 29, 2007 Filed at 11:20 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Making nuclear power plants crash-proof to an airliner attack by terrorists is impracticable and it's up to the military to avert such an assault, the government said Monday. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a revised security policy, directed nuclear plant operators to focus on preventing radiation from escaping in case of such an attack and to improve evacuation plans to protect public health and safety. ''The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military,'' the NRC said in a statement. The agency rejected calls by some nuclear watchdog groups that the government establish firm no-fly zones near reactors or that plant operators build ''lattice-like'' barriers to protect reactors, or be required to have anti-aircraft weapons on site to shoot down an incoming plane. The NRC, in a summary of the mostly secret security plan, said such proposals were examined, but that it was concluded the ''active protection'' against an airborne threat rests with organizations such as the military or the Federal Aviation Administration. It said that various mitigation strategies required of plant operators -- such as radiation protection measures and evacuation plans -- ''are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety'' in case of an airborne attack. The commission unanimously approved the plan, which has been the subject of internal discussions for 15 months, in a 5-0 vote at a brief meeting without discussion. ''Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane,'' NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement, adding that plant operators already must be able to manage large fires or explosions, no matter the cause. Klein called the new rule ''only one piece'' of an effort to enhance reactor security and said the NRC will continue to examine and discuss the issue of airborne threats and take additional actions if found to be necessary. The defense plan, formally known as the Design Basis Threat, spells out what type of attack force the government believes might target a commercial power reactor and what its operator must be capable of defending against. While details are sketchy because of security concerns, the plan requires defense against a relatively small force, perhaps no more than a half-dozen attackers, but that they could come from multiple directions including by water and could include suicide teams. The plan, which formally approves many of the procedures that have long been in place, reflects the increased concerns raised by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It also includes measures to address cyber attacks, according to the NRC. Some members of Congress and nuclear watchdog groups have argued that the requirements fall short of what is needed, given what was learned by the Sept. 11 attacks on the twin towers in New York and at the Pentagon. These critics have argued that defenders of a reactor should be ready to face up to 19 attackers -- as was the case on Sept. 11 -- and expect them to have rocket-propelled grenades, so-called ''platter'' explosive charges and .50-caliber armor-piercing ammunition. The NRC does not assume such weapons being used and rejected the idea of a 19-member attack force, maintaining that the Sept. 11 attacks actually were four separate attacks, each by four or five terrorists. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that NRC appears not to have followed the direction of Congress ''to ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats'' of the magnitude demonstrated on Sept. 11. The NRC ''has missed an opportunity to provide the public with a real solution to the nuclear reactor security problem,'' said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of the nuclear industry and the NRC. Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear watchdog group that had urged the NRC to require physical barriers to keep planes from hitting reactors, called the security measures ''irresponsible to the extreme.'' ''Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully inadequate security measures already in place at the nation's reactors,'' said Hirsch. NRC officials have emphasized that the defense plan should require what is ''reasonable'' to be expected of a civilian security force at the 103 commercial nuclear power reactors. In an unclassified summary of the DBT, the NRC maintains that studies ''confirm the low likelihood'' that an aircraft crashing into a reactor will damage the reactor core and release radioactivity, affecting public health and safety. ''Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to a terrorist use of a large aircraft against a nuclear power plant, the studies indicate that there would be time to implement the required onsite mitigating actions,'' says the summary. ------ On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org The Times only gives these two, both pro-nuclear URLs. See: http://www.nirs.org http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html for realistic assessments of the facts. ***************************************************************** 22 [NukeNet] Scotland: Nuclear plant faces action after worker Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:26:55 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.sundayherald.com/news/ heraldnews/display.var.1152848.0. nuclear_plant_faces_action_after_ worker_contaminated 21982e.jpg Nuclear plant faces action after worker contaminated The Dounreay nuclear complex is facing legal action for failing to store radioactive waste safely after an incident in which a worker was contaminated with plutonium. The government's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate(NII)hasservedtwo improvement notices on the plant's operator, the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), obliging it to remedy the problem. Inspectors are also considering sending a report to the procurator fiscal. A worker was found to have accidentally inhaled plutonium while decommissioninganoldfuel-processing laboratoryonJanuary 12 last year. Subsequentinvestigationsuncovered half a dozen contaminated lead bricks left on a shelf nearby. According to one of the notices issued by the NII, the bricks were stored "withoutadequate levels of containment". They also lacked "adequate means of physicalprotection"and"anyidentification by means of marking or labelling". The other legal notice alleges that inadequate safety records were kept. Dounreay has been given until April 6 to comply with both notices and could be fined if it fails to do so. According to Dounreay's spokesman, Colin Punler, the plan had been to reuse the bricks but the project for which they were intended had been shelved. "We have very good procedures for dealing with items with significant amounts of radioactivity," he said. "But this revealed gaps in the way we dealt with items with small amounts of radioactivity. We are now fixing those gaps and confident of complying with the requirements laid down by the regulator." News of the latest legal action comes after it was confirmed that Dounreay is to be prosecuted for allowing hundreds of thousands of radioactive particles to leak into the sea and on to local beaches before 1984. The UKAEA has been cited to appear in court in Wick on February 6. Meanwhile,theSundayHerald revealed last week that decommissioning work at Dounreay was threatened with delaysandjob losses because of a government financial crisis. The plant could suffer major cuts in its budget for 2007-08 because of losses made by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the state agency that funds Dounreay. 9:43pm Saturday 27th January 2007 By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Attachment Converted: 21982e.jpg: 00000001,3c0d5ae8,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 23 The Hindu: 'Different countries can help India meet energy goals' Monday, January 29, 2007 : 1800 Hrs Indore, Jan. 29 (PTI): There is scope for different countries to contribute to fulfilling India's energy requirement, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said here today. Responding to a question as to whether the Indo-US nuclear agreement would affect India's long-standing bilateral relations with Russia, Kadodkar said, "Our energy requirement is too much and there is a scope for everyone (every country) to contribute. There is no problem." Kakodkar had come to inaugurate the fourth Asian Particle Accelerator Conference (APAC-2007) at the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology (RRCAT) near here. Referring to nuclear energy production in the country, he said at present 3,900 mw of energy was produced from nuclear sources, while work was in progress to produce 3,300 mw. Besides, the government has given in-principle approval for producing 6,800 mw of additional nuclear power. A 220 mw nuclear power plant would start generating power at Kaiga by the end of this financial year, he said. In the year 2010 a 500 mw fast-breeder reactor will also be commissioned, Kakodkar informed. Earlier, addressing the delegates who arrived here from different countries, Kakodkar advocated participation between institutes like RRCAT and industries in the development of accelerator and laser programmes to provide benefits of research to the people. He also said that courses should be devised in such a manner that more youths would take research as a career in the country. Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 24 NEWS.com.au: New nuclear reactor fires up energy debate | By Will Fisher January 30, 2007 12:00am WITH debate building about nuclear energy as an alternative, greenhouse-friendly power source, Australia has a new nuclear reactor - and it's already up and running. The new OPAL reactor replaces the old HIFAR facility at Lucas Heights, south of Sydney, which will be officially decommissioned today. OPAL is loaded with uranium and will produce 20 megawatts of power - enough for a small town - when it's fully operational. But it's not the power plant Prime Minister John Howard said he'd be happy to have in his backyard while recently arguing the merits of nuclear energy. The OPAL reactor will be used for medical, industrial and research purposes, rather than cooking your dinner or running your air-conditioner. Its cooling water just isn't hot enough to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. "I suppose you could have a shower with it but that's about all," said Ron Cameron, director of operations at the Lucas Heights research station run by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). So if it isn't powering our cities, what's Australia getting from this $350 million reactor? Neutrons, according to ANSTO. Neutrons are the key to nuclear fission - when a uranium atom splits in two, it releases a load of energy and it also releases two neutrons. If these neutrons collide with another uranium atom, that atom splits as well, releasing another two neutrons, and so on, producing a chain reaction. In a nuclear power station, it's the energy that's harvested. But in a research reactor such as OPAL, it's the neutrons. "We have one of the most consistent neutron fluxes in the world. We have a very high reliability," Dr Cameron said. That reliability has given ANSTO about 15 per cent of the world market for processing the silicon chips that go inside electronic items from mobile phones to supercomputers. But whether it's for research or power, critics question the risks of running a nuclear reactor in Sydney's backyard - such as a meltdown which potentially releases radioactive contamination into the environment. Dr Cameron said there was very little risk of that happening with OPAL because it operates at a low temperature. But he admitted that over its 40-year life, OPAL will generate several cubic metres of high-level waste, which it intends to store in a remote location in the Northern Territory. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 25 Baxter Bulletin: Energy independence? No, energy nonsense www.baxterbulletin.com - Baxter Bulletin, Mountain Home, Arkansas Monday, January 29, 2007 WASHINGTON — Is there anything more depressing than yet another promise of energy independence in yet another State of the Union address? By my count, 24 of the 34 State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973 have proposed solutions to our energy problem. The result? In 1973, we imported 34.8 percent of our oil. Today, we import 60.3 percent. And what does this president propose? Another great technological fix. For Jimmy Carter, it was the magic of synfuels. For George Bush, it's the wonders of ethanol. Our fuel will grow on trees. Well, stalks, with even fancier higher-tech variants to come from cellulose and other (literal) rubbish. It is very American to believe that chemists are going to discover the cure for geopolitical weakness. It is even more American to imagine that it can be done painlessly. Ethanol for everyone. Farmers get a huge cash crop. Consumers get more supply. And the country ends up more secure. This is nonsense. As my colleague Robert Samuelson demonstrates, biofuels will barely keep up with the increase in gasoline demand over time. They are a huge government bet with goals and mandates and subsidies that will not cure our oil dependence or even make a significant dent in it. Even worse, the happy talk displaces any discussion about here-and-now measures that would have a rapid and revolutionary effect on oil consumption and dependence. No one talks about them because they have unhidden costs. Politicians hate unhidden costs. There are three serious things we can do now: + Tax gas + Drill in the Arctic + Go nuclear First, tax gas. The president ostentatiously rolled out his 20-in-10 plan: Reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. This with Rube Goldberg regulation — fuel-efficiency standards, artificially mandated levels of "renewable and alternative fuels in 2017" and various bribes (er, incentives) for government-favored technologies — of the kind we have been trying for three decades. Good grief. I can give you a 20-in-2: Tax gas to $4 a gallon. With oil prices having fallen to $55 a barrel, now is the time. The effect of a gas-tax hike will be seen in less than two years, and you don't even have to go back to the 1970s and the subsequent radical reduction in consumption to see how. Just look at last summer. Gas prices spike to $3 — with the premium going to Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and assorted sheiks, rather than the U.S. treasury — and, presto, SUV sales plunge, the Prius is cool, and car ads once again begin featuring miles per gallon ratings. No regulator, no fuel-efficiency standards, no presidential exhortations, no grand experiments with switchgrass. Raise the price, and people change their habits. It's the essence of capitalism. Second, immediate drilling to recover oil that is under U.S. control, namely in the Arctic and on the Outer Continental Shelf. No one pretends that this fixes everything. But a million barrels a day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 5 percent of our consumption. In tight markets, that makes a crucial difference. We will always need some oil. And the more of it that is ours, the better. It is tautological that nothing more directly reduces dependence on foreign oil than substituting domestic for foreign production. Yet ANWR is now so politically dead that the president did not even mention it in the State of the Union, or his energy address the next day. He did bring up, to enthusiastic congressional applause, global warming. No one has a remotely good idea about how to make any difference in global warming without enlisting China and India, and without destroying the carbon-based Western economy. The obvious first step, however, is an extremely powerful source of energy that produces not an ounce of carbon dioxide — nuclear. What about nuclear waste? Well, coal produces toxic pollutants, as does oil. Both produce carbon dioxide that we are told is going to end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost impossible to recover once they get thrown into the atmosphere. Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out concentrated — very toxic and lasting nearly forever, but because it is packed into a small manageable volume, it is more controllable. And it doesn't pollute the atmosphere. At all. There is no free lunch. Producing energy is going to produce waste. You pick your poison and you find a way to manage it. Want to do something about global warming? How many global warming activists are willing to say the word nuclear? So much easier to say ethanol. That it will do farcically little is beside the point. Our debates about oil consumption, energy dependence and global warming are not meant to be serious. They are meant for show. letters@charleskrauthammer.com © 2007 The Washington Post Writers Group Originally published January 29, 2007 Print this article Copyright ©2007 The Baxter Bulletin. ***************************************************************** 26 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse on the mend Article published Monday, January 29, 2007 WHAT'S this? Actual positive news about the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant? It's about time. The FirstEnergy electric generating plant, on the shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, has had such a troubled history of operating problems over the past 30 years that it is refreshing to learn that federal regulators believe the company has finally whipped the place into shape. Instead of the usual tale of mishaps, outside evaluators working for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are reporting substantial progress on repairs and improvement in morale and performance by personnel at Davis-Besse, which is run by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. This qualifies both developments as good news but should not be surprising because Davis-Besse has been under especially close watch by the NRC for most of the time since it came on line in 1977. The plant carries the dubious distinction for what might be termed a "double double" in the annals of U.S. nuclear regulation: two of the worst near-accidents and the two largest fines ever imposed on a plant operator. Disaster was narrowly averted in 1985 when the Davis-Besse reactor lost coolant and in 2002 when the reactor head was nearly pierced by corrosion that had gone undetected. The incidents fall just behind the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in terms of potential calamity. Just last year, FirstEnergy was hit with a $28 million penalty for lying to regulators about the reactor's condition in 2002. The utility previously had been fined $5.5 million for the same safety lapse. Add in a long list of expensive outages, as well as stratospheric electric rates due to the plant's high construction cost and expenses, and you have a woeful history that FirstEnergy has had a hard time overcoming. If these problems are now in the past, as the latest reports indicate, the company deserves credit for a turnaround of encouraging proportions. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact FR Doc E7-1345 [Federal Register: January 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 18)] [Notices] [Page 4048-4049] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29ja07-71] Related to Exemption From the Recordkeeping Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., License DPR-21, Millstone, Connecticut AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-00001. Telephone: (301) 415-3017; e-mail: jbh@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering granting a partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A Criterion 1; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B Criterion XVII, for the Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 (Millstone Unit 1) as requested by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (DNC or the Licensee) on June 8, 2006. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review of the exemption request. II. Environmental Assessment Background Millstone Unit 1 was a single-cycle, boiling water reactor with a Mark I containment which was designed, furnished and constructed by General Electric Company as the prime contractor for the licensee. The General Electric Company engaged Ebasco Services Incorporated as the architect-engineer. Millstone Unit 1 had a reactor thermal output of 2011 megawatts and a net electrical output of 652.1 megawatts. The Millstone site is located in the town of Waterford, New London County, Connecticut, on the north shore of Long Island Sound. Construction of Millstone Unit 1 was authorized by a provisional construction permit CPPR-20, on May 19, 1966, in AEC Docket 50-245. Millstone Unit 1 was completed and ready for fuel loading during October 1970. The plant went into commercial operation on December 28, 1970. On July 21, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), the licensee certified to the NRC that, as of July 17, 1998, Millstone Unit No. 1 had permanently ceased operations and that fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. The issuance of this certification fundamentally changed the licensing basis of Millstone Unit 1 in that the NRC issued 10 CFR part 50 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel. Safety related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and SSCs important to safety remaining at Millstone Unit 1 are associated with the spent fuel pool island where the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel is stored. Other than non-essential systems supporting the balance of plant facilities, the remaining plant equipment has been de-energized, disabled and abandoned in place or removed from the unit and can no longer be used for power generation. This EA has been developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. Proposed Action DNC is requesting an exemption from the record retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires certain records be maintained until ``termination of a license issued pursuant to'' Part 50; (2) 10 CFR 50.71(c) which requires that records required by the regulations, by license condition, or by technical specifications must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification or if a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license; (3) 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A Criterion 1, which requires certain records be retained ``throughout the life of the unit''; and (4) 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B Criterion XVll, which requires certain records be retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration established by the licensee. DNC proposes to eliminate record retention requirements for Millstone [[Page 4049]] Unit 1 SSCs associated with safe power generation that have been de- energized, disabled, and abandoned in place or removed from the unit. DNC is not requesting an exemption associated with record keeping requirements for storage of spent fuel in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool or for systems required to support the safe storage of spent fuel. Need for Proposed Action The requested exemption and application of the exemption will eliminate the requirement to maintain records that are no longer necessary due to the permanently shutdown status of the facility and thereby reduce the financial burden on ratepayers associated with the storage of a large volume of records. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action is purely administrative in nature and will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site and there is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents, and it has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Under this alternative DNC would continue to store the records in question until license termination which would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Consulted None. III. Finding of No Significant Impact Based on this review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 8, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061590490). The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-1345 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation; Establishment of Atomic FR Doc E7-1346 [Federal Register: January 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 18)] [Notices] [Page 4048] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29ja07-70] [[Page 4048]] Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (License Amendment Request for Decommissioning the Newfield Facility) This Board is being established pursuant to a November 9, 2006 Notice of License Amendment Request and Opportunity to Request a Hearing (71 FR 66,986 (Nov. 17, 2006)), regarding the request of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) to amend its Source Material License No. SMB-743 to authorize the decommissioning of its Newfield Facility in Newfield, New Jersey. SMC submitted its revised Decommissioning Plan (DP) by letter dated June 30, 2006, and the NRC Staff found the DP acceptable to begin a detailed technical review of its adequacy. This proceeding concerns the requests for hearing submitted by the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, the Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, the County of Cumberland, the Residents of Newfield, New Jersey (by Terry Ragone), and Loretta Williams. This Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. William Reed, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-1346 Filed 1-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 The Local - Swedish nuclear plant slated for poor safety Göteborg - the logistic centre of Scandinavia Published: 29th January 2007 14:05 CET Online: http://www.thelocal.se/6236/ The Forsmark nuclear power station has blotted its copybook by means of insufficient safety precautions, staff working under the influence of alcohol and incidents that are described as "potentially fatal" in a new internal report. The report was written in October of last year but has been kept secret until now, SVT's news programme Aktuellt reports. The new revelations, described by SVT as "explosive", are to be broadcast on Monday evening's show. The Forsmark 1 reactor was shut down on 25 July 2006 after a short-circuit caused a blackout. Two of four backup diesel generators failed to start automatically, revealing other faults in the power station's electrical system. According to the new report, the incident during the summer was partly caused by "a degradation of the company's safety culture over a long period". Aside from the incident that led to the shut-down, renovation work carried out on the power station last year led to 22 workplace accidents and 68 near-accidents, many of which could have proved fatal. In addition, when 25 workers at the plant were tested for alcohol, 3 were found to be under the influence and had to be sent home. Paul O'Mahony More National ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC Solicits Comments on Proposed Enforcement Policy Revisions News Release - 2007-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 07-011 January 29, 2007 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public input on a proposed major revision to its Enforcement Policy to clarify terminology and address enforcement issues in areas not currently covered, including the agencys use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the enforcement process. The NRC is looking for comments on what specific topics should be added or removed from the policy and what topics currently addressed require additional guidance. The NRC Enforcement Policy contains policy and procedures the NRC uses to initiate and review enforcement actions in response to violations of NRC requirements. The NRC does not intend to modify the NRCs emphasis on compliance with its requirements. The comment period closes on March 26, 2007. Comments can be mailed to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001. Comments can also be hand-carried to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal work days, or they can be e-mailed to . The full Federal Register notice is available at: [PDF Icon] . 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 Monday, January 29, 2007 ***************************************************************** 31 The Local: Power firms stung by cost of nuclear shutdown 30th January 2007 NEWS | BLOG | Göteborg - the logistic centre of Scandinavia Published: 25th August 2006 19:42 CET Online: http://www.thelocal.se/4700/ The shutdown of the nuclear reactors at Forsmark and Oskarshamn after an incident at Forsmark on July 25th has so far cost the plant owners 600 million kronor. Following a blackout caused by a short circuit two of four backup diesel generators in the Forsmark 1 reactor failed to start automatically, revealing other faults in the power station's electrical system. Four reactors - two in Forsmark and two in Oskarshamn - were switched off for safety reasons. The month-long stoppage has cost the Oskarshamn plant's owners, EON and Fortum, around 300 million kronor. The financial blow to Vattenfall Norden, which owns 66 percent of Forsmark, is around 265 million kronor so far. On top of that is another few million in lost income for other smaller owners. How long it will be before the Swedish nuclear power inspectorate (SKI) approves Forsmark 1 and the other three reactors is still unclear. First, SKI is investigating what happened at Forsmark 1 - described earlier in the week as the "country's worst nuclear incident". Then a decision will be made over what steps must be taken before the other reactors are switched back on. SKI has demanded that the Oskarshamn plant demonstrates by September 6th that the same fault cannot happen there. The reactors will not come back online before then. ***************************************************************** 32 ABC: Nuclear reactor's life coming to an end. 30/01/2007. ABC News Online The HIFAR shutdown will take 10 years. (File photo) (Reuters) Australia's first nuclear reactor is being shut down from today. The 50-year-old reactor, called HIFAR, is at Lucas Heights in Sydney's south. Chief executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organsation (ANSTO), Ian Smith, says the reactor will be replaced by a new one, called OPAL. He says a ceremony with the federal Science Minister Julie Bishop will mark the beginning of the decommissioning process. "The Minister is turning off HIFAR and the process will then begin for decommissioning and we would expect that it would be completed in about 10 years, because for some of the time of course we simply allow the radiation in the reactor to decay naturally," he said. "This class of reactor - this has had the longest working life of any in the world. "It's still working very well and we're very proud that we've maintained it and we've been able to deliver a great service to the Australian community, Australian industry, the nuclear medicine community by keeping this reactor going for almost 50 years." ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: Statement from Chairman Dale Klein on Commission's Affirmation of the Final DBT Rule News Release - 2007-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 07-013 January 29, 2007 attack by an airplane. The NRC has also taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions - no matter what has caused them. Finally, the NRC is actively involved with other federal agencies, including the military, to protect all this nation's infrastructure against such attacks. All that said, the NRC Commission continues to study and discuses the issue of airborne threats against our licenses and will take regulatory action in the future should it be determined that is necessary. The latest DBT rule is one part of a broader effort and by no means is the last chapter on the subject." 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 Monday, January 29, 2007 ***************************************************************** 34 Decatur Dail: TVA plans to add 2 nuclear reactors in N. Alabama www.decaturdaily.com MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2007 From Staff Reports SPRING CITY, Tenn. The Tennessee Valley Authority will submit applications to build two nuclear reactors in North Alabama under the government’s streamlined licensing process, TVA officials said. The new reactors would be at the Bellefonte nuclear plant site in Hollywood. The utility began constructing the Bellefonte plant in the 1970s but never completed it. The utility also plans to decide by August whether to spend up to $2 billion to complete the unfinished Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported Sunday. Those three reactors, in combination with the Unit 1 reactor soon to be restarted at Browns Ferry near Athens after a 22-year shutdown, would give TVA four additional operating reactors. Unit 1 is under reconstruction, and TVA officials said in December that they were on schedule to restart it in May of this year if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved. TVA’s total tally could top $7 billion for design and construction, officials said. “We need more power and, at this point, nuclear looks to be the best option,” TVA Chairman Bill Sansom said. TVA currently operates three nuclear plants: Sequoyah (with two reactors) near Chattanooga, Watts Bar (one reactor) at Spring City, and Browns Ferry (two reactors). A consortium of utilities and contractors known as NuStart Energy LLC will split the projected $50 million costs with the U.S. Department of Energy for initial design of the two reactors for Bellefonte. TVA officials said they will benefit from new government rules that provide a more streamlined licensing process and government incentives such as production tax credits and risk insurance for new nuclear plants. No new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania raised public concerns about nuclear power and caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revamp its rules. Changing attitudes But industry officials believe concerns about global warming have changed attitudes about nuclear energy. Nationwide, U.S. utilities are pursuing plans for up to 31 new reactors. Proponents say nuclear power is an attractive alternative to coal, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and air pollution. Nuclear energy also provides an alternative to natural gas, which has been buffeted by high and volatile prices. The Bush administration and some Republican lawmakers also are touting the resurgence of nuclear energy, along with a new-to-the-United States reprocessing and recycling technology for highly radioactive spent fuel waste. “Nuclear power is almost the only answer for clean electricity to meet our growing needs,” said Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is co-chairman of the TVA Congressional Caucus and a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “When I look at all of the options, I think nuclear is the leading technology.” Demand growth TVA estimates electricity demand will grow 1.9 percent a year. To meet all of that increase with nuclear reactors would require TVA nearly to double its nuclear generation in the next decade. But critics question the safety and cost of the plan. Nearly 30 years ago, TVA scrapped most of what then was the nation’s most costly and ambitious nuclear program. “Of all the places on Earth that have given nuclear power a shot and failed, the Tennessee Valley has got to be No. 1,” said S. David Freeman, a former TVA chairman who has headed four other electric utilities across the country. 10 reactors canceled The 74-year old utility sank more than $8 billion in the 1970s and 1980s into 10 nuclear reactors that were canceled before they were finished. TVA spent another $6 billion to build the first reactor at Watts Bar, making it the most expensive nuclear plant of its size ever built. “TVA’s electric rates would be a whole lot lower today if they wouldn’t have tried to build all those expensive nuclear plants,” Freeman said. “It’s just baffling to me that TVA would want to get into that business again.” TVA President Tom Kilgore insists the agency now is taking a slower and more cost-effective approach to adding nuclear power than it did before, when it tried to build and operate up to 17 reactors at one time. “If we do decide to proceed with more nuclear units, we’re going to make sure they are well designed in advance and are built one at a time,” Kilgore said. After costly repairs in the 1980s, TVA’s five operating reactors are now in the top quartile of U.S. nuclear plants for performance and safety, according to Kilgore. TVA provides wholesale electricity to 158 distributors serving about 8.6 million consumers in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. AP contributed to this report. ***************************************************************** 35 AFP: Low danger from possible attack on US nuclear plant - study - Mon Jan 29, 7:43 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The danger to the US public of a September 11-like terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant is low, an official government study said. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report that its extensive analyses showed that if attackers like those on September 11, 2001 flew a large aircraft into an American nuclear plant, "the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect the public health and safety is low." "Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to terrorist use of a large aircraft, there would be time to implement mitigating actions," the commission said. The NRC made the statement as part of its argument that there was no need to tighten overall rules related to fire risk mitigation in the design and structure of the plants. It said it had already ordered all plant operators to take whatever measures necessary to contain the effects of fire resulting from explosions in a possible attack. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 UPI: Analysis: Energy security a priority United Press International - Energy - 1/29/2007 3:39:00 PM -0500 By KRISHNADEV CALAMUR UPI Energy Correspondent LONDON, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- President Bush's State of the Union speech last week emphasized the need for the United States to reduce dependence on imported oil, highlighting a major security concern not only in the United States but elsewhere. "Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean," Bush said last Tuesday. "For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy." Indeed, the results of a UPI/Zogby International interactive poll released last week showed that many Americans feel the same way. In the poll of 6,909 U.S. residents, 61.6 percent strongly agreed that reliance on Middle East oil represents a potential security threat to the United States; 27.4 percent somewhat agreed with that statement. The poll also showed that 76.9 percent strongly agreed that the United States is too reliant on oil from foreign sources, and 19.5 percent somewhat agreed with that assessment. Similarly, 74 percent said they strongly agreed that the United States is too reliant on oil from the Middle East; 19.7 percent somewhat agreed. The poll was conducted Jan. 16-18 and carries a 1.2-percentage-point margin of error. At present, Canada is the No. 1 U.S. supplier of oil, followed by Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. Of these, there is a potential supply disruption from Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chavez, has used his anti-Americanism as a rallying cry to band together with nations such as Iran, which the United States regards as a "rogue state." Still, just as the United States needs Venezuelan oil, Venezuela needs the United States, which is Caracas' No. 1 customer. Chavez has tried to blunt some of that dependence by looking to markets such as China to sell his oil, but the geographic proximity of the United States and the continued U.S. thirst for oil makes it a reliable customer for years to come. Similarly, oil-related unrest in Nigeria has resulted in supply disruptions of as much as 20 percent of the country's output. Rebel groups, the most prominent among them the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, over the last year have targeted Western oil installations for attacks and have kidnapped and killed foreign workers. Their demand: a greater share of oil revenue from Africa's No. 1 oil producer. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has long been the moderating voice in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the oil cartel that determines most of the global output. It was seen, until the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as a valued U.S. ally in the Middle East. But the anti-Arab backlash in public opinion in the United States following those attacks has placed Riyadh in a delicate situation. Though the United States continues to be a major customer, Saudi Arabia is increasingly looking to markets such as India and China, whose economies are growing at a pace matched only by their need for energy. But energy supply concerns -- also seen in Europe because of reduced gas flow from Russia, the world's No. 1 gas producer -- are not the only reason to worry. A situation such as Nigeria, where the energy infrastructure itself is under attack is, perhaps, a larger problem. This situation also persists in Iraq, where there are almost daily attacks against the country's oil pipelines, a potential revenue lifeline to a nation struggling to rebuild from war. Similarly, militants identified as members of al-Qaida have tried to attack Saudi oil refineries, and the threat of attacks on nuclear energy installations worldwide continues. (Comments to energy@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 UPI: Bulgaria wants to reopen nuclear reactors United Press International - NewsTrack - 1/29/2007 9:52:00 AM -0500 SOFIA, Bulgaria, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- Facing a power shortage, former power exporter Bulgaria wants to restart two nuclear reactors it had to close before joining the European Union. Bulgarian Economy and Energy Minister Rumen Ovcharov said his government is seeking EU approval to restart the reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear site, on the Danube River in northeastern Bulgaria, the Serbian EnergyObserver.com Web site reported Monday. Ovcharov said the closure of Kozloduy's two outdated reactors late in December to meet EU standards severely hurt Bulgaria's energy supply and said neighboring Balkan countries are threatened with electricity shortages, the Serbian news agency Tanjug said. Ovcharov said economic losses due to the shutdown amounted to $2.1 million. Bulgaria closed two old Russian-made reactors in 2003 as part of the accession agreement with the union and agreed to close the two Kozloduy reactors late in 2006, the report said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 KnoxNews: TVA wants more nuclear power By Associated Press January 29, 2007 SPRING CITY, Tenn. - The Tennessee Valley Authority will submit applications to build two new nuclear reactors under the government's streamlined licensing process and restart its oldest reactor after a 22-year shutdown at Browns Ferry, TVA officials told The Chattanooga Times Free Press. The utility also plans to decide by August whether to spend up to $2 billion to complete the unfinished Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, the newspaper reported Sunday. The total tally could top $7 billion for design and construction, officials said. "We need more power, and, at this point, nuclear looks to be the best option," TVA Chairman Bill Sansom told the newspaper. TVA currently operates three nuclear plants: Sequoyah (with two reactors) and Watts Bar (one reactor) in Tennessee, and Browns Ferry (two reactors) in Alabama. Under its plan, TVA would build two new reactors at the Bellefonte nuclear plant site in Hollywood, Ala. The utility began constructing the Bellefonte plant in the 1970s but never completed it. A consortium of utilities and contractors known as NuStart Energy LLC will split the projected $50 million costs with the U.S. Department of Energy for initial design of the two reactors for Bellefonte. TVA officials said they will benefit from new government rules that provide a more streamlined licensing process and government incentives such as production tax credits and risk insurance for new nuclear plants. No new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania raised public concerns about nuclear power and caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revamp its rules. But industry officials believe concerns about global warming have changed attitudes about nuclear energy. Nationwide, U.S. utilities are pursuing plans for up to 31 new reactors. Proponents say nuclear power is an attractive alternative to coal, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and air pollution. Nuclear energy also provides an alternative to natural gas, which has been buffeted by high and volatile prices. The Bush administration and some Republican lawmakers also are touting the resurgence of nuclear energy, along with a new-to-the-United States reprocessing and recycling technology for highly radioactive spent fuel waste. "Nuclear power is almost the only answer for clean electricity to meet our growing needs," said Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is co-chairman of the TVA Congressional Caucus and a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "When I look at all of the options, I think nuclear is the leading technology." TVA estimates that electricity demand will grow 1.9 percent a year. To meet all of that increase with nuclear reactors would require TVA nearly to double its nuclear generation in the next decade. But critics question the safety and cost of the plan. Nearly 30 years ago, TVA scrapped most of what then was the nation's most costly and ambitious nuclear program. "Of all the places on Earth that have given nuclear power a shot and failed, the Tennessee Valley has got to be No. 1," said S. David Freeman, a former TVA chairman who has headed four other electric utilities across the country. The 74-year-old utility sank more than $8 billion in the 1970s and 1980s into 10 nuclear reactors that were canceled before they were finished. TVA spent another $6 billion to build the first reactor here at Watts Bar, making it the most expensive nuclear plant of its size ever built. Copyright 2007, Associated Press. All rights © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 39 [NukeNet] Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:26:07 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4507846.html Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical By Bill Brubaker Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January 29, 2007; 3:12 PM The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded today that nuclear power plant operators in the United States should not be required to protect their reactors against terrorist airplane attacks. The new defense plan -- most of which is classified -- offers provisions related to "multiple, coordinated groups of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats," the agency said in a statement that provided few details. But plant operators should not be expected to protect their reactors against a "deliberate hit by a large aircraft," the NRC said. The agency suggested that would be unreasonable because "the active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military." The commission's new plan -- approved by a 5-0 vote -- was quickly attacked by long-time critics of the agency, including the Washington-based watchdog group Public Citizen. "Rather than requiring measures to prevent a plane crash from damaging vulnerable parts of a nuclear plant, which would be the smartest course, the government is relying on post-crash measures and evacuation plans to attempt to 'mitigate' the public's exposure to radiation," Michele Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said in a statement. On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote to the agency that "the communities that surround existing plants need to be confident that the NRC, as the regulator charged with nuclear safety, did all it could to ensure that plants defend against current security threats." These communities, she added, should be assured that plants are "prepared to defend against large attacking forces and commercial aircraft." Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the new regulations reflect "an inadequate, industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of corporate profits." The new plan was designed to spell out how operators should protect reactors from terrorist attacks. Without providing details, the NRC said the plan "provides a general description of the attributes of potential adversaries who might attempt to commit radiological sabotage or theft or diversion against which licensees' physical protection systems must defend with high assurance." The plan also "provides a general description of the modes of attack, weaponry and capabilities and intentions of the adversary." That language didn't soothe detractors, who have been calling for tougher rules since terrorists flew four jets into the Pentagon, World Trade Center and a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. "We are shocked that the NRC would even consider disregarding aircraft attacks on existing reactors with so many operable airfields within 10 miles of most nuclear power stations," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "Given that it is impossible to react to a fast-breaking event such as a local private plane laden with explosives, structural defenses against aircraft attack must be inserted into regulations -- if not by NRC, then by Congress." In September 2004, a nuclear watchdog group -- the Committee to Bridge the Gap -- proposed that power plants be required to construct steel shields around sensitive parts of facilities so an incoming plane would strike the shield and not the reactor. The NRC said today it is "an active partner" with other federal, state and local authorities "in constant surveillance of the threat environment and will adjust regulatory actions or requirements if necessary." Details of the new defense plan are protected from public disclosure "for security reasons," the agency said. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 40 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday January 30, 2007 12:31 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Making nuclear power plants crash-proof to an airliner attack by terrorists is impracticable and it's up to the military to avert such an assault, the government said Monday. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a revised security policy, directed nuclear plant operators to focus on preventing radiation from escaping in case of such an attack and to improve evacuation plans to protect public health and safety. ``The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military,'' the NRC said in a statement. The agency rejected calls by some nuclear watchdog groups that the government establish firm no-fly zones near reactors or that plant operators build ``lattice-like'' barriers to protect reactors, or be required to have anti-aircraft weapons on site to shoot down an incoming plane. The NRC, in a summary of the mostly secret security plan, said such proposals were examined, but that it was concluded the ``active protection'' against an airborne threat rests with organizations such as the military or the Federal Aviation Administration. It said that various mitigation strategies required of plant operators - such as radiation protection measures and evacuation plans - ``are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety'' in case of an airborne attack. The commission unanimously approved the plan, which has been the subject of internal discussions for 15 months, in a 5-0 vote at a brief meeting without discussion. ``Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane,'' NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement, adding that plant operators already must be able to manage large fires or explosions, no matter the cause. Klein called the new rule ``only one piece'' of an effort to enhance reactor security and said the NRC will continue to examine and discuss the issue of airborne threats and take additional actions if found to be necessary. The defense plan, formally known as the Design Basis Threat, spells out what type of attack force the government believes might target a commercial power reactor and what its operator must be capable of defending against. While details are sketchy because of security concerns, the plan requires defense against a relatively small force, perhaps no more than a half-dozen attackers, but that they could come from multiple directions including by water and could include suicide teams. The plan, which formally approves many of the procedures that have long been in place, reflects the increased concerns raised by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It also includes measures to address cyber attacks, according to the NRC. Some members of Congress and nuclear watchdog groups have argued that the requirements fall short of what is needed, given what was learned by the Sept. 11 attacks on the twin towers in New York and at the Pentagon. These critics have argued that defenders of a reactor should be ready to face up to 19 attackers - as was the case on Sept. 11 - and expect them to have rocket-propelled grenades, so-called ``platter'' explosive charges and .50-caliber armor-piercing ammunition. The NRC does not assume such weapons being used and rejected the idea of a 19-member attack force, maintaining that the Sept. 11 attacks actually were four separate attacks, each by four or five terrorists. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that NRC appears not to have followed the direction of Congress ``to ensure that our nuclear power plants are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats'' of the magnitude demonstrated on Sept. 11. The NRC ``has missed an opportunity to provide the public with a real solution to the nuclear reactor security problem,'' said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a frequent critic of the nuclear industry and the NRC. Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear watchdog group that had urged the NRC to require physical barriers to keep planes from hitting reactors, called the security measures ``irresponsible to the extreme.'' ``Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully inadequate security measures already in place at the nation's reactors,'' said Hirsch. NRC officials have emphasized that the defense plan should require what is ``reasonable'' to be expected of a civilian security force at the 103 commercial nuclear power reactors. In an unclassified summary of the DBT, the NRC maintains that studies ``confirm the low likelihood'' that an aircraft crashing into a reactor will damage the reactor core and release radioactivity, affecting public health and safety. ``Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to a terrorist use of a large aircraft against a nuclear power plant, the studies indicate that there would be time to implement the required onsite mitigating actions,'' says the summary. --- On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 41 Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Tighter nuke site security ordered ajc.com By JEFF NESMITH The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 01/30/07 WASHINGTON The government ordered nuclear power plant operators Monday to enhance protection against potential terrorist attacks by vehicles, boats and computers, but will not require protection against attacks from the sky. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it decided against ordering security measures against attacks like the ones carried out Sept. 11, 2001, because such protection was the responsibility of the military and other agecncies. The NRC's order is "only one piece of a broader effort to enhance nuclear power plant security," Dale Klein, chairman of the commission, said in written remarks. "Overall, we are taking a multifaceted approach to security enhancements in this post-9/11 environment," he added. Critics said the commission was mostly concerned with protecting the nuclear power industry against having to install costly security measures. The commission changed the definition of the hypothetical safety threats that operators must provide protection against: " To the requirement to provide security against an attack by "well trained [including military training and skills] and dedicated individuals," the commission added, "individuals willing to kill or be killed." " The requirement that plants protect against radiological sabotage by "a determined violent external assault, attack by stealth or deceptive actions" was broadened to include "diversionary actions by a force capable or operating as one or more teams, attacking from one or more entry forces." " The response to "a four-wheel-drive land vehicle used for transporting personnel and their hand-carried equipment to the proximity of vital areas" was changed to: "land and water vehicles, which could be used for transporting personnel and their hand-carried equipment to the proximity of vital areas." " A new provision requires that operators prepare for terrorists who might disable vital on-site computer networks that control safety systems. The changes are based in part on classified information, the commission said after voting 5-0 to finalize them. The vote follows 15 months of discussion and public comment. Among aircraft threat protections the commission specifically rejected was a proposal by the Los Angeles-based Committee to Bridge the Gap to surround nuclear plants with huge vertical steel beams to protect against hijacked planes. In a concept it calls "Beamhenge," the nuclear safety advocacy group said the beams would be an inexpensive shield against which hijacked airliners would destroy themselves before they could reach power plant containment vessels. In addition to saying protection of airborne threat rests with the military and Department of Homeland Security, the commission said it believed that "mitigation measures" by power plant operators would protect the public in the event of attack from the air. "What they're saying is they plan to rely on fire hoses and evacuations of the countryside in case of an airborne attack," said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, which has posted an animated video of its "Beamhenge" concept on its Web site. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured by industry, and its main concern is to keep the regulatory burden as light as possible," said Hirsch, whose group joined Public Citizen in seeking more stringent safety requirements. Among more than 800 comments supporting the committee's petition to require protections against air attacks was a letter signed by the attorneys general of New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Arizona, California, Wisconsin and Arkansas. The officials said "all of our nuclear power plants can be reached by air" and that several of them are "close to major population centers." They noted that the original plan for the 2001 terrorist attacks included crashing planes into nuclear power plants, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission. © 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 42 UPI: Walker's World: Nukes and risk United Press International - Energy - 1/29/2007 1:09:00 PM -0500 By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The new energy consensus is coming, and it looks to be nuclear. At the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her government was reconsidering the 1990s decision to close down Germany's nuclear power plants. Elsewhere in Europe, France and Finland are building new plants, and Britain is clearing away roadblocks in the planning and regulatory systems to follow suit. There are 29 new nuclear plants now under construction around the world. Canada's minister of natural resources wants to use nuclear power to turn the sludgy tar sands of Alberta into oil and gasoline. Saudi Arabia has proposed joint development of nuclear energy to its Gulf neighbors, and China and India have launched major new construction programs to meet their soaring energy demand. The current number of 442 nuclear power plants operating in 31 different countries is set to soar. Nils Diaz, former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States, has suggested that another 1,500 could be up and running by 2050. And according to John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, the world could need another 3,000 plants if nuclear power is to meet one-third of the world's expected energy needs by the end of this century. Americans seem to be ready for this. A UPI-Zogby opinion poll published last week indicates the old public fears of nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island or the Chernobyl disaster are giving way to a new understanding of nuclear power's importance in the energy equation. Well over half of the 6,900 respondents said they wanted more nuclear power stations built in the United States; 30.8 percent said they were "strongly" in favor, and 31 percent said they were "somewhat" in favor. Asked if they would accept a nuclear power plant being built in their community, 39 percent said yes and only 8.9 percent said no. These are remarkable figures, because the level of trust on nuclear safety is very low. Only 7.5 percent said they fully trusted the energy industry, and only 6 percent said they fully trusted the federal government to ensure that the power plants would be safe. But the broad issue of public safety seems pretty much settled, at least in the current state of opinion. No fewer than 27.5 percent said they were very sure, and 35.2 percent said they were pretty sure that nuclear power is safe. And only 11.8 percent said they were sure it is unsafe. In short, the fears of the 1970s and 1980s seem to be easing (or fears of the alternative dangers of global warming from burning fossil fuels seem to be rising) to the point that politicians are increasingly able to propose a new era of nuclear power. In his State of the Union speech last week President George W. Bush stressed: "We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power." Bush went on to cite a laundry list of other initiatives that the U.S. government was backing, including research on batteries for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel, and new methods of producing ethanol. And for ethanol, he proposed using "everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes." But if the technology to watch is nuclear, it might make sense to keep one eye on Wall Street, because the main hurdle now seems to be money. On the one hand, the utility companies that would build and run the new plants will need guarantees that future electricity prices will be high enough to guarantee them some kind of return on investment. And Wall Street, which will be organizing the finances through bond issues that will support the multibillion dollar costs of construction, will also need assurance that the rug will not be pulled out from the industry yet again as it was after the Three Mile Island accident. No nuclear reactor has been licensed in the United States since 1979. But that is an assurance that no government can give -- and that few insurers want to take on. Bond agencies have already made it clear that energy or finance groups that take on the risk of new plants are likely at the same time risking their credit ratings. And investors who prefer to see some prospect of their investment paying off in less than 10 years may be looking at a 30-year investment horizon with nuclear power. To ease these problems the U.S. government has already committed $6 billion in tax credits for the first companies to build new plants. Moreover, the Department of Energy has proposed investing $260 million in plant design and application costs with NuStart, a consortium of nuclear operators that hopes to build new plants. The theory is that standardized designs for new and inherently safer plants could lead to a common licensing and approval process, and that in turn could slash the time and construction costs. U.S. energy companies have announced proposals to build up to 30 new reactors, and the TXU Corporation of Texas alone says it may construct six new reactors at three sites. But TXU knows that the hurdles can be formidable. Its own Comanche Peak plant was supposed to cost $1 billion to build; it ended up costing more than $10 billion. But companies are waiting to get a clearer idea of the way the Bush administration (and the new Congress) propose to fund the $2 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear investment that were listed in its 2005 Energy Bill. If the nuclear power industry is nervously waiting to see if Wall Street works out the financial equation, Wall Street might find it useful to cast an eye deep in the American heartland: Coffey County, Kan., already home to one nuclear plant at Wolf Creek. The town council so wants to build another that it is proposing, with the backing of the utilities industry, a 10-year relief on property taxes for a new nuclear plant. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 ContraCostaTimes.com: Rail tankers pose threat of massive destruction 01/29/2007 | By Erik N. Nelson MEDIANEWS STAFF [Rail tankers carrying hazardous materials sit near Interstate 80 and homes in Richmond. Many cities want the federal government to tighten security and reroute tankers away from potential targets.] Laura Oda/MediaNews Rail tankers carrying hazardous materials sit near Interstate 80 and homes in Richmond. Many cities want the federal government to tighten security and reroute tankers away from potential targets. More photos To the thousands of residents and commuters who see them each day, the big steel tanker cars are ubiquitous features of the Bay Area's transportation landscape, parked on railroad sidings along with low-profile container carriers, steel-mesh auto carriers and bulging grain hoppers. But to terrorism experts, emergency officials and chemical hazard researchers, they are lurking weapons of mass destruction, waiting for mishap or sabotage to set them off. At a U.S. Senate hearing Jan. 18, the problem of highly hazardous chemical rail tankers in urban areas was listed as the Transportation Security Administration's second-biggest threat to surface transportation, after direct threats to passenger rail systems that travel beneath the ground or water. Nearly 1.2 million tankers carrying materials that are considered hazardous in varying degrees are shipped through the nation annually. Of those, more than 100,000 tankers contain toxic inhalation hazard chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia. On any day, one can see the tankers lumbering through communities such as Martinez, Berkeley, Fremont, Redwood City or South San Francisco. Passengers at the Emeryville Amtrak Station often find the tankers sitting idle between the depot's platforms and a shopping mall across the street. The side of the cars are often marked with taggers' spray-painted calling cards, exposing the extent to which the deadly cargo is unprotected. The juxtaposition of the Bay Area's densely populated Bay-side neighborhoods with pressurized tankers of poison gas such as ammonia and chlorine and highly explosive chemicals such as liquid petroleum gas used to be something officials could do little more than wring their hands over. Now, however, they are looking to the nation's capital, to a politically shifted Congress and an executive branch under pressure to take action five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks transformed the issue from a safety and ecology debate to a national security imperative. But five years after those attacks, the Federal Railroad Administration has only one full-time employee working on security for the nation's entire 142,000-mile passenger and freight rail network. Anxious about the unabated threat posed by the potential chemical warheads in its midst, the District of Columbia's city government defied the Federal Railroad Administration and passed its own safeguards for such shipments. Other, more industrial cities, like Chicago, Buffalo and Baltimore, are poised to follow the district's example. The district ordinance has been tied up in federal courts since it passed in 2004, opposed by railroads and the Bush Administration. But in December, two federal agencies proposed new regulations they say would better supervise parked tankers and, for the first time, consider rerouting hazardous shipments around potential terror target areas. "This has been an issue of concern for us for many, many years," said Nora Davis, mayor of Emeryville, where chemical tankers often sit idle and unprotected next to shopping centers, hotels and apartment blocks. "Finally, people are taking a serious look at this. It's past time for a concerted effort to regulate this." Long-standing issue The issue has been around for decades, starting as a safety and environmental concern. Chemical plants and other facilities using hazardous materials were the main targets of this attention, culminating in the 1999 release of federally mandated "worst-case scenarios" aimed at preparing local authorities for toxic emergencies. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the specter of deliberate attacks on chemical tankers became the focus of regulatory efforts. Environmental activists armed with photos of 90-ton tankers of chlorine -- used as a weapon in World War I -- passing near the U.S. Capitol spurred passage of the District of Columbia ordinance, which required such shipments to be rerouted away from the city's center. Bay Area officials are also concerned that the recent trend to focus new development in urbanized, formerly industrial areas will put even more homes and shops in harm's way. "We have rezoned quite a bit of land along the waterfront for housing, for transit-oriented development, which is supposed to be a good thing," said Martinez Mayor Rob Schroder, who envisions the new developments as a place where residents will have easy access to buses, Amtrak passenger trains and ferries to San Francisco. And the freight trains that rumble through the town at all hours along the nation's first transcontinental railroad are so much a part of the town that they have become background noise for many residents. "Every once and a while, we think about and talk about safety, but rarely to do we talk about terrorism because we know how much of a potential for a very bad incident there could be," Schroder said. "It's almost like we don't want to think about it." Just outside the Shell Oil refinery in Martinez, rows of liquid petroleum gas tankers regularly wait to be hitched to trains. Anyone -- journalist, graffiti artist or saboteur -- could get close enough to tamper with the parked tankers without railroad security or the thinly stretched Transportation Security Administration officers asking any questions. Problem outside gates Since Sept. 11, access to hazardous chemicals at fixed facilities has been tightened, such as the installation of a new high-tech surveillance system for the Port of Oakland. But the problem, security advocates complain, exists just outside the gates. "What sense does it make to put guns, guards and gates around these factories, and then open the gates and ship their most dangerous poison gas cargoes in huge quantities right through the target cities?" asks Fred Millar, an activist with the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "Why don't we preposition huge quantities of aviation jet fuel on the tops of all of our tallest buildings? That way, the terrorists wouldn't have to go through the inconvenience of flight training." Millar has mounted a crusade to reroute chemical shipments. He phones fire officials, legislators and journalists in cities across the country and leads video forays into rail yards to document lax security around chemical cars. Such activism has irritated the railroad industry, which maintains its their safety record, with hazardous freight arriving without incident 99.98 percent of the time, is a model for other industries. The industry's close regulatory relationship with the federal government makes it an ideal partner to help secure the nation against terrorist threats. But railroads acknowledge that people can get near the tankers, which, unlike tanker trucks, can't be regulated by states or local governments. "People do. We know they do. The key is having eyes and ears to have people ... watch," said Mark Davis, a spokesman for Omaha-based Union Pacific, which owns much of the rail right-of-way in the Bay Area. "Trespassing on railroad property is dangerous. Reporters and the general public, unfortunately, after 9/11, to make a point, they would come on the railroad property and claim that the industry was not safe. "If you're going to watch, do it from a public street," Davis cautioned. Safety authorities, however, are unimpressed with the railroads' vigilance. "If there were no security on-site, all you would have to do is walk up to one of these cars and disable a valve so that it was stuck in the 'open' position and walk away," said Philip White, chief of the South San Francisco Fire Department. "You just need bolt-cutters." Safety officials from South San Francisco to South Carolina, where a chlorine tanker crash and release in January 2005 killed an engineer and eight factory workers, complain that the railroads often won't tell them what is going through their neighborhoods. After discovering tankers in his city loaded with highly flammable solvent toluene, White supported an unsuccessful effort last spring to pass a state law requiring shippers to pay a hazardous substance fee that would help pay for the equipment and training necessary to deal with the consequences of a release, fire or explosion. And those consequences could be catastrophic, said Ron Koopman, a chemical hazard researcher who retired in 2003 from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Liquid petroleum gas, also called propane, sits in strings of black tanker cars on sidings between the Bay shore's refineries from Richmond to Martinez and beyond. A ruptured car could lead to something safety experts call a BLEVE (pronounced "blevy"), boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, said Koopman, who actually ruptured chemical tanker trucks at a nuclear weapons test site in Nevada to record the results. "A really big release outside can explode," Koopman explained. "The fire would heat the other propane cars until they explode, and that creates a huge explosion." A 1983 BLEVE at a propane facility in Mexico City killed 500 people. Koopman said he believes LPG is even more dangerous than the controversial liquid natural gas, which environmental activists have staged a high-profile campaign against bringing to California. New rail couplers and steel plates have reduced the chances of an accidental rail car puncture, he said, but would not stop an act of sabotage. Safer tankers? On Jan. 16, federal railroad officials, freight, chemical and tanker manufacturing company executives announced a new partnership aimed at developing a safer rail tanker, one less vulnerable to crashes and perhaps even some forms of terror attacks. That very day, a derailment near Louisville, Ky., confounded efforts to bring a cocktail of burning chemicals under control. The freight line that owns the derailed train, CSX Transportation, was the same one suing to neutralize the District of Columbia ordinance. While cities in the East have actively sought greater tanker car restrictions, Millar said the effort is just stirring in California. "This is really a statewide problem, particularly in the Bay Area, where they're using the siding track" to store tankers, said White, who urged his counterparts in other Bay Area jurisdictions to inspect their local sidings. Many were surprised to find parked hazardous tankers, he said. White and others who have confronted railroads have found themselves up against powerful railroad, chemical and oil interests with many allies in both Sacramento and Washington. U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, decided against pursuing a legislative or regulatory solution to White's complaint, but instead convinced Union Pacific and its shipping customers to deal with the complaint locally, said Lantos spokeswoman Lynn Weil. "Tom found a solution by just talking with the companies," Weil said, that included providing training and equipment for the fire department and working on alternate shipment routes. But with the Democrat-controlled Congress elected Nov. 7, that dynamic has already begun to change. At the Jan. 18 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, senators chided federal security and railroad officials for using only a small fraction of security resources for protecting surface transportation, as opposed to air travel. Among several bills being considered by the new Congress is a bill similar to one sponsored last year by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., that would require such shipments to be rerouted around major population centers and any areas considered likely terrorist targets. That bill never made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee last year, but is expected to do much better this year. Regardless of what may come with the new Congress, local emergency officials will continue to keep a wary eye upon the hazardous shipments. "Would it cause me concern? Yes. Would I make an inquiry? Yes," said David Orth, deputy fire chief in Berkeley, another city along hazardous cargo routes. "If I were getting on the train at the Emeryville station, I'd wonder about it." Reach Erik N. Nelson at 510-208-6410 or enelson@angnewspapers.com. Read his transportation blog at InsideBayArea.com. ***************************************************************** 44 AxisofLogic: Depleted Uranium Poison Explosions Target US Citizens By Cathy Garger Jan 23, 2007, 21:13 I Left My Heart In (a 2500 miles radius of) San Francisco Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. Your destiny is a mystery to us. - Chief Seattle leader of the Duwanish tribe in Washington Territory in an 1854 letter to U.S. President Franklin Pierce to mark transfer of ancestral Indian lands to the United States There are efforts underway to oppose explosions of radioactive materials by the US government into the air in which we breathe. This article will outline various reasons why and how radioactive explosive “tests” are harming America - and describe the efforts of citizens in one area of the country who are now working to try to put a stop to them. Like most people over 21, you may already know that the United States used to “test” nuclear bombs in the NV and NM deserts, right out in the open air. If asked, most people would probably be able to tell us that yes indeed, both above ground and below ground “nuclear testing” in the United States ended years ago. Yet, even though 1992 saw its last nuke bomb “test” inside the United States, how many know that our government is still firing radioactive explosives into our atmosphere? This fact appears to be one of Uncle Sam’s “dirtiest” not-so-little, well-kept secrets. Photo Top Left -- The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) triggered the atomic bomb called Priscilla on June 24, 1957 at the Nevada Test Site. According to U.S. Department of Energy documents, Priscilla was a balloon type test, it was weapons related, and had a yield of 37 kill tons. Photo Top Right -- This photo was taken on November 1, 1951 and was the "Dog" detonation. It was conducted as part of the Buster/Jangle test series between October and November of 1951. It was an airdrop with a yield of 21 kilotons. Another event Photo Center Left -- On December 18, 1970, the Baneberry underground nuclear test was conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS); the event released radioactivity to the atmosphere. Baneberry had a yield of ten kilotons (a kiloton is the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT). The nuclear bomb was buried about 900 feet beneath the surface of Yucca Flat near the northern boundary of the NTS. The radiation release or venting resulted in a cloud of radioactive dust that reached an altitude of 10,000 feet. Following the Baneberry venting, new containment procedures were adopted to prevent similar occurrences. Photo Center Right -- The Stokes atmospheric nuclear test was conducted at the Nevada Test Site on August 7, 1957. The tests was conducted as part the operation "Plumbbob" testing events. Stokes produced 9 kilotons and was exploded from a balloon. Photo Bottom Right -- This above ground atmospheric nuclear test was conducted at the Nevada Test Site on May 25, 1953. Named Grable the nuclear bomb was fired from a 280 mm gun. The test was an airburst, it was weapons related and had an estimated yield range of 15 Kiloton. (Photos: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) Yes, they fire radiation out into the very same air that our families breathe. Tons of radioactive munitions, in fact. Depleted Uranium is the name of one of the materials they use. And if that material sounds familiar? It because it’s the same stuff that they’re using on the “enemy” - that is, on civilians - in Afghanistan and Iraq. No, we do not know what in the world the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan ever did to deserve the “honor” of being blasted to kingdom come with Uranium-238 - rendering their nations permanently uninhabitable. By the same token, nor do we know what American citizens have done to deserve Depleted Uranium being exploded into our air so that we are gassed with it, either. But now the country is starting to buzz with the word of radioactive open air “testing” near San Francisco. And with such a progressive part of the nation that has historically fought hard for peace, equal rights, racial equality, gay rights, and ecological sustainability? As one could say, the Greater San Francisco Bay area is now again boldly “coming out of the closet” with regard to letting the proverbial cat out of the bag about this “dirty” business of Uncle Sam’s. But this is not a story entirely about San Francisco’s troubles. Nor is it even all about California. As you will see, this story affects you and me, no matter where we live in the country. California’s tale is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The story about your community and mine? Now that’s the heart of this story. The fiery “hot” issue of Depleted Uranium explosives “testing” has emerged into the spotlight in the San Francisco Bay area recently all because of some people who live in a city called Tracy. That’s how anything important usually starts - when just a few people who are fed up enough get together and become vocal enough and publicly put up a fuss. No wonder why they’re upset. Only a few miles away from them on a federally owned 7,000 acre parcel of land in the Altamont Hills at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties, California, radioactive explosives containing Depleted Uranium are being shot out into the open air at a location called Site 300. Yes, Depleted Uranium is being exploded across the street from a motorbike recreational area. Site 300 is only a few miles away from where people live. What started all the ruckus was that on November 13 a new permit, issued by California’s San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, was put into effect that allows the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to use more than triple the amount of explosive materials in “test” detonations at Site 300 than in the past. This means that the equivalent of 350 pounds of explosives may now be fired instead of the previously permitted 100 pounds. There are two efforts underway to appeal the new permit for Site 300 that allows for much larger explosions by using greater amounts of radioactive materials. Two appeals have been filed, one by a housing developer and the other by a resident who lives about five miles from the radioactive blast location, Site 300. Small business owner, Tracy resident, and long-standing member of Tri-Valley Communities Against A Radioactive Environment (CARES), Bob Sarvey is leading the way to protect his community of 72,400 from radioactivity at Livermore’s Site 300 by appealing the permit of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. A health risk assessment performed recently shows a higher health risk just from merely inhaling toxic non-radioactive air contaminants than the Livermore Lab shows in its own radiological assessment. Residents realized something was not quite right about this report. “Previously“, according to Sarvey, “the Lawrence Livermore Lab didn’t need a permit from the Pollution Control District because their chargers were under 100 lbs. equivalent to TNT - and under 1,000 pounds per year. Now, they are going to increase that to 350 pounds per charge, equivalent to TNT …and they are also going to increase the annual limit to 8,000 pounds. That’s eight-fold of what it was annually… and on a per change basis, three and a half times per charge”. In addition to allowing up to 8,000 pounds of explosives containing radioactive matter annually, as reported in the Tracy Press on December 14the current county air pollution control permit allows Livermore Laboratory to emit up to 1,440 pounds of particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter per year into the air. The public does not even have to be notified of such emissions unless the particulate matter exceeds a 20,000 pound limit. It only takes one invisible micron of Depleted Uranium to cause organ damage and health failure. Can anyone possibly hazard a guess as to how much potential hazard that 1,440 pounds of particulates could cause - never mind the 20,000 pound particulate upper limit? Can you imagine willingly causing up to 1,440 pounds of radioactive particles to be blasted into the open air? If one miniscule particle so tiny as to be invisible can cause a terminal illness, whose mind can even fathom the devastation 1,440 pounds of this stuff could do to countless numbers of people? But we must remember - Livermore Lab is allowed to explode up to 20,000 pounds into the air in a year and not even have to notify the neighboring communities. And Site 300 is only one of several such explosive “test” sites in the nation. Lawrence Livermore representatives will not reveal to Tracy residents precisely how many bombs might be “tested” in a year. Tracy Pressreports that the only reason given by Lawrence Livermore for the eight-fold annual increase in explosives testing is “national security,” according to air district spokeswoman Kelly Morphy. Understandably, this news came as a big surprise to citizens of the Greater San Francisco Bay area. Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment executive director, said “This is a shocking change of plan” . On January 8, Recordnet.comquoted Livermore Public Affairs Director Susan Hougton stating that the Lab plans to conduct “only three‘” of the larger, 350-pound detonations in the next year and a half. According to Houghton, no blasts larger than 100 pounds have been conducted since 1997. “Only three” large radioactive explosions in a year - and an unknown number of smaller ones at 100 pounds a “pop” - certainly does not sound like too much to be concerned over. So what is the big deal with exploding up to 8,000 pounds of explosives including radioactive toxics like Depleted Uranium out into the open air, anyway? WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT DU? Depleted Uranium is an inexpensive, radioactive heavy metal more dense than lead. It is basically nuclear waste made from the uranium enrichment process. The supply is plentiful and the US Military uses it in its guns, tanks, bombs, missiles and cannons. To get a feel for how much of it there is of the stuff, The U.S. government has produced more than 1.1 Billion pounds of DU in its uranium enrichment facilities in Ohio and Kentucky. It’s also used as military tank armor, and aircraft, ship and missile counterweight ballasts as well as to provide the massive casing for hydrogen bombs that enable them to undergo fission and give off about fifty percent greater energy “bang for the buck”. Our military has found that there are many attractive advantages to using Depleted Uranium (Uranium-238) over Tungsten steel, as Uranium-238 is an easier substance to process. It is also pyrophoric, which means it burns instantly upon impact or if ignited. DU also has the advantage of being easily able to penetrate targets from armored tanks to concrete bunkers. Always happy to rid itself of nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium has been cheerfully given away by the government to weapons manufacturers, who then in turn make a profit by selling the weapons to the US Military for use in combat as well as for running “tests” out into the air. Sometimes in the past fifty years it has been burned in open pits and other times DU is exploded in an estimated twenty-three locations all across the nation, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Experts who have studied the properties of Depleted Uranium and its deleterious effects upon human health have a great deal to tell us. Recently in a letter to Tracy Press, Marion Fulk, local resident and nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, tells us a bit about the uranium that is being exploded at Livermore and its effects upon human health: “Uranium-238, sometimes called ‘depleted uranium’, poses a serious health threat, especially if inhaled in finely divided particles like those created by open-air explosives testing. Because of its properties, uranium-238 is a triple threat to human health. Its properties as a heavy metal create health damage once inside the body. Its properties as a hazardous chemical catalyst cause additional health risks. And its properties as a radioactive material offer a third route to cellular and DNA damage, illness and premature death in humans and animals.” Despite the fact that Uranium-238 is commonly called “Depleted”, this was a label invented to get the public to think that it is a weakly radioactive material. Nothing could be further from the truth. This poison dust packs a powerful punch to the human body, as Dr. Rosalie Bertell, biometrician and environmental epidemiologist, international radiation expert, and Founder of The International Institute of Concern for Public Health explains, “Depleted uranium concentrate is almost 100 percent uranium. More than 99 percent of both natural and depleted uranium consists of the isotope U-238.” In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy and the 1995 U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitsthat a small amount of additional toxic heavy metalsand radioactive isotopes are also present in Depleted Uranium, such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, Uranium-236 as well as Uranium-234 and Uranium-235. The Uranium-238 which is used in our weapons and is “tested” at test sites throughout the United States is some mighty powerful stuff. We should not, therefore, allow the name of this type of radioactive munition, “Depleted Uranium”, fool us. As a matter of fact, in order to bring greater clarity to the issue, scientists from the UK at the Low Level Radiation Campaignare no longer calling uranium weapons “Depleted Uranium” or “DU” but have switched to the term “WDU”, which stands for Weapons-Derived Uranium when referring to exposures from use of weapons containing any class of Uranium. Hopefully the term WDU will eventually catch on, because just like the words that the US Military uses to describe DU such as claiming it is “mildly” or “weakly” radioactive, the fact of the matter is, no radiation is harmless radiation. Uranium weapons destroy health and irreparably damage all living things. In his book Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure, John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. makes his point about radiation crystal clear: “By contrast, we think human evidence and logic combine to make a case which is already conclusive -- by any reasonable standard of proof -- against the existence of any safe dose or dose-rate of ionizing radiation, with respect to cancer-induction.” For the case of simplicity for now, we will stick to the misnomer “Depleted Uranium”. A pyrophoric munition, DU explodes spontaneously upon being fired. Up to 80% of it is then oxidized, and an aerosol is formed of minute radioactive particles between the range of below 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers. Immediately after the Uranium-238 is fired, these particles are so tiny that they are actually an invisible gas which can be either inhaled easily into the lungs, ingested in food, or can enter the body inside a break in the skin, such as through a small cut on a finger. In combat, Depleted Uranium can also enter the body via shrapnel that enters the skin. At the May, 1999 Hague Peace Conference, Dr. Rosalie Bertell stated that Depleted Uranium is “converted at high temperature into an aerosol, that is, minute insoluble particles of uranium oxide, UO2 or UO3 , in a mist or fog…Uranium oxide and its aerosol form are insoluble in water. The aerosol resists gravity, and is able to travel … in air. Once on the ground, it can be resuspended when the sand is disturbed by motion or wind. Once breathed in, the very small particles of uranium oxide, those which are 2.5 microns [ one micron = one millionth of a meter ] or less in diameter, could reside in the lungs for years”. Once in the lungs, the uranium slowly passes through the lung tissue into the blood. Uranium oxide dust has a biological half life in the lungs of about a year. Eventually, the uranium passes through the lung tissue and then into the blood stream, which may then be broken down in body fluids. Eventually the uranium may be stored in bone, lymph, liver, kidney or other tissues. When found in urine seven or eight years after exposure, it is an indication of its long term internal uranium contamination through storage in the body’s tissues. Marion Fulk gives us an energetic picture of how DU creates havoc once inside the body. “It is an alpha emitter, which means that it is particularly damaging if lodged inside the body. Uranium-238 decays with an energy of 4 million electron volts per alpha particle. The energy emitted tears up surrounding cells and may initiate a whole bunch of negative health outcomes, including, but not limited to, cancers.” Dr. Doug Rokke stateshow fast DU works once inside the body, “Alpha particle emission measurements show that the dose or exposure rate is in excess of 10000 counts per minute.” DU, he says, “is a serious internal hazard”. Explaining this nasty cell-busting process, Janette D. Sherman, M.D., specialist in internal medicine and toxicology, member of The Radiation and Public Health Project, and author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancerand Chemical Exposure and Diseasestates that when we are exposed to Depleted Uranium, it is a serious hazard as a chemically toxic heavy metal, plus it is also radioactive. Because the uranium is so concentrated, the alpha activity is increased, and a decay process occurs. Both alpha and beta radiation are emitted into the cell tissue that surrounds the miniature DU particle, affecting other cells and disrupting cell membranes, DNA, and the cell development process. Quoting from Dr. Sherman’s book, “Aside from the radioactivity of uranium, it is a heavy metal poison and foreign body irritant with the potential to remain in the body for decades.” Uranium poisoning also involves general health impairment to the kidneys, liver, lungs, and cardiovascular, nervous and cell production systems, and cause disorders of proteins and carbohydrate metabolism . Hmmm…Uranium can stay in the body for decades, you say? Well then, how do we know that any of us is not walking around right now with an invisible particle of Uranium-238 lodged inside one of our lungs, hanging out and waiting to give us cancer twelve years down the road? The point of the matter is, we don’t. In an effort to de-mystify what is called by the US Military “Gulf War Syndrome” in veterans of wars in the Middle East, Dr. Sherman explains what many have come to call Depleted Uranium Poisoning. In “Life’s Delicate Balance”, Dr. Sherman details precisely how we get sick from breathing in Uranium-238. “When DU burns, it releases fine particles of radioactive material, much of it as small as nano particles which when inhaled go deep into the lungs and from there are transported to the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, brain, skeleton, seminal fluid, and other parts of the body. DU that is swallowed from airborne particles is transported to the intestinal tract and absorbed and transported to other parts of the body, including the liver and kidneys." As evidenced by increases in incidences of cancerin veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in civilians in these countries, Depleted Uranium clearly plays a role in cancer development, in auto-immune system disorders, and in the alteration of gene expression patterns. By now we’ve all seen the horrific pictures of children from Iraq and Afghanistanwith cancers and those born without limbs and unrecognizable facial features. In effect, scientific evidencesuggests that Uranium-238 does appear to have an adverse impact on reproduction and the destruction and mutation of genetic material, which is passed down to future descendentswhich can lead to birth defectsin the exposed individual’s offspring. Studies have also shownthat DU has a toxic effect on the kidneys as they are the organ that eliminates toxins in the blood and thus are particularly vulnerable to both radiological and heavy metal toxicity and are the first organs to be damaged by uranium. Uranium-238 also causes neurologically related behavioral effects. Recently scientists have observed that there appears to be a correlation between Depleted Uranium and increases in diabetes. Alan Cantwell, M.D. covers the latest scientific thinking on this connection in his article, “Depleted Uranium, Diabetes, Cancer and You”. In it Dr. Cantwell writes that “The CDC predicts that Type 2 diabetes will increase 165% by 2050. People with Type 2 diabetes are also twice as likely to get pancreatic cancer.” Basic common sense tells us that such dramatic increases in the diabetes epidemic is quite unlikely to be due merely to genetics and “lifestyle choices” alone. Recent data from The International Diabetes Federation (IDF)indicates the enormity of the diabetes epidemic indicating that the disease now affects 246 million people worldwide. They predict that the total number of people living with diabetes worldwide will reach 380 million within twenty years. According to IDF President Pierre Lefèbvre, “Just twenty years ago, the best information available suggested that 30 million people had diabetes. A bleaker picture has now emerged. Diabetes is fast becoming the epidemic of the 21st century.” Never before has a quote been so fitting as that from Leuren Moret, geo-scientist and international radiation specialist who wrote, “If it’s an epidemic, it’s not genetic.” Scientists like Moretand Dr. Ernest Sternglassare now observing that increasing atmospheric radiation seems to play a vital role in the expanding worldwide increase in cases of diabetes. ABOUT RADIOACTIVE BLASTS With such known devastating health effects of this life-devastating toxin that stays in the body and basically rips it apart, one can’t help but wonder just what type of super-top secret, “national security” projects would necessitate exploding radioactive toxic uranium gas into densely populated areas where millions of Americans inhale these toxics right where they live and work? I contacted the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Public Affairs office to try to better understand the rationale for detonating even greater amounts of radioactive explosives within a highly populated area. Could it be, I wondered, that they do not realize that their 11.7 square miles of nuclear waste materials “testing” Site 300 is less than 50 miles from San Francisco? Maybe someone needed to tell Livermore Lab (i.e., Uncle Sam) that more than seven million people live in the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area and have been breathing in this “gene busting” chemical toxic and radiological poison for about fifty years? Certainly, I reasoned, no sane individuals would be exploding radiation into the air for fifty years - on purpose - if they realized how many families - men, women, children, and infants are breathing in that air? The Public Affairs Director, Susan Houghton, seemed pleased to share that Livermore had been “very successful for 50 years” before Tracy Press started reporting on this issue, but she declined to elaborate further. One can’t help but wonder how the Lab has been “successful” … I wanted to ask her, “successful” at doing… exactly what? Perhaps Livermore Lab is proud they’ve been “successful” at keeping the community in general - and California as a whole - quiet and totally in the dark with regard to the hazards to their health? Apparently the US government has determined that the public does not have a right to know what is in the air they breathe. As reported by Tracy Press on December 14, Livermore Lab spokesperson Linda Seaver stated, “We are not bound to do a public notice for every permit we request. We worked directly with the local air quality board and our various regulators”. How do you think the American public would feel if it realized that nuclear bomb simulators purposely and routinely fire off 100 pound toxic and radioactive air blasts that affect the air, water, soil, and food supplies in our communities? Site 300, after all, is only one of at several DU “testing” grounds in the nation. For example, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories both fire Depleted Uranium into the open air, as does the Nevada Test Site and Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. When asked in a phone conversation about radioactivity in the outdoor explosions, Public Affairs Director Houghton said she would not answer questions, but stated that tritium would not be used in the 350 lb tests. On this subject, another laboratory spokesperson, Linda Seaver, informed SF Gate that the Laboratory last used tritium in test explosions in 2001. Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is present in nature in tiny amounts. Significant quantities, however, are generated by nuclear power plants and the manufacture of nuclear weapons and atomic bomb testing. Tritium, like Uranium-238, is another destroyer of human cells and DNA. According to the Nuclear Information Resource Servicewebsite: “Tritium emits radioactive beta particles. Once tritium is inhaled or swallowed, its beta particles can bombard cells. If a particle zaps a DNA molecule in a cell, it can cause a mutation. If it mutates a gene important to cell function, a serious disease may result… Research indicates that tritium can remain in the human body for more than ten years”. At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Press reportedLarry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory’s Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in tests that would be "aerosolized" after test blasts. He also stated that he “would not rule out using tritium in the blasts… saying details of the blasts are classified.” Sedlacek also admitted, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past…It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don’t have any scheduled." Whether the tritium and DU blasts are scheduled on the calendar or they occur at the whim of the detonator button-pusher on duty at Livermore that day, there appears to be some big project going on in the hills near San Francisco. Livermore representatives won’t name a project linked to the planned explosions, but word has it that there’s something new in the works. One is left to ponder what would tritium be used for in the smaller, radioactive tritium tests? Local war correspondent Bob Nicholsoffered, “It is pretty clear from the tritium that Livermore, like Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab, is busily modeling the explosion of global thermonuclear weapons”. APPEALING BIG EXPLOSIONS With such a long history of radioactive explosions at Site 300, one is left to sit and ponder the impacts of these explosions upon the health of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. A health risk assessment for air pollution was done by the San Joaquin Pollution Control District, yet their health analysis does not require them to report radiological impacts. Their function is only to report non-radiological toxic air contaminants. Tracy resident Bob Sarvey stated in an interview, “Radiological impacts are not regulated by the Air Pollution Control District. In fact, their health risk assessment is inadequate” because it will contain neither the Depleted Uranium nor tritium used at the site. How curious it is that the county which is required to report levels of air pollution toxics is not required to measure nor report on toxics caused by radioactive explosions being conducted within its county? Livermore Lab’s been “testing” there for 50 years, so it’s not like the Air Pollution Control Board hasn’t heard of what they’ve been up to all those years. San Joaquin’s non-reporting of radiation in a county where Depleted Uranium is fired out into the open air is certainly curious indeed. Residents like Bob Sarvey are understandably concerned that radioactive material such as Depleted Uranium and tritium will continue to be blown into Tracy. Living approximately five miles from the explosive “test” site, Sarvey felt compelled to personally cover a $750 fee to file an appeal against the larger explosives permit. Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is not required to regulate radioactive material, Sarvey believes this issue should have referred that question to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The second petition being filed on February 7 is by a developer, Tracy Hills LLC, AKT Development. Out of Sacramento, AKT is calling for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to review the accuracy of emissions estimates, and environmental and noise impacts of the larger blasts, according to appeal documents. Part of the Tracy Hills property adjoins Site 300, although the 5,500 housing community would be not much more than a mile from Site 300. I phoned them to ask if the developer still plans on building those homes so close to a Depleted Uranium explosives “test” site even if their appeal is denied, but my call was not returned. OK IT’S HARMFUL - BUT IS THIS STUFF LEGAL? Far, far away, the US Military’s premiere weapon of choice, Depleted Uranium, has been used in combat overseas at least as far back as 1991. It was also used in the former Yugoslavia and surrounding Balkans region [Europe] in the 1990s, in Kosovo in 1999-2000, in Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and in Iraq starting in 1991. While many people believe that DU use started in 1991 and then resumed in 2003 with the second Gulf War, Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi, Associate Professor in Environmental Geological Engineering of Mamoun University for Science & Technology, and Member of the reminds us, however, that the use of DU in Iraq never actually stopped. As the expert on uranium weapons-related environmental impact and diseases told us in August, 2006, at the 3rd ICBUW International Conference Hiroshima, “The USA and UK continuously used Depleted Uranium weapons against the population and environment in Iraq from 1991 until today.” What makes it hard to comprehend is that these weapons have been used for 15 years in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East despite the fact that the United Nations has prohibited its use. As stating in its 1996 resolution, it “Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium”. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., health physicist, former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project, and one of the authors of the Pentagon's program for environmental remediation summarizesthe international violations associated with use of DU: "According to an August 2002 UN report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907." Before the second war in Iraq even started, Karen Parker, J.D., President and Co-founder of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, further elaborated on the illegality of DU weapons, in August 1999 when she testified“…these radioactive weapons have already been used in Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Serbia even though they are illegal under existing humanitarian law. There are four main tests which determine whether or not the use of weapons is illegal: (1) whether or not they stay within the territorial range of the conflict; (2) whether or not they damage the environment; (3) whether or not the effects of the weapons end when the conflict ends (or the temporal range of the weapons); and (4) whether or not they are inhumane, that is, continue to cause physical harm beyond the point used for military purposes. As the Sub-Commission is aware, Depleted Uranium Munitions fail all four tests.” So apparently, international law be damned and world leaders dare not oppose this behemoth of a military beast. The US military’s continued violation of international law by its use of DU in nations overseas in which it declares an “enemy” is certainly no secret to the rest of the world. At the very least, what the United Nations, the Middle East, eastern Europe and Okinawa (Islands of Japan) and Puerto Rico (both locations where DU was exploded) all realize too well about the horrific ramifications of the use of US uranium weapons inside our country seems to be a well-kept secret here at home. How many Americans do you think realize that radioactive Depleted Uranium explosions are being detonated in several federal “test” sites right here in the United States, where American families live, work, play - and try to breathe? How many people even living in the Livermore Lab’s backyard, inside the greater San Francisco Bay area realize that the radioactive particulate matter of Uranium-238 stays in our atmosphere for 4,510,000,000 years? We’re not talking about a poison that will go away in a few generations. This radiation will, in fact, be around longer than the earth itself has been around. In the scheme of things, we are radioactively poisoning earth forever. We have created a legacy of a toxic radioactive environment for our children and future descendents forevermore. We who are Baby Boomers have slept through this nuclear and nuclear waste radioactive “testing” while we went to school, built our careers, and have been immersed in raising our families and trying to make a living. So, too, have our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and now today’s younger adults are just starting to make their way in this world. While we were busy doing other things, far too busy to worry about what was taking place on military “testing” ranges, proving grounds, and national “laboratories”, sixty years of radioactivity “testing” has taken place right here, our own soil, into our air. There appears to be no end to it in sight. Through “testing” of bombs, tanks, and guns containing Uranium-238, tritium and other toxic substances at military ordnances, national laboratories, and other federal lands throughout the United States including Hawaii and off the coast of Alaska, we have permitted the creation of radiation-filled toxic earth, air, and water for our offspring. Knowingly or not, we have allowed irreparable harm to be done to our earth, land, water, and human genetics and cellular physiology - for the prematurely aborted future of humankind. What we are doing with these uranium munitions is, as Leuren Moretstates, “illegal under international human rights and humanitarian law”. She informs us that the US “has used this inhumane weapon on the battlefield, exposing its own soldiers, its allies, civilian populations, and future generations. DU testing in the US continues to expose unsuspecting citizens and the environment. Pilots at Fallen Naval Air Station in Nevada trained on nearby bombing and gunnery ranges for the Gulf War. Now, the "don't look, don't find policy" of the military is concealing the cause of a recent leukemia cluster among children in Fallon.” Jim Howenstein, M.D. agrees and posits that the use of thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium used for decades at Fallon, Nevada “is no doubt responsible for the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. The military has denied that DU has anything to do with this cluster. “ Dr. Howenstein goes even further by stating http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james29.htmthat his own “medical profession has been involved in the cover-up—just as they were hiding the adverse effects that low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants were producing.“ MAKING THE CONNECTION What would happen, do you think, if the connection was made in the minds of 300 million Americans between widespread cancers, diabetes, asthma and other respiratory diseases, auto-immune system diseases and birth defects as a result of Americans breathing in low-level, ionizing radiation? To say the least, this mind-blowing revelation would not exactly “sell” on-going American wars. One can understand precisely why a government - and the mainstream media it controls - would try extremely hard to keep the radioactive explosions, irreparably damaging to the air and environment, all very hush-hush. One can’t help but ponder the concept of a government - any nation’s government - willfully, knowingly, releasing vast amounts of radioactive substances into the air, water, and food supply of its very own people. Upon contemplation, the average brain can not begin to comprehend the sober seriousness contained within such a concept. Aghast with the horrific implications, one is forced to ask if this poison dust - which is being inhaled in our air and ingested within our food and water - is not purposely intended to have an adverse health impact upon those living within our own country, too? What seems to be too horrific a concept must at least be considered. In a working papersubmitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen at the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights on September 25th, 2003, Yuen concluded “that these weapons are intended to be used on enemy soil, thus making their devastation less of an issue for their users and their own nationals than for the ‘enemy’ victims.” Arguably, Yuen’s reasoning certainly does appear logical. If a weapon of devastating consequences is used which has consequences upon “the enemy”, yet possesses no adverse effects upon the aggressor population using it, the chances of that weapon being discontinued due to the insistence of the aggressor’s population would be slim. It will therefore be interesting to observe if Americans will react differently (that is, react with appropriate and fitting moral outrage) against uranium weapons use upon civilians in the Middle East when we realize that our government has been using upon us - right here in the United States - the exact same types of munitions they have been using on our so-called “enemies” overseas. As Charles W. Chestnutt said, “Sins, like chickens, come home to roost.” Or, in other words, “What goes around comes around”. Use of uranium in weapons upon some unknown foreign “enemy” who are we told “hates our freedom” is apparently not too big of a concern for most Americans - at least not yet. BUT WHY HERE? WHY US? Radioactive weapons use inside the US is certainly nothing new. The US Military has been conducting explosive radioactive “tests” inside America for the past sixty years. At this point, after umpteen years of “testing” the same materials, one can’t help but wonder if it’s actually the explosive material they are continually “testing”… or rather, what happens to citizen populations when radioactive materials are continually fired into the open air in communities where people live? Former Livermore Laboratory whistleblower, Leuren Moret, gives us a clue as to why a nation might want to “test” Depleted Uranium within its own country: “International scientists, Drs. Andre Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitali, watch-dogging nuclear weapons developments globally, pointed out that DU weaponry is being used to study the radiobiological effects of the new nuclear weapons now under development.” Moret also informs us: “The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and productivity of a nation and the economy…. DU is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles (smaller than bacteria or viruses) which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air…Even worse, uranium targets the DNA… and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations.” Site 300, where these radioactive explosions occur, is only about 40 miles from San Francisco. More than seven million people live in the highly populated Greater San Francisco Bay area. America has been breathing in this toxic, “gene busting” invisible poison since 1945 when Uranium-238, as well as other radioactive materials, were used inside the hydrogen bomb that the US exploded in the New Mexico desert. Dr. Janette Sherman, after hearing about the DU explosions at site 300 at Livermore admitted, “I can not think of a single reason why munitions have to be tested in that area. It's not like munitions have not been tested before. I believe it must be stopped." It would certainly appear that those in power are cooking up some “hot” treat for the liberal Greater San Francisco Bay area. In fact, San Francisco has been a long-established place to experiment upon the population. An advanced Google search using the exact phrases “human experiment” and “San Francisco” yielded 14,300 Google “hits”. As was noted by a recent report, “Lack of transparency is cause for concern if only because of the history of secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pentagon experiments in germ warfare that used the American people as guinea pigs. In his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Common Courage Press reporter William Blum noted that both agencies ‘conducted tests [over two decades] in the open air in the United States, exposing millions of Americans to large clouds of possibly dangerous bacteria and chemical particles.’ From 1949-69, the US Army tested the spread of dangerous chemical and bacterial organisms at over 239 US populated areas including San Francisco, New York, and Chicago with no warnings to the public or regard for the health consequences, Blum wrote. The Pentagon even sprayed navy warships to test the impact of germ warfare on US sailors.” AND WHAT ABOUT TRITIUM ? The United States government fully admitsthat it has done radiation experiments on Americans before. And with the long history of such chemical, biological, and radiological exposures upon the people of the San Francisco area, one is forced to realize that its nation’s government certainly did not, as the song goes, leave its heart there. Since such exposures have been going on since the Cold War started, one can not help but wonder what type of a “national security” project would involve dispersing radioactive uranium gas and tritium into such a densely populated area where millions of American lungs are breathing in the toxic air and drinking the water (of which tritium is not removed) all around them? Livermore knows exactly what it is doing to the health of America’s citizens with these DU blasts out into the California air. At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Pressreported that Larry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory’s Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in “tests” that would be "aerosolized" (turned into gas) after “test” blasts and that he “would not rule out” using tritium in the blasts when interviewed Wednesday, saying details of the blasts are classified.” Sedlacek was quoted as saying, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past…It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don’t have any scheduled." One can’t help but wonder if anyone gets rewarded for keeping things so quiet for so long? Take for example, how happy you would be if you were the head of a major nuclear weapons lab and your staff was able to keep explosions of radioactive materials so damaging to human health and the environment a really big secret from the nation for fifty years! Undoubtedly, the ability to keep such a major deal under wraps from the 7 million people living and working in the San Francisco Bay area must make for some mighty swollen incentive bonuses for public relations staff who know how to keep Uncle Sam’s “hottest” and “dirtiest ” of secrets! STARTING AT TRACY - AND WAY, WAY BEYOND… So going back to the people in the Tracy/Livermore area, any way you look at it, they’ve been dealt a really bum deal. According to Steve Sarvey, “It’s like a triple whammy. There’s three things going on.” First, there’s the issue of radioactive outdoor explosive “testing“. It is not known exactly how much radiation has been released out into the atmosphere at Livermore, but outdoor explosives “tests” at Site 300 have averaged about 60 per year at 100 pounds each since 1997, according to Susan Houghton. Want to make your head spin? Just do the math. If Livermore explodes 60,000 pounds of explosives in ten years? Since the high explosives “tests” began at Site 300 in 1955, that makes 60,000 pounds every ten years, which amounts to 300,000 pounds or 150 tons of radioactive blasts. And that’s at only one of the federal “test” sites - of which there are several. Site 300 is a contaminated Toxic site on the Superfund National Priorities Listdue to contamination of groundwater and tonnage of materials deposited there, such as Depleted Uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Some of these radioactive substances sit in unlined pits. There are extensive plumes of various substances with fifty-seven separate contaminant release areas that exist including soil and water both above and below the ground. According to Bob Sarvey, the Tracy City Council voted in April to have Livermore Laboratory remove the piles of highly enriched uranium as well as plutonium and tritium that are sitting in unlined pits, but Livermore Lab has failed to do so. And to add insult to injury? Livermore Lab, which is run and staffed by the University of California, also applied to increase the amount of toxic waste it can store at Site 300 from 3,300 gallons to 5,500 gallons, according to Department of Toxic Substances Control permit project manager Andrew Berna-Hicks. Last but certainly not least, Site 300is one of the sites that the Department of Homeland Security is considering to run a Bio-Safety Level 4, anti-biological laboratory. Level 4 labs test and store incurable fatal diseases such as the Ebola virus and mad cow disease. Again, the question must be asked, why in the world would anyone want to even consider doing work on fatal and incurable diseases so close to seven million people? As far as health affects caused by DU radiation “testing” goes, anecdotal reports from Tracy citizens suggest an inordinately high number of cancersin their area including cancerous brain tumors and mysterious illnesses. Journalist Chris Bollyn interviewed Marion Fulk, former Livermore Laboratory scientist and skin cancer survivor, who told him that as a result of tritium pollution from the National Lab, children born in Livermore are 6 times more likely to have skin cancerthan other children. Not surprisingly, looking at the health of the overall San Francisco Greater Bay area, one notes that the incidences of cancer are higher when compared to the state average. From the years 1988 to 2002, the Greater San Francisco Bay area experienced an annual rate of 468.9 cancers per 100,000 people, which is substantially higher than the state of California’s 2003 cancer incidence rate of 425.1 per 100,000 residents. Here in the US, cancer is the leading cause of disease-related deaths in children. The fetus and infant are particularly sensitive to radioactive toxins. Every year, about 12,400 children and teens under the age of 20 are diagnosed with cancer each year, and approximately 2,300 of those children will die. Will our children be next? Only time will tell as many medical reports document a 5-10 year lag between radiation exposure and the onset of childhood cancer. Another disorder linked to Depleted Uranium poisoning in soldiers from both Gulf Wars is asthma. A chronic lung disease characterized by persistent cough and wheeze, incidences of asthma have been steadily increasing. The most common serious chronic disease of America’s children, more than 5 percent of the U.S. population or nearly five million childrenyounger than 18 years - are affected by this disorder. Asthma is the cause of nearly three million doctor’s visits and 200,000 hospitalizationseach year. In children ages 5-14 years, the rate of death from asthmaalmost doubled between 1980 and 1993. If you are not living in California and don’t love anyone who is, by now you may be thinking, Well that really is too bad (and thank God I don’t live anywhere near there)! Even for those of us who don’t live on the west coast, however, it’s still a good idea to think twice before we take our next breath. This past year there was news out of the UK that suggest that the radioactivity from Site 300 and the poison dust of other radioactive“ test” sites throughout the US is far closer to home than we may realize. According to research released in February, 2006 out of England, nine days after the March, 2003 “Shock and Awe” bombing of Baghdad in which bombs containing Depleted Uranium were exploded, radioactivity was found in air filters within the United Kingdom, up to 2,500 miles away. This was proof positive that this radioactive poison travels great distances. In other words, the explosive fire of tanks, guns, missiles launched and bombs dropped does not stay in a contained little cloud over the so-called “enemy” target borders. According to Moret, “After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere.” Who would have ever thought that radioactive weaponry that we believed was intended for use on the battlefield upon America’s “enemies” would ever be used in our own country, for so many years? How many Americans realize that their very next breath - or that of their children‘s - may very well contain invisible, microscopic-sized toxic radioactive particles so minute as to be considered a gas? Sadly, people do not know this when they inhale or ingest these invisible particles - as the effects of one tiny Uranium-238 particle can take years to manifest symptoms inside our bodies. In testimonyprovided to the UN, International Humanitarian Lawyer Karen Parker, J.D., stated, “there is evidence that the ceramic form of uranium dioxide, made during weapons explosions or fires, could stay in the body as long as 20 years. Depleted uranium was detected eight years after the end of the war in the urine of US, UK and Canadian Gulf War veterans and in that of Iraqi civilians.” Proof abounds, however, dating back all the way back from 1943 that shows our military leaders knew about the “advantages” - and their capability - of conducting radioactive gas warfare upon citizens. In a memodeclassified in 1974 written to James B. Conant and Brigadier General L. R. Groves from: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey, War Department United States Engineer Office Manhattan District, Oak Ridge Tennessee on October 30, 1943, that proves that they knew that uranium could be used “As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty.” The report states that two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are: (1) It cannot be detected by the senses; (2) It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. The 1943 memo also stated that it could be used as radioactive warfare to make evacuated areas uninhabitable, to contaminate small critical areas, and as a radioactive poison gas to create casualties among troops, and to create casualties among civilian populations. It also mentions that “These materials may also be so disposed as to be taken into the body by ingestion instead of inhalation. Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke, “ and in the respiratory tract, “articles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood… It would seem that chemical gases could accomplish more and do it more quickly so far as the skin surfaces and lungs are concerned.” In other words, the US Military has known since 1943 precisely what it was doing with regard to the life-destroying use of aerosolized uranium. In the words of award-winning Robert C. Koehler in his piece on Depleted Uranium, “Silent Genocide”: “Before the damage we inflict grows greater, before history's judgment gets worse, before we contaminate the whole world -- even before we vote in the next election -- we must stop what we're doing. We must stop now. “ If Americans don’t like the idea of breathing in, eating, and drinking this weaponized nuclear waste product gas, how do we follow Koehler’s advice and stop what we’re doing now? It is imperative that we start somewhere - and halting the large radioactive “tests” now permitted in California is certainly a great place to begin. This affects us all. What is going on in the backyard of the vastly populated San Francisco Bay area is not just another “not in my backyard issue”. The explosion of these vast amounts of Depleted Uranium radioactive microscopic particles affect Americans all over the country. We’ve all watched the Weather Channel and observed how in a matter of just a few hours, wind currents carrying invisible particles start at one part of the country and sweep across the map, reaching into entirely different sections of the country in a matter of hours. So this issue is in fact not at all a problem merely for the city of Tracy’s 72,400 thousand residents, nor even just a nightmare for the Greater San Francisco Bay Area’s 7 million. The radioactivity being dispersed at Site 300 and other” test” sites still in operation within the US affects people all over the United States - as DU radiation from bombs exploded in Iraq was detected 2,500 miles away in the United Kingdom. From a February, 2006 report by Busby and Morgan, measurements were examined on air sampler filters deployed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, in Berkshire, UK. Examination of the air filters showed a statistically significant increase in uranium in all the filters beginning at the start of the United States bombing of Iraq in March 2003 and ending when the US “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign ended. Levels of increased uranium in the filters were found in England, up to 2,500 miles away from Baghdad. In the conclusion of the report: “Despite much evidence that uranium aerosols are long lived in the environment and are able to travel considerable distances, this is the first evidence as far as we know, that they are able to travel thousands of miles. The distance traveled from Baghdad to Reading [England] following the wind patterns implicit in the pressure systems at the time is about 2500 miles. Although this transport may be hard to believe at first, the regular desert sand events which occur in the UK should teach us that the planet is not such a large place, and that with regard to certain long lived atmospheric pollutants, no man is an island. “ We never know when you or I or someone we love may be breathing in an invisible particle of radiation in the air from Site 300 or from another of the US “test” sites. As we saw from the distance that radiation traveled away from Baghdad all the way into England, it is not necessary to live near any of these “test” sites to be an unwitting participant in the purposeful poisoning of America. Roughly speaking, using approximate distances from Livermore’s Site 300, Seattle is 800 miles away, Chicago is 1,700 miles away, New Orleans is 2,000 miles away, and Washington, DC, Orlando, and Philadelphia are all about 2,400 miles away. It is easy to look at a map of the US and calculate if you or someone you care about lives within 2,500 miles - and are thus within the range of inhalingthe radiation from Site 300 within a matter of days. One can’t help but wonder if by virtue of having radioactive materials in the form of both hydrogen bombs and Uranium-238 munitions exploded around us within the US for the past 60 years if Americans are now facing the same health issues as those experienced by those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Both countries have been pounded relentlessly by thousands of tons of uranium munitions. In an interview with Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, author of the compelling book, “Afghanistan After Democracy” which chronicles the health effects suffered by the people in Afghanistan as a result of DU weaponry, I asked Dr Miraki to tell me about the health effects of DU upon the people in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to the citizens of the US with regard to open air Uranium-238 “testing“. Dr. Miraki replied, “I can use Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslovia as a benchmark upon which I can base my judgment. There they have used these weapons and they have resulted in a variety of health issues ranging from leukemia to cancers of various types, seeing the unborn as well as congenital deformities as well as pulmonary problems, edema, other issues as well as bizarre conditions - some call it Gulf War Syndrome, some call it other names that’s associated - fatigue and neurological problems, other issues are associated with it.” As this is documented by many scientists as being true with regard to the devastating health effects of the victims of uranium poisoning in the Middle East, can one assume that these same uranium munitions are having a similar effect on our own citizens here in the United States? Dr. Miraki explained, “It is bound to effect people in the vicinity. After all, the dust of DU is susceptible to wind. Wind will carry it, water flow in any direction is bound to take that, and vegetation will be affected, birds could take particles and move it - so it’s the ecological aspect as well as the long term effects. So I assume it would be evident already wherever the regions close by to where the detonations are done … Miraki continued, “For example, I heard in Indiana, Jefferson Testing Grounds, there people have certain health problems that are unexplained, cancer rates and so forth that are up, so on a large scale, what they have done overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and, using that as a benchmark? Logic dictates that it will result in similar conditions here as well… a high upsurge in diabetes in various areas among young people - as well as older - could very well be one effect of DU dust. Then you know we are talking about DU dust, we are talking about intercellular radiation. So it could affect anything. It could create any kind of problem, from the conventional as well as bizarre and unexplained, unconventional problems.” With each passing day, our air, our streams, our lakes, our rivers, our oceans, our farms, our forests, our fields, our meadows, our schoolyards, our wildlife, our farm animals and our produce and grains are being contaminated with this invisible radioactive poison dust and gas. These explosions do not - must not - be fired within our country where it is inhaled in our air, ingested in our food, and can readily enter the body through even a small cut on a child’s scraped knee. Radiation from US Military weapons is not something that happens overseas “somewhere”. It is a personal affair that affects Americans right here at home. As Michael Ignatieff said, “We can't achieve the humanitarian goals we set out to because achieving humanitarian goals means getting up close and personal.” The clock is ticking. With each new detonation of yet another radioactive “test”, increased amounts of radiation remain here with us inside the United States for all eternity. The issue of radioactive explosive “tests” inside the United States affects each and every one of us and those we love. It affects all future generations of Americans. It is a critical matter for the ecosystem. Our environment and wildlife are suffering due to the increasingly destructive and cumulative effects of radioactivity in our air, water, soil, and vegetation. Bob Sarvey, one of the leading voices against the continued testing of radioactive substances at Site 300, summed up what appears to be the sentiment of many residents in the Livermore area by saying, “If you want to just explode regular ordinance, I’m okay with you doing it on the hill. But if you are going to put U-238, tritium, other radioactive elements in it? Please go… somewhere else. Somewhere where you’re not wiping out people”. Unfortunately, no matter where that “somewhere else” is? Depleted Uranium and other radioactive substances are “tested“, it will wipe out people. So the solution actually is not to move the weapons “testing” to a less populated area, but rather, to stop the use of radioactive materials, period. As long as radioactive weapons are used, those who manufacture and use them will continue to maintain that they must be “tested” - somewhere. And with such a tremendously far atmospheric “reach”? These invisible aerosol particles will be carried through the wind and precipitation thousands of miles away - somewhere - wherever people live. All points within 2,500 miles of Site 300 at Livermore, CA are a good place to begin to stop the poison gassing of Americans. The appeals against large radioactive explosions on Site 300 at Livermore, California begin on February 7 in Modesto. Your help is needed with the appeal process. A campaign is being mounted to put an end to these radioactive explosions that affect the health of our loved ones. The question we must now ponder in our heart of hearts is this one: What have the use of these radioactive and nuclear weapons truly cost us in collective terms of Americans’ lost moments of healthy, happy, productive living? What do we say to future children who are born with genetic mutations and birth defect deformities who want to know why they are missing a limb or an ear? What will the use of these weapons mean to us in terms of green spaces and fields, native wildflowers and forests lost? How will this permanent radiation in our atmosphere and environment play out for our children’s grandchildren’s future in terms of being subject to a nation with permanently contaminated brooks and streams, lakes, ponds, rivers and oceans? How can we ever even begin to calculate what our great grandchildren will miss in terms of healthy fish swimming in our streams and frogs, chipmunks, and endangered birds? In the words of Dr. Keith Baverstock, formerly of the World Health Organization, "Politics has poisoned the well from which democracy must drink." It is incumbent upon American citizens to take personal responsibility now, once and for all. We must work together at once to put an end to this poisoning forever of our nation - and our world. Like never before, we need to rise to the occasion and step up to the plate. Together we must work to stop these purposeful explosions of radioactive poison dust right here in our country, inside America. Can there be any doubt that Americans need to put a stop to this insane Uranium Madness being exploded into our air - once and for all? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. And the question is, what are you willing to do about it? Learn how you can participate in the growing effort to halt radioactive weapons “testing“. To take action or to receive more information, please visit: http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar activist, and a certified personal coach. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation’s capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. Cathy can be contacted at savorsuccesslady3@yahoo.com. © Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com ***************************************************************** 45 KTRV FOX 12: Divine Strake Meeting Boise, Idaho -- Idaho's downwinders turned out in force Sunday afternoon to share their concerns with the government agencies responsible for Divine Strake. The explosive experiment slated for the Nevada desert has many worried they are once again in the path of radioactive fallout. The Divine Strake detonation would occur at the Nevada Test Site, where more than a thousand nuclear tests were conducted during the 1950s and 1960s. Fallout from these tests settled in heavy concentrations across many counties in Idaho, which U.S. Sen. Larry Craig says afflicted numerous families with various forms of cancer. "There is no question today that Idaho is in the Nevada air shed, and that we received exposure from tests in the 1950s," said Craig. "If tests are going to continue at that site, I want to make sure there is no opportunity for exposure to Idaho citizens." Downwinders are concerned the 10,000-foot plume generated by the explosion would send radioactive fallout into the air. But government experts like National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) spokesperson Kevin Rohrer assured otherwise. "What our model suggests is that radiation may be picked up and carried a little bit. If you were to eat, sleep, drink, or breathe at the border of the test site you might be able to calculate a dose of about .0005 milligrams," said Rohrer. The Snake River Alliance is a nuclear watchdog in Idaho that has followed nuclear issues in the state for 27 years. Their executive director, Jeremy Maxand, thinks the variables of such a test are innumerable. "What happens to the soil near the explosion, or far away from the explosion, when a bomb of this magnitude goes off? You have to consider things like soil re-suspension and all of the complexities involved, especially when the plume will be 10,000-feet high," said Maxand. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) will conduct the test, their spokesman, David Rigby, says the experiment is crucial in finding out how best to blow up underground tunnels and bunkers. "We can use that data in future conventional weapons and in assessing how much damage we can do to the tunnel complex that is below the explosion site." The meeting did not provide an avenue for the public to share comments out loud, and many in attendance, like airline pilot John Post, were unhappy with the experts' answers. "My basic intuition as a former military member, and now someone who's really concerned about the amount of money being spent on such things, being told one thing when it's obvious to me that it's something else, is insulting," said Post. As part of the National Environmental Protection Act, (NEPA), public comments must be accepted and fully addressed within the government's final environmental assessment. You can put forth your comments and questions until Feb. 7. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KTRV. ***************************************************************** 46 reviewjournal.com: REIGNING WOMEN (Yucca Mt) REIGNING WOMEN Miss Nevada sidesteps controversy, keeps eye squarely on the prize Miss Nevada Caydi Cole sings Saturday during the talent portion of preliminary competition in the 2007 Miss America Pageant at the Aladdin. Photos by . Miss California Jacquelynne Fontaine, left, and Miss Pennsylvania Emily Wills meet on the stage Saturday after winning in preliminary rounds of the 2007 Miss America Pageant at the Aladdin. Miss Nevada seems eager to cast off her title, mainly so she can reign as Miss America. "Nevada's never had a Miss America," says Caydi Cole, a 22-year-old Las Vegas native. "So we're going strong for it this year." The pageant returns tonight to the Aladdin, where it took place last year for the first time outside its longtime home of Atlantic City. It starts at 5 p.m. and will air locally from 8 to 10 p.m. on CMT. Tickets are $95.24 through Ticketmaster, and guests should be seated by 4:30 p.m. Cole also is looking forward to never having to answer another question about Katie Rees. The former Miss USA pageant's Miss Nevada was stripped of her title in December after Internet photos showed the 22-year-old undressing and kissing women. "She has the same first name as me," at least in regard to pronunciation, Cole says, explaining the extent to which her world was upended when the news broke. "I was averaging 18 phone calls an hour from people saying, 'Oh, my gosh! Are you OK?' " she says. Cole promises that her closet contains only clothes and shoes, not racy photos. "I don't have anything like that," she says, and she doesn't condemn the decision to replace Rees. "I think that, in my case, I know that I have a very big responsibility," she says. "I'm in schools every day speaking with children. And I'm a role model." Cole says that just being a beauty contestant is risque enough for someone with her strict Mormon upbringing. "My dad is very religious," says Cole, adding that her mother is "a little bit of a feminist." "Since I was little, she's said, 'You're beautiful because of what you are on the inside,' " Cole remembers. "So she didn't necessarily believe in me doing anything that put myself in a swimsuit onstage." Cole, who calls herself "just Christian now," says supporting her pageant career was "something that I had to talk both of my parents into." Cole also comes off as noncontroversial when compared to last year's Miss Nevada, Crystal Wosik, who supported the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, saying Nevada would "just have to take one for the team." "All my family lives here, so I'm not in favor of Yucca Mountain," Cole says. "There are too many risks, too many things we don't know." Cole says her pageant success began as a fluke in 2003 when she was a senior at the Las Vegas Academy of International Studies, Visual and Performing Arts. "A girlfriend of mine had won America's Junior Miss the year before and said I really should do it," Cole says. "So I agreed and I ended up winning." Afterward, Cole hung up her sash and moved to Orange, Calif., to attend Chapman University, where she began preparing for a career in corporate public relations. (She got more than halfway through her junior year.) "I called it quits and said I was done with it, I'm not a beauty queen," she says. "But about a year ago, the same girlfriend decided to compete in a local preliminary, and she talked me into it again at the last minute." Cole won Miss Clark County, then Miss Nevada -- both on her first try. To fulfill her state obligation, she took a year off from college, although she recently registered at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "Education is very important to me," she says. (Her platform tonight is civic education.) "My brother just got back from Iraq," Cole says, "so I'm big on learning about our country, having our youth really pay attention to social studies issues and learning current events." Tonight might be nerve-racking for Cole, but she's no stranger to big events. As a sophomore in 2001, Cole sang for Pope John Paul II. "Our advanced choral department went to Rome and sang Verdi's 'Requiem' for the 100th anniversary of his death," Cole says. "It was a huge celebration, and the pope was there. We also sang at the Vatican at his private cathedral." After the second performance, Cole recalls, the pope jokingly asked, "Can I trade these guys out for my choir?" "It was one of those surreal, unbelievable moments," she says, "kind of what it's like now." If she advances far enough tonight, Cole will get to showcase that singing talent by fronting a big band. "I started training classically when I was 12," she says, "and when I started high school, I really started to get into the jazz there." Cole says she feels "incredibly prepared" to do her best tonight. "I'm proud of where I come from, and I'm ready to bring it home," she says. Miss America 2007 WANT TO WATCH? 5 p.m. tonight at the Aladdin. Tickets are $95.24 through Ticketmaster. Airs locally at 8 p.m. on CMT (channel 57). Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 47 World Nuclear News: McGaffigan speaks out on Yucca 29 January 2007 Management of the Yucca Mountain respository project should be reorganised, according to Edward McGaffigan of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The south portal of the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain In personal views expressed at a Platts Energy Podium event on 22 January, Commissioner McGaffigan said management should transfer from the Department of Energy's (DoE's) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) to a government-owned company, and that it could be a good idea to "go back to the beginning" with the Yucca Mountain project. Edward Sproat, the current director of the OCRWM, accepted that there were problems with Yucca but that these were being addressed. McGaffigan has said that Sproat was the most capable administrator he has seen in his ten years at the NRC. One of the problems Sproat admitted was the selection of Yucca Mountain in Nevada by legislation. That had led to vehement opposition by local residents, many of whom feel they are having the nation's high-level radioactive wastes dumped on them. In other countries, such as Sweden, communities are invited to offer to host facilities in exchange for development packages. That has led to the situation where there is actually competition between towns that want nuclear waste storage facilities. Pragmatically, Sproat said: "The site is Yucca Mountain. That decision was made in 2002. The next step is, can you licence a repository at that site? That's where we are now." The DoE is currently completing its application for a licence to construct Yucca Mountain and possess the waste to be stored there. That is scheduled to be submitted to the NRC in June 2008, with the site entering operation by 2020 at the earliest. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 legislated that DoE have a final repository for used nuclear fuel ready by 1998. McGaffian also highlighted another problem with the traditional management of Yucca Mountain: that the director of the OCRWM has been a presidential appointee. "Things nuclear have to be stable across presidencies and across Congresses because they take so long. Having a rotating set of leaders doesn't work well." ***************************************************************** 48 Platts: Toyocho town volunteers to host a high-level waster repository London (Platts)--29Jan2007 The town of Toyocho has volunteered to host a high-level waste repository in Japan, according to Japanese media reports. Japan's Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or NUMO, has solicited local governments to volunteer as site candidates since it was set up in 2000. NUMO then set milestones for establishing an HLW repository in Japan by around 2030. Until now, no local communities had volunteered. According to Japanese media, a survey showed that 60% of local residents of Toyocho, in Kochi Prefecture, opposed the decision by the town government to volunteer to host the facility. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 49 DenverPost.com: Uranium boom in the West perspective New rush gains steam By Dusty Horwitt Last Updated: 01/27/2007 10:30:46 PM MST Late last year, the Bush administration delivered two big gifts to the nuclear power industry, signing deals to help India produce more energy from nuclear reactors and for Westinghouse to build four new reactors in China. Those countries are half a world away from Colorado, but the worldwide resurgence of interest in nuclear power runs risks for the state's public lands, health and safety. The nuclear industry's efforts to recast itself as a supposedly clean source of energy - a spin echoed by the administration - has helped spark a uranium boom in the American West. Interior Department records show a sharp increase in mining claims on Western public lands since 2002, driven by a seven-fold increase in the price of uranium. As recently as 2004, no uranium interests were among the largest mineral claimholders in the West. Now, government data show that uranium interests are among the biggest claimholders across the region - in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. According to Interior records, mining interests staked just 300 claims for uranium in Colorado in fiscal year 2004. But in the two years since, uranium interests have staked almost 3,500 claims in the state. The new claims are concentrated near the historic uranium towns of Nucla and Naturita in Montrose County, and in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties in the state's northwestern corner. The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety says several older uranium mines in the state could be producing soon. The Cotter Corp. has four mines near Naturita that were active until about a year ago. The mines closed in part due to rising fuel prices for transporting the ore to Colorado's lone uranium mill in Cañon City. International Uranium also has about three or four mines in Disappointment Valley in southwestern Colorado. The mines have permits and are being readied for production. Beyond Colorado, public land snatched up in this new land rush includes 365 claims staked within 5 miles of the Grand Canyon, many for uranium. A company that has staked dozens of these claims, Quaterra Resources of Canada, has already proposed to drill exploratory holes for uranium just north of the canyon. The operation would include a helicopter pad to carry mining supplies and ore in and out. The idea of helicopter flights of radioactive material near America's greatest natural treasure, already crisscrossed by dozens of tourist flyovers a day, is disconcerting. But there are broader impacts from uranium mining. Colorado and other Western states are littered with radioactive waste sites that are legacies of previous uranium booms during the 1950s and the 1970s, when nuclear power plants sprouted across the nation and the price of uranium soared. The Department of Energy has begun a decade-long project to clean up 12 million tons of radioactive uranium mine waste near Moab, Utah, that have contaminated land near the Colorado River. The waste is a threat that could pollute drinking water for millions. Cleanup estimates range between $412 million and $697 million. In a recent series, the Los Angeles Times found that abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo reservation in the Four Corners have led to deaths from lung cancer and a degenerative disease that's come to be called Navajo neuropathy. Among other routes of exposure, the Navajo had unknowingly drunk water from abandoned mine pits and had constructed some of their homes from the radioactive mine waste. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel recently reported that residents of Monticello, Utah, have unusually high rates of cancer they believe were caused by a now-closed uranium mill. Residents recalled replacing their screen doors because the metal mesh would become yellow and corroded. Schools used ground-up uranium waste in kids' sandboxes. Also complicating the matter is the antiquated federal mining law, written in 1872, that governs much of the new uranium mining. Under the law, filing a claim for as little as $1 an acre allows companies to mine on federal land - a right the government has rarely challenged despite the fact that metals mining is the nation's leading source of toxic pollution. Mining interests routinely leave behind multimillion-dollar cleanups, yet - unlike timber, oil and gas and every other extractive industry operating on public land - they pay no royalties to taxpayers. There is no federal fund to clean up abandoned metal mines. Mining uranium is not the only concern heightened by the nuclear resurgence. We still have no answer to the problems of disposing of the waste from nuclear reactors. Even if the government's designated national nuclear waste dumpsite at Nevada's Yucca Mountain is opened, storing waste there will mean 50 years of cross-country nuclear waste shipments through major cities. We should ask if spending billions of dollars to subsidize the nuclear industry is a better choice than investing our tax dollars in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. Mining is a necessary part of a modern economy. But before permanently scarring some of our most treasured places to feed the nuclear industry, we should first dig deeper into the empty promise of nuclear power. EWG's recent report on mining in the West is available at http:// www.ewg.org/sites/mining_google/US/. Dusty Horwitt is an energy and public lands analyst with the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 50 The Hindu: Committed to nuclear disarmament - Sonia Tuesday, Jan 30, 2007 K.V. Prasad "Evolve satyagraha to suit current-day needs" — Photo: Sandeep Saxena COALITION OF CONSCIENCE: Congress president Sonia Gandhi with Nobel laureates Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia (left) and Lech Walesa of Poland, and Mahatma Gandhi's granddaughter Ela Gandhi at a conference to mark the Satyagraha centenary in New Delhi on Monday. NEW DELHI: Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Monday justified India's possession of nuclear weapons on the ground of strategic compulsions. It had them on account of the failure to persuade the world to abolish such weapons. "The world's nuclear weapon states have more than adequate atomic arsenal to destroy humanity many times over. And it is not just nuclear weapons. We also confront the spectre of chemical and biological weapons. Yes, India has nuclear weapons. This became a strategic compulsion for us, born out of the failure to persuade the world to abolish nuclear weapons," Ms. Gandhi said in her inaugural address at an international conference here on "Peace, Non-violence and Empowerment, Gandhian Philosophy in the 21st Century." Rajiv's plan Injecting a personal note, she said that in 1988 her husband Rajiv Gandhi presented to the United Nations a blueprint for a comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament and people like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, who held different views then, a few days ago drew attention to Rajiv's impassioned plea and called for urgent action. This drew instant all-round applause from the assembly. She asserted that India remained committed to a comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament, which it intended to carry forward. Delegates from nearly 90 countries are taking part in the two-day conference at the Vigyan Bhavan, organised by the All-India Congress Committee to celebrate the centenary of the Satyagraha. In her brief observation on the thematic sessions, she suggested that in the era of globalisation, sustainable economic growth had to be all-inclusive like Gandhiji's sarvodaya or "the rise of all," development without threatening ecological security and planetary survival. Relevance of philosophy Underlining the relevance of Gandhian philosophy in the contemporary world, she said the challenge lay in finding a creative inspiration and evolving a Satyagraha appropriate to the present day needs. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 51 SF New Mexican: Congress scrutinizing LANL security Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:36 pm By JENNIFER TALHELM | Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of a House oversight panel will grill Los Alamos National Laboratory officials during a hearing Tuesday about why a worker recently was able to walk out of the lab with classified weapons-related documents. The October incident was the latest security breach in a long line of problems at the northern New Mexico nuclear-weapons research lab, the birthplace of the atomic bomb. Fed-up lawmakers are expected to call Tuesday for a comprehensive audit of the lab in hopes of discovering why problems continue even after tens of millions of dollars have been spent to improve security there. A new management team was installed at the lab less than a year ago in part to reverse years of security and safety problems. But in October, hundreds of pages of classified lab documents were found during a drug raid at the home of a former lab subcontractor's employee. The embarrassing incident resulted in a shake-up in the agency that oversees the lab. Linton Brooks resigned earlier this month as head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Brooks also had been reprimanded in June for failing to report to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman the theft of computer files at another NNSA facility in Albuquerque, N.M., that contained Social Security numbers and other data for 1,500 workers. Lab officials have said none of the material found during the October drug raid was top secret. A lawyer for the employee, a 22-year-old archivist, said she had taken it home to catch up on work. But lawmakers and watchdog groups have raised numerous questions since, including why the employee was able to take classified documents home when her security clearance required that she be supervised at all times. Lawmakers also want to know what has happened to repeated efforts to make the lab disk-less so classified material no longer could be lost or stolen. The rash of security problems at the lab dates back to the late 1990s. It includes the disappearance of two hard drives containing classified material that later were found behind a copying machine and the disappearance of two computer disks that forced a virtual shutdown of Los Alamos. It later was learned the two disks never existed. "A substantial amount of money was being spent on preventing the lab employees from being able to take information away," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., whose district includes Los Alamos. "How much of that has been spent? Why wasn't this expenditure of money able to prevent this from happening if they have this new system in place?" Udall is not on the subcommittee holding the hearing, but he said he will attend to make sure key questions are asked and answered. "This is a situation that demands continuous improvement," Udall said. "Are they making continuous improvement or are they constantly in trouble on these types of issues?" Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said Los Alamos officials are "eager to explain all the lab has done in response to this latest incident and to outline for the panel his plan for the future." "We realize that the questions are serious and that the solutions are difficult," Roark said. But the Project on Government Oversight, a private watchdog group, predicts the problems will continue unless the government puts more emphasis on safety in the lab's management contract and financially penalizes the lab for failing to improve safety. The group also encouraged lawmakers to audit the lab's work to see whether it reflects Congress' priorities. "For decades, Los Alamos has operated as a sacred cow with no serious oversight," POGO's executive director, Danielle Brian, said in testimony prepared for the hearing. "I hope this is the beginning of a new era." Comments are not allowed on this story at this time. Please check the open for comments page for details. / Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 52 KnoxNews: Fire started during Y-12 operation in December Officials say blaze sparked during dismantlement task, no one hurt By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com January 29, 2007 OAK RIDGE - A small fire occurred Dec. 15 during a dismantlement operation at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, but officials here refused to release many details in response to questions last week. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the high-security complex, said there were no injuries during the incident and no damage to facilities. A Dec. 22 report by staff of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said an "alcohol-moistened cloth ignited during a spark-producing task to separate parts." The safety board's report became publicly accessible last week after passing through a classification review. Wyatt confirmed that the dismantlement operation involved "a uranium component manufactured at Y-12," although he would not specifically state if the component was part of a nuclear warhead or bomb. "What we said is what we're going to say," said Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "I don't think I can provide any further clarification." Because of the highly classified nature of Y-12's work, virtually all of the official responses to news media are screened before release. The Y-12 spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about where the fire occurred within Y-12 or what weapon system was involved in the dismantlement operation. The Oak Ridge plant historically has produced parts for every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and one of its primary missions is to dismantle those same parts after they have been taken out of deployment. Usable materials are recycled. Y-12 specializes in the secondary stage of nuclear bombs, fabricating parts from highly enriched uranium and other materials. The plant reportedly has a large backlog of canned subassemblies and other weapon components, and officials earlier confirmed that the pace of dismantlement at Y-12 was accelerated in 2006. The Dec. 15 fire occurred as an operator, "using standard industrial hand tools," was performing a disassembly task, Wyatt said. The defense board's report said the fire was quickly extinguished with coke, another term for powdered graphite, which is typically used to put out uranium fires. Wyatt indicated that the uranium itself did not catch on fire. "Please remember that what ignited was a cloth moistened with alcohol," he said in a statement. He did not respond to a question about why coke was used. Although the fire was put out quickly, workers failed to immediately notify the Y-12 fire department - as required at a nuclear facility, the defense board's report states. "The fire department was notified about two hours after the fire was extinguished after prompting by engineering personnel," the DNFSB report states. A similar failure occurred at Y-12 in 2004 when there was a small fire in a laboratory microwave oven, the report states. Uranium by its nature is pyrophoric, and small fires are not uncommon. Based on the report descriptions, it appears that sparking was an expected part of the dismantlement operation. The board's report indicated that fire had been identified as a potential hazard for the operation, but it wasn't clear if preventive controls had been put into place. "This appears to be the first such fire for this particular dismantlement program," the report states. Y-12 is the nation's repository for highly enriched uranium, and fires have been a long-standing concern because of the nuclear materials and the age of the plant's facilities, some of which date back to the World War II Manhattan Project. The Project On Government Oversight last year issued an alert about a Sept. 22 fire at a Y-12 warehouse. The watchdog group said the old warehouse was constructed of wood and particularly vulnerable to fires. In that situation, some of the plastic packaging and masking tape caught fire when workers were unwrapping a "legacy" piece of highly enriched uranium that had been stored at Y-12 for decades. Bob Alvarez, a former U.S. Department of Energy adviser, released a report last year that states Y-12 had accumulated a large backlog of unstable uranium products, and he cited numerous problems, calling fire a dominant concern. "None of the storage areas at the Y-12 complex comply with modern DOE design requirements," he said. Alvarez noted that between 1992 and 2006, there had been at least 23 fires and explosions at Y-12 involving nuclear and nonnuclear materials. He said that's probably more than any other nuclear facility in the post-Cold War era. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 53 KnoxNews: ORNL working on river security Researchers trying to create system to better track barges carrying hazardous cargoes By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com January 29, 2007 OAK RIDGE - About a billion tons of hazardous materials are transported on inland waterways each year, nearly a fourth of the total moving across the United States. In this age of terrorism, that's a lot to be worried about. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is trying to adapt technologies to improve the tracking of barges, identify potential problems and ultimately bolster the nation's river security. "We don't want to be alarmist on this," said Mike Hilliard, who's heading ORNL's involvement on the project. "It's not that we don't have any idea where these barges are. The Coast Guard has a pretty good system. It's just that we'd like to move it to a new level and track these (shipments) in real time." The Oak Ridge lab is working with Mississippi State University to evaluate current tracking methods and possible improvements. The early-stage work is funded by a grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security's Southeast Regional Research Initiative. Some tests with prototype technologies could be conducted before the end of the year, possibly on barges in the Tennessee River system. Hilliard, an operations researcher with ORNL's Center for Transportation Analysis, said tracking efforts are focused on a group of chemicals designated as "certain dangerous cargo," or CDCs, such as anhydrous ammonia, butane, ammonium nitrate, chlorine, methane, propane and sulfur dioxide. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. Coast Guard began enforcing new regulations for movement of dangerous cargoes. Tow operators must report when these chemical-laden barges enter and exit ports, pass high-population areas or go through locks. "Basically, they want to know where these are in case of emergencies," Hilliard said. "They want to know what's coming through a city at any time." The system, however, is partly dependent on the trustworthiness of tow operators, and Hilliard said reporting can be imprecise because tow boats push as many as 15 barges at a time - all lashed together with steel. If one of those barges is disengaged, that isn't necessarily reflected in records. One of the project's goals is a system that monitors the movement of individual barges, with data available in real time, Hilliard said. Use of the Global Positioning System will likely be a component of any tracking system, he said, noting, "That's the best way to tell where you are." The biggest technical question is how to relay information and maintain contact with shore-based installations, said Hilliard, 49, who has worked at ORNL since 1983 and was involved in the lab's logistical work for the U.S. military during the first Gulf War. The inland waterway system is a convenient way to move bulk materials around the country because a single barge can accommodate the equivalent of 58 truckloads or 15 railcars. The environment, with heavy barges banging against each other in all types of weather, however, is not as tech friendly as Interstate highways or rail lines, Hilliard said. "It's not necessarily the easiest thing to get electronics to survive in, to get signals in and out," Hilliard said. The tracking system needs to process information and automatically identify suspicious activity - such as abnormal tow times or a barge moving in a direction that's unexpected. ORNL is working with Mississippi State's Industrial and Systems Engineering Department. The research activities will be conducted in the region, likely using the lower Mississippi, Tennessee and the Tennessee-Tombigbee river systems as test beds. "We're going to prototype some automated tools and try to identify potentially suspicious situations with those tools," the ORNL researcher said. Hilliard said the project team has met once with the Coast Guard to discuss the plans. The Coast Guard's Inland River Vessel Monitoring Center is based in Alexandria, Va., where about 100 reports are received daily on hazardous cargoes. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************