*****************************************************************
02/08/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.32
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Urges Iran to Show 'Good Will' 
2 Guardian Unlimited: Alliance Split Over Iran Nuclear Defiance 
3 Guardian Unlimited: We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran ge
4 AFP: Iran, Russia urge negotiated solution in nuclear standoff -
5 AFP: Iran successfully test fires land-to-sea missile 
6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Hit U.S. Interests if Attacked
7 Guardian Unlimited: Nations Divided Over How to Punish Iran
8 BBC: 'Progress made' in N Korea talks
9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hopes of Nuclear Freeze as Six-Party Talk
10 AFP: NKorea raises hopes at start of nuke talks
11 Guardian Unlimited: China Hands Out Accord at Nuclear Talks
12 US: Buffalo News: Alternative energy is best answer
13 US: ENS: Effects of Bush Climate Science Censorship Linger 
14 US: Open Letter on the President's Position on Climate Change
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 US: Don't forget to sign letter opposing McCain-Lieberman nuke
16 US: FW: State seeks boost in nuke plant fee
17 The Hindu: Govt. nod for nuclear power project 
18 US: EEN: NRC chair says politics won't slow nuclear
19 US: EEN: NRC chair hopeful Congress approves funds
20 US: NRC: NRC Chairman Addresses Growth Issue at Platts Nuclear Energ
21 RIA Novosti: Russia pins energy hopes on new nuclear monopoly
22 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
23 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
24 US: Hudson Valley News: Clean Indian point screens more often, Westc
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
25 US: Boston Globe: West Coast nuclear plant case could have an effect
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
26 US: [southnews] Livermore Lab to escalate depleted uranium testing
27 Guardian Unlimited: 15 people test positive for poison 
28 BBC: More test positive for polonium
29 thewest.com.au: Cyanide spill raises nuclear waste fear
30 US: Connecticut Post: Atomic workers urged to check aid eligibility
31 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Officials again protest Divine Strake explosi
32 US: CBC: Hacker drops a bomb on nuclear watchdog's website
33 US: SCT: Depleted uranium leaving Sequoyah Fuels this week
34 US: New West Network: Utah Says, NO to Divine Strake 
35 US: Ventura County Star: Field Lab group meets tonight for reports 
36 US: ABC4.com: Huntsman: Divine Strake could lead to more testing in 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 reviewjournal.com: Report to show Yucca plan too costly
38 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Waste dump loses support 
39 World Nuclear News: BNFL breaks up further
40 US: Deseret News: EnergySolutions bill moves on to the House
41 US: The Spectrum: Passage of SB 155 an outrage
42 US: CBC: Time for a uranium refinery, Areva boss says
 
                           PEACE
 
43 [NYTr] Activists Warn UN on Downgrading Disarmament
44 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Movement Nuclear-Free Middle East
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
45 [du-list] Livermore Lab to Escalate Depleted Uranium Testing
46 Star-Telegram: Safety lapses found at Pantex
47 Grist: Hanford so low | Gristmill: 
48 Aiken Today: County endorses SRS nuclear recycling
49 Amarillo Globe Business: Pantex cited for lack of signs 02/08/07
50 The Enquirer: Fernald petitioners win 2nd review
51 The Enquirer: Fernald aid hard to get, families say
52 Tracy Press: Council gives support to explosion increases
53 KTVB.COM: Energy Co. buys 4,000 acres on Snake River for proposed nu
54 Knox News: ORNL's Zinkle wins prestigious award for radiation resear
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Urges Iran to Show 'Good Will' 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday February 8, 2007 10:46 AM

By HENRY MEYER 

Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister on Thursday urged Iran
to show good will in resolving the dispute over its nuclear
program, as a senior Iranian envoy held talks in Moscow. 

Sergey Lavrov told Ali Akbar Velayati, an envoy of Iran's
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that Moscow hoped for a
positive response in Tehran to its efforts to achieve a
solution. 

President Vladimir Putin last week said that Moscow backed a
``time-out'' proposed by the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog
agency that calls for holding off on imposing U.N. sanctions if
Tehran suspends uranium enrichment in its nuclear program. 

``We sent corresponding signals to Tehran ... with good will on
all sides, we can find a fair solution based on international
law,'' Lavrov said at the start of his talks with Velayati. 

In December, Russia supported a U.N. Security Council resolution
imposing limited sanctions against Iran, after it ignored calls
to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for atomic
power stations or nuclear warheads. 

But that support came only after an initial proposal was dropped
that would have imposed curbs on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power
plant, which Russia is helping build under a $1 billion
contract. 

The United States and several of its Western allies believe that
oil-rich Iran is using the nuclear program to produce an atomic
weapon - charges Iran denies, saying its only aim is to generate
electricity. 

Diplomats accredited with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said Monday that Iran has set
up more than 300 centrifuges in two uranium enrichment units at
its underground Natanz complex. 

The move is a direct challenge to the U.N. Security Council and
potentially opens way for larger scale enrichment operations.
Iranian leaders have said the Natanz complex would initially
house 3,000 centrifuges, and ultimately 54,000. 

Velayati said Iran supported Russia in its efforts to resolve
the dispute. 

``There are no doubts that Russia, as an important world power,
and Iran, as an important regional power, will play a key role
in the future of this sensitive region,'' he said. 

``The steps which Russia is taking in this direction of course
have the support of Iran,'' Velayati said. He later met Russian
Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov, who visited Tehran last
month. 

Iranian state-run radio said late last month that Tehran wanted
Moscow to help mediate the standoff, saying Tehran's leaders
were looking to Russia for new proposals, such as enrichment of
uranium on Russian soil. 

The Kremlin proposed last year that Iran move its enrichment
work to Russian territory, where it could be better monitored,
to alleviate international suspicions. 

Iranian leaders had said they were interested in the idea, but
nothing ever came of it as Tehran insisted on keeping some
uranium enrichment activities on its soil. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Alliance Split Over Iran Nuclear Defiance 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 8, 2007 11:31 AM

AP Photo MOSB103 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Europeans are accusing Americans of
strong-arming them into cracking down on Iran in the latest
trans-Atlantic conflict, a dispute that is straining efforts to
maintain a joint front on Tehran over its refusal to freeze
uranium enrichment. 

U.S. officials, in turn, complain that Europe is not pulling its
weight because individual nations are placing business interests
above the common goal of keeping Iran from heading down a path
that could lead to nuclear weapons. 

State Department spokesman Shawn McCormack has said that
Washington would ``continue to push and prod'' the Europeans. 

U.S. companies are barred from doing business with Iran, and a
law Congress passed in 1996 allows Washington to penalize even
foreign firms engaged in commerce with the Islamic republic. 

EU foreign ministers called on all countries to enforce
sanctions outlined in a U.N. resolution last month that targeted
people and programs linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. But there is nothing comparable to the U.S.
legislation in the European Union. 

European officials say nothing obliges their countries to follow
U.S. footsteps and choke off trade and economic ties with Iran
beyond what is stipulated in the U.N. resolution. 

The American measures ``have no effect for the European
people,'' French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei
told reporters last week. 

That does not stop the Americans from trying. 

European officials and industry representatives told The
Associated Press of increased calls by U.S. Treasury or embassy
officials on European banks, oil companies and other sensitive
industries in recent weeks to get them to cut back on dealings
with Iran. 

``All the oil companies will tell you that they are having
regular visits from the U.S. embassies in their countries,''
said a European oil consultant, speaking on the sidelines of
last week's Vienna meeting of the National Iranian Oil Co. with
international oil firms seeking to do business with OPEC's
second-largest producer of crude. 

Like others who spoke about trans-Atlantic tensions over Iran,
the oil consultant spoke on condition of anonymity because of
the delicate nature of the topic. 

Confirming such visits, U.S. Treasury spokeswoman Molly
Millerwise said: ``More and more banks are scaling back or
terminating altogether their business with Iran'' after getting
the facts on ``the deceptive efforts Iran uses to move money
through the financial system.'' 

Roughly 80 percent of Iran's revenues come from oil exports -
and Tehran's creaky oil industry badly needs foreign investment
to keep up production and export. So it makes sense for
Washington to keep up the pressure on the oil front. 

The U.S. Embassy in Vienna acknowledged Washington encourages
``companies to consider whether such investments will really be
stable over the long term, and whether they will be worth the
risk to their investments and to their international
reputations.'' 

With America shut out of Iran, oil companies from other
countries remain eager to take up the slack, particularly
because Tehran's petroleum industry is not under U.N. sanctions.
Though it has fallen since then, total European Union trade with
Iran was at more than $25.85 billion in 2004, the last year
complete figures were available. 

Among those signed up for the Vienna meeting were executives
from Russia's Lukoil, China's Sinopec, Austria's OMV and Royal
Dutch Shell PLC. 

``Nobody in Europe is going to give up the opportunity of doing
business with Iran just for the sake of pleasing the
Americans,'' the oil consultant said. 

Such attitudes clearly rankle U.S. officials. 

Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, called on European
governments Wednesday to stop granting credits ``to subsidize
exports to Iran,'' and to ``take more measures to discourage
investment and financial transactions.'' 

If anything, the trans-Atlantic strains could increase. 

Iran says it wants to develop enrichment to generate power and
has started assembling the first of what it says will ultimately
be 54,000 enriching centrifuges at underground bunkers near the
central city of Natanz - just weeks away from a Feb. 21 Security
Council deadline to stop the program or face sharpened
sanctions. 

While the Americans call for tough U.N penalties come Feb. 21, a
restricted EU position paper, made available to the AP, appears
to dance around the tough choices EU members will have to make.
It asks: ``Should we press for further U.N. sanctions if Iran
fails to comply'' by deadline time? 

Officials on both sides of the Atlantic acknowledge differences
exist. 

A U.S. official said that perceived European foot-dragging ``has
not resonated well'' in Washington. An EU official told The
Associated Press that Europeans were not ready now to go beyond
the U.N. resolution. 

``What we are not going to do is mirror what the (U.S.) Federal
Reserve has done,'' the official added, alluding to U.S. moves
to freeze designated Iranian assets, including some big banks. 

Russia - a veto-wielding Security Council member that backs
calls for an end to Iranian enrichment but was the key opponent
of a U.S. push for harsher U.N. sanctions - complicates the mix
by maintaining multibillion dollar business ties with Iran that
irritate both Washington and Brussels. 

It is the contractor for Iran's nearly completed Bushehr nuclear
plant, has recently sold anti-aircraft missiles to the Islamic
republic and maintains cozy relations with Iran's oil and gas
sector. Just last week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme
leader, further raised the anxiety level in energy-dependent
Europe when he suggested that his country and Russia - which
together own about half the world's natural gas reserves - move
to establish their own OPEC. 

Still, there is some evidence U.S. pressure is working on the EU
front. 

Commerzbank last week ended dollar-demoninated transactions with
Iran, after officials at the bank - Germany's second-largest -
spoke of ``U.S. pressure'' on their institution. With the move,
Commerzbank joined Britain's Barclays PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC,
Societe Generale SA and Credit Lyonnais of France, and Credit
Suisse Group, UBS AG and ABN Amro Holding of Switzerland. 

--- 

Associated Press writers Matt Moore, Alexander Higgins, Frank
Jordans, Jamey Keaten and Laurence Frost contributed to this
report. 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran getting the bomb

Comment is free | 

A new Plan A, with more American carrots and European sticks, is
necessary. But don't count on it working 

Timothy Garton Ash

Thursday February 8, 2007 The Guardian             

We should not bomb Iran to prevent Iran getting the bomb. The 
consequences would be disastrous. After Iraq, US or Israeli 
military action against this regionally powerful, oil-producing 
Shia muslim country would make the world a still more dangerous 
place. The cure would be worse than the disease. That's what a 
new report from a diverse coalition of British organisations 
says, and it is right. But this is not enough. Joining with wiser 
heads in Washington to prevent George Bush making a final gung-ho 
blunder is only a preliminary to the real business. Anyone who, 
after a bracing afternoon walk chanting "stop the war" and "stop 
Bush", goes home thinking they have made the world a safer place 
needs to think some more.

If we don't bomb Iran, Iran is quite likely to get the bomb. If
Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the Middle
East will be tempted to follow. The last barriers to nuclear
proliferation, already breached by North Korea, Pakistan, India
and Israel, could rapidly break - in the most volatile region in
the world. The risk of nuclear war will then be greater than it
was in the 1980s, when CND, END and other west European peace
movements marched against new US and Soviet missile deployments.
The likely scale of the nuclear conflict is much smaller than a
superpower nuclear apocalypse, but that in itself makes it more
not less probable that an unhinged leader would take the risk.

On the available evidence, the Islamic Republic of Iran is
trying to edge towards a technological position from which it
could, should it choose, rapidly move towards 90% uranium
enrichment and the production of nuclear weapons. The best
analysis we have suggests that Ayatollah Khameini, the supreme
leader of the revolutionary regime, has not made a decision to
go for nuclear weapons, and it would take a number of years to
get there even if he had. But Iran has been doing a number of
things that are not explicable simply by a desire to have the
civilian nuclear energy to which it is entitled under the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The real question is therefore how, without the use of force,
you can stop Iran going down this path. This requires pressure
as well as incentives. In 2003, when the Islamic Republic felt
itself weak, with a low oil price squeezing its budget and (yes)
the unsettling spectacle of a US occupation of Iraq next door,
it was more ready to negotiate on the nuclear issue. Last year,
when it felt itself strong, with a high oil price gorging its
budget, President Ahmadinejad riding high on a populist wave,
and Iran rather than the US increasingly calling the shots in
the politics of Iraq, it turned down the best offer it had
received since the last year of the Clinton administration.

All it needed to do was to suspend uranium enrichment and the US
secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, would have personally
joined talks with Iran - something not seen from a senior US
official since the Iranian revolution nearly 30 years ago. Last
summer's "Vienna proposals" of the five permanent members of the
UN security council plus Germany (the P5 plus 1), which I have
before me as I write, offered to support the building of
light-water reactors in Iran and to guarantee a supply of
nuclear fuel enriched in Russia. The political and economic
incentives were vaguer, but they included supporting Iran's full
integration into the World Trade Organisation and a trade
agreement with the EU, as well as possible deals on civil
aviation, hi tech and telecommunications. And that was just the
opening offer.

After some haggling worthy of its main bazaar, Tehran said no.
Following a complex diplomatic dance with Russia and China, the
UN security council passed a resolution just before Christmas
which imposed rather minimal sanctions. Later this month, we hit
the 60-day deadline for the UN to review whether Iran has
complied with the resolution, which calls for the suspension of
"all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities".

If it complies, the direct negotiation can begin. If it does
not, the indirect negotiation continues. Either way, we need two
plans. Plan A involves mustering every peaceful instrument at
our disposal to steer the Iranian regime away from its current
course. We have not yet done everything we can. Broadly
speaking, the US needs to offer more carrots, the EU needs to
brandish more sticks. As the Baker-Hamilton commission and many
US foreign policy sages have urged, the US should open bilateral
talks with Iran, without conditions. It should be prepared,
longer term, to offer a "grand bargain", in which it restores
the full panoply of normal diplomatic and economic relations,
provided Iran desists from developing nuclear weapons and (more
tricky to judge and verify) supporting terrorists. We should
also establish an impartial, UN-supervised system of supplying
nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.

But carrots are not enough. This also needs sticks. If the
military sticks are to be taken off the table, what remains are
economic ones - and those are in the hands of the Europeans.
Because of history and its own bilateral sanctions, the US does
very little business with Iran; Europe does lots. Even if we
think that economic sanctions would, in the long run, be
counter-productive, we in Europe must be prepared credibly to
threaten them. Since we already live in a multipolar world, we
would still have a big problem bringing an undemocratic China,
hungry for Iranian oil, and a bolshy Russia, on to the same
course, but the buck starts here.

Beyond this, we need to recognise that Iran has both a complex,
far from monolithic political system and a young, critical
society. Ahmadinejad is not Iran. With the oil price down to
around $50 a barrel, western credits and foreign investment
drying up, inflation rising and Saudi Arabia flexing its muscles
as Sunni-Shia tensions mount across the region, his government
is no longer riding so high.

In local elections last December, his candidate list,
wonderfully named The Pleasant Scent of Service, was blown a
raspberry. Before every step, we need first to ask this
question: how will it affect the dynamics of the regime and the
society? We need a skilful public diplomacy, media innovations
like the BBC's new Farsi-language television service,
people-to-people contacts, and a hundred other initiatives to
inform and to open up Iranian society. Europe has not begun to
unfold its full potential in this regard. The effects will only
be apparent over a number of years, but it may be a number of
years before Iran is within striking distance of making nuclear
weapons.

And Plan B? If all this fails, and we're not going to bomb Iran,
then Plan B can only be containment and deterrence. The price to
Iran of testing, let alone actually using, a nuclear device
should be set very high. We should start now taking all measures
we can to prevent an Iranian bomb being swiftly followed by a
Saudi or Egyptian one. But I wouldn't count on this working
either.

So here's the score: if we bomb Iran, the world will be a more
dangerous place. If Iran gets the bomb, the world will be a more
dangerous place. Conclusion: the world is likely to be a more
dangerous place.

www.timothygartonash.com 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 
Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG. Privacy Policy·
*****************************************************************
 4 AFP: Iran, Russia urge negotiated solution in nuclear standoff -
     
 Thursday February 8, 10:52 AM 

 By Sebastian Smith 

  [Igor Ivanov (L) welcomes Ali Akbar Velayati]
    
MOSCOW (AFP) - A top Iranian envoy has met Russian leaders in 
Moscow to discuss the international standoff over Iran's nuclear 
ambitions, emphasising the need for a negotiated solution to the 
row.

"We count on paying particular attention to reaching a negotiated 
solution on the Iranian nuclear programme," Russian Foreign 
Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax news 
agency at the start of talks with Ali Akbar Velayati, an envoy of 
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"I am sure that with goodwill a just decision, based on 
international law, can be found," Lavrov said Thursday.

Velayati, who was also meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin 
and Security Council chief Igor Ivanov, said Iran welcomed a plan 
proposed by Putin, although he did not explain what initiative he 
meant.

"We think this is a worthy, sensible step by the Russian 
president concerning Iran, which we judge to be highly positive 
and constructive," Velayati said, Interfax reported.

Velayati said that he was delivering a formal response to a 
message from Putin which Ivanov brought to Tehran in January. 
"You are seeing the Iranian side's response, a return message," 
he was quoted as saying. "Steps taken by Russia of course have 
Iran's support."

Russia is a close partner of Iran and is building the country's 
first nuclear power station, as well as supplying it with 
sophisticated weapons.

The United States is leading a diplomatic push to pressure Iran 
into abandoning its nuclear ambitions, claiming that the 
Russian-backed energy project could hide a secret military 
programme. Iran insists it has the right to build a nuclear power 
capability and to enrich uranium fuel.

Moscow has expressed strong support for a proposal by the head of 
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to defuse tensions 
in the international row.

Under the plan, Iran would suspend nuclear enrichment while the 
United Nations held off on imposing sanctions in order to 
encourage further dialogue.

Putin spoke last week in support of the IAEA chief's plan to
create a timeout in the nuclear row. 

However, the idea has met with a dismissive response from the
United States which believes Iran will use the additional time
to continue work on its nuclear programme.

Russia has also previously proposed a plan in which Iran's
uranium enrichment needs would be met exclusively on Russian
territory, thereby allowing the country access to nuclear fuel,
while allaying international concerns about the uranium being
used in weapons.

Meanwhile, Russian nuclear power station constructor
Atomostroiexport reiterated that work to get the Iranian
facility at Bushehr started was going according to schedule,
Interfax reported.

Nuclear fuel is due to be delivered to Bushehr in March and the
station is scheduled to start working in September, with the
first electricity being produced in November. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: Iran successfully test fires land-to-sea missile 

 Thu Feb 8, 6:08 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards 
successfully has test-fired a land-to-sea missile with a range of 
about 350 kilometres (210 miles). 

 The firing came on the second day of war games by the Guards' 
air force and naval divisions amid mounting tensions with the 
West over Iran's nuclear programme, state television reported. 

"We have successfully test fired a cruise missile called SSN4,
or Raad, hitting targets 300 kilometres (180 miles) away in the
Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean," deputy air force
commander, Ali Fadavi was quoted as saying Thursday. 

"This missile has the final range of 350 kilometres and can hit
all kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, Sea of
Oman and northern Indian Ocean. 

"It can carry a 500 kilo (1,100 pounds) warhead and can fly at
low altitude, evading radar jammings and immune to electronic
measures." 

Iranian television showed footage of the missile being fired and
hitting its target. 

In January 2004, then defence minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran
would proceed with production of a new line of Raad missiles to
be deployed in the Gulf region. 

The Guards on Wednesday successfully test-fired a new
Russian-made air defence missile system, whose delivery last
month sparked bitter US criticism. 

TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles were shown being fired from
mobile vehicle launchers and successfully taking out their
targets. 

In 2005, Tehran and Moscow signed a contract for the purchase of
29 TOR-M1 missile systems estimated to be worth 700 million
dollars (540 million euros). 

The United States had urged Russia to cancel the sale, saying it
was a mistake when the UN Security Council had imposed sanctions
against Iran's ballistic missile industry as part of measures
against its nuclear drive. 

Iran's leaders have repeatedly said the country's armed forces
are ready for any eventuality in the current standoff with the
West over its nuclear programme. 

Although the United States has said it wants the standoff solved
through diplomacy, Washington has never ruled out military
action to thwart Iran's atomic drive. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon.
Tehran vehemently denied that, insisting its atomic programme is
peaceful in nature. 

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Hit U.S. Interests if Attacked

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 8, 2007 7:46 PM

AP Photo MOSB103 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran stepped up its warnings to the United
States Thursday, with the nation's supreme leader saying Tehran
will strike U.S. interests around the world if his country is
attacked. 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's words were also likely meant as a show
of toughness to rally Iranians, who are increasingly worried
about the possibility of American military action as the two
countries' standoff has grown more tense. 

Days earlier, an Iranian diplomat was detained in Iraq in an
incident that Iran blamed on America. The United States denied
any role. The U.S. also says it has no plans to strike Iran
militarily, but has sent a second aircraft carrier to the
Persian Gulf to show strength in the face of rising Iranian
regional influence. 

But many in Iran say they fear attack. Iranian media and Web
sites have almost daily commentaries on a possible U.S. attack -
some of them blaming hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for
the deterioration in the already sour U.S.-Iranian relations by
his provocative rhetoric against America and Israel. 

Speaking to Iranian air force commanders, Khamenei said: ``The
enemy knows well that any invasion would be followed by a
comprehensive reaction to the invaders and their interests all
over the world.'' His words were carried on state-run TV. 

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey, asked about
the comments, said American efforts on Iran focus on diplomacy.
The two are in dispute over Iran's nuclear program and its role
in Iraq. 

``Our efforts to respond to Iran's nuclear program are focused
on diplomacy. ... I think we've made it clear that what our
intentions are, is to pursue this issue through diplomatic
channels,'' Casey said. 

Even as Iran's rhetoric has escalated, it has increasingly
insisted it is open to a diplomatic solution to its standoff
with the West. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said
Wednesday he would meet European officials for talks on Iran's
nuclear program during a Berlin security conference this
weekend. 

Tehran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif,
complained in a column published Thursday in The New York Times
that the United States was trying to make Iran a ``scapegoat''
for Washington's failures in the Mideast, particularly Iraq. He
warned that efforts to isolate Iran would backfire on the United
States, increasing sectarian tensions in the region. 

The United States is reaping ``the expected bitter fruits of its
ill-conceived adventurism'' in Iraq, he said. 

``But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States
administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the
same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its
scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in
Iraq,'' he said. 

Zarif also made clear, however, that Iran wants to be part of
some regional and international solution to calm Iraq, despite
U.S. rejection of the idea of reaching out to Iran for help. 

Solving Iraq's problems requires ``prudence, dialogue and a
genuine search for solutions,'' he wrote. ``Only through such
regional cooperation, with the necessary international support,
can we contain the current crisis and prevent future ones.'' 

Before becoming U.N. ambassador, Zarif was an aide to pro-reform
former President Mohammad Khatami. His comments thus may
represent an attempt to balance Khamenei's combative rhetoric
with diplomatic pragmatism. 

They also reflect a widespread feeling among many Iranians that
they wish the United States and Iran would find a way to talk
directly. 

Also Thursday, Iran's intelligence minister said the government
had detected a network of U.S. and Israeli spies operating on
its borders and had detained a group of Iranians who planned to
go abroad for espionage training, state television reported. 

But the minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi, did not say
whether any members of the U.S.-Israeli network had been
arrested nor provide any details on the Iranians. 

Khamenei's words are not that unusual - Iranian leaders often
speak of a crushing response to any attack as a way to drum up
domestic support. 

But the rhetoric overall has escalated: two weeks ago, the
official publication of the country's elite Revolutionary
Guards, Sobh-e-Sadegh, noted it would be easy to kidnap
Americans and transfer them to ``any location of choice'' in
retaliation for any attack. 

Many Iranians have said they feel under siege and fear an attack
despite U.S. denials of such a plan. President Bush has ordered
American troops to act against Iranians suspected of being
involved in the Iraqi insurgency, in addition to sending the
second carrier to the region. 

The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions because of
Iran's refusal to cease uranium enrichment, and is due to
consider strengthening them later this month. 

Iran also successfully test-fired a cruise missile Thursday over
the Oman Sea and the northern Indian Ocean. Iran routinely tests
missiles. 

Gen. Ali Fadavi, a navy commander in the Guards, told state-run
radio the missile, with a 217-mile range and a 1,102-pound
warhead, was fired in low-level flight from a launcher. 

Asked in Washington about Iran's test firing, White House press
secretary Tony Snow said the U.S. did not see it ``as a direct
assault on our ships.'' 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Nations Divided Over How to Punish Iran

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 8, 2007 5:16 PM

AP Photo VIE502 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Europeans are accusing Americans of
strong-arming them into cracking down on Iran in the latest
trans-Atlantic conflict, a dispute that is straining efforts to
maintain a joint front on Tehran over its refusal to freeze
uranium enrichment. U.S. officials, in turn, complain that
Europe is not pulling its weight because individual nations are
placing business interests above the common goal of keeping Iran
from heading down a path that could lead to nuclear weapons. 

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has said that
Washington would ``continue to push and prod'' the Europeans. 

U.S. companies are barred from doing business with Iran, and a
law Congress passed in 1996 allows Washington to penalize even
foreign firms engaged in commerce with the Islamic republic. 

EU foreign ministers called on all countries to enforce
sanctions outlined in a U.N. resolution last month that targeted
people and programs linked to Iran's nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. But there is nothing comparable to the U.S.
legislation in the European Union. 

European officials say nothing obliges their countries to follow
U.S. footsteps and choke off trade and economic ties with Iran
beyond what is stipulated in the U.N. resolution. 

The American measures ``have no effect for the European
people,'' French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei
told reporters last week. 

That does not stop the Americans from trying. 

European officials and industry representatives told The
Associated Press of increased calls by U.S. Treasury or embassy
officials on European banks, oil companies and other sensitive
industries in recent weeks to get them to cut back on dealings
with Iran. 

``All the oil companies will tell you that they are having
regular visits from the U.S. embassies in their countries,''
said a European oil consultant, speaking on the sidelines of
last week's Vienna meeting of the National Iranian Oil Co. with
international oil firms seeking to do business with OPEC's
second-largest producer of crude. 

Like others who spoke about trans-Atlantic tensions over Iran,
the oil consultant spoke on condition of anonymity because of
the delicate nature of the topic. 

Confirming such visits, U.S. Treasury spokeswoman Molly
Millerwise said: ``More and more banks are scaling back or
terminating altogether their business with Iran'' after getting
the facts on ``the deceptive efforts Iran uses to move money
through the financial system.'' 

Roughly 80 percent of Iran's revenues come from oil exports -
and Tehran's creaky oil industry badly needs foreign investment
to keep up production and export. So it makes sense for
Washington to keep up the pressure on the oil front. 

The U.S. Embassy in Vienna acknowledged Washington encourages
``companies to consider whether such investments will really be
stable over the long term, and whether they will be worth the
risk to their investments and to their international
reputations.'' 

With America shut out of Iran, oil companies from other
countries remain eager to take up the slack, particularly
because Tehran's petroleum industry is not under U.N. sanctions.
Though it has fallen since then, total European Union trade with
Iran was at more than $25.85 billion in 2004, the last year
complete figures were available. 

Among those signed up for the Vienna meeting were executives
from Russia's Lukoil, China's Sinopec, Austria's OMV and Royal
Dutch Shell PLC. 

``Nobody in Europe is going to give up the opportunity of doing
business with Iran just for the sake of pleasing the
Americans,'' the oil consultant said. 

Such attitudes clearly rankle U.S. officials. 

Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, called on European
governments Wednesday to stop granting credits ``to subsidize
exports to Iran,'' and to ``take more measures to discourage
investment and financial transactions.'' 

If anything, the trans-Atlantic strains could increase. 

Iran says it wants to develop enrichment to generate power and
has started assembling the first of what it says will ultimately
be 54,000 enriching centrifuges at underground bunkers near the
central city of Natanz - just weeks away from a Feb. 21 Security
Council deadline to stop the program or face sharpened
sanctions. 

While the Americans call for tough U.N penalties come Feb. 21, a
restricted EU position paper, made available to the AP, appears
to dance around the tough choices EU members will have to make.
It asks: ``Should we press for further U.N. sanctions if Iran
fails to comply'' by deadline time? 

Officials on both sides of the Atlantic acknowledge differences
exist. 

A U.S. official said that perceived European foot-dragging ``has
not resonated well'' in Washington. An EU official told the AP
that Europeans were not ready now to go beyond the U.N.
resolution. 

``What we are not going to do is mirror what the Federal Reserve
has done,'' the official added, alluding to U.S. moves to freeze
designated Iranian assets, including some big banks. 

Russia - a veto-wielding Security Council member that backs
calls for an end to Iranian enrichment but was the key opponent
of a U.S. push for harsher U.N. sanctions - complicates the mix
by maintaining multibillion dollar business ties with Iran that
irritate both Washington and Brussels. 

It is the contractor for Iran's nearly completed Bushehr nuclear
plant, has recently sold anti-aircraft missiles to the Islamic
republic and maintains cozy relations with Iran's oil and gas
sector. Just last week Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme
leader, further raised the anxiety level in energy-dependent
Europe when he suggested that his country and Russia - which
together own about half the world's natural gas reserves - move
to establish their own OPEC. 

Still, there is some evidence U.S. pressure is working on the EU
front. 

Commerzbank last week ended dollar-demoninated transactions with
Iran, after officials at the bank - Germany's second-largest -
spoke of ``U.S. pressure'' on their institution. With the move,
Commerzbank joined Britain's Barclays PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC,
Societe Generale SA and Credit Lyonnais of France, and Credit
Suisse Group, UBS AG and ABN Amro Holding of Switzerland. 

--- 

Associated Press writers Matt Moore, Alexander Higgins, Frank
Jordans, Jamey Keaten and Laurence Frost contributed to this
report. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 8 BBC: 'Progress made' in N Korea talks
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007
 
[Japanese chief negotiator Kenichiro Sasae, Beijing

8/2/07]

Expectations had been building ahead of the talks

The first day of a new round of talks on North Korea's
nuclear programme has ended with a hint of progress. 

Diplomats at six-party talks in Beijing said North Korea had
agreed to take initial steps towards disarmament. 

South Korea's envoy to the talks said all parties - the two
Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US - agreed on the need for
progress and consensus. 

The US wants North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons
programme, but Pyongyang wants sanctions lifted first. 

Trade and financial sanctions against North Korea were tightened
after it carried out a nuclear test in October. 

Desire for progress 

North Korea's envoy in Beijing, Kim Kye-gwan, said on arrival
that Pyongyang was prepared to discuss "first-stage measures". 

Delegates want to revive a September 2005 agreement under which
the North would agree to end its nuclear programme in return for
aid and security guarantees. 

N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME                 

[map]           

Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons But not thought to 
have any small enough to put in a missile Could try dropping from 
plane, though world watching closely [ border=] Food shortage is 
key                                                                    
Text of September 2005 deal                            

The US envoy, Christopher Hill, described the opening day of 
talks as a "good day", and said hopes were high for a joint 
statement. 

And Chun Yung-woo, South Korea's representative, said the key 
phase of the talks would come on Friday. 

"Tonight or tomorrow, China is expected to make a draft agreement 
based on today's keynote speeches and discussions at the plenary 
session, and pass it on to others," the AFP news agency quoted 
him as saying. 

Speaking to a Senate committee in Washington, US Secretary of 
State Condoleezza Rice welcomed the new round of talks. 

"I think we are cautiously optimistic that there may be some 
movement forward," she said. 

"However, I don't count my chickens before they hatch." 

In Beijing the North Korean envoy, Mr Kim, said there remained 
important differences with the US. 

"The judgement [for the talks] should be based on whether the 
United States will come forward and abandon its hostile policy 
against us and co-exist peacefully," he said. 

Food shortage 

Part of the reason for analysts' optimism is the reported 
progress at recent talks between the US and North Korea in 
Berlin. 

Reports that the North is enduring a winter food crisis have 
emerged in recent weeks, a fact which is thought to have changed 
the dynamics in the run-up to the talks. 

Washington has reportedly shown a willingness to sit down and 
discuss North Korea's demands to lift financial sanctions. 

Meanwhile, North Korea reportedly recently told visiting US 
officials it would take the first steps to disband its nuclear 
programme in return for 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil and other 
benefits.                                                        
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Hopes of Nuclear Freeze as Six-Party Talks Resume 
 
  >     Updated Feb.8,2007 08:32 KST   
 
Washington, Seoul 'Mulling Energy Aid for N.Korea' Seoul to 
Resume Rice Aid If N.Korea Freezes Nukes N.Korean Nuke Crisis 
Becoming a Chronic Disease Six-Party Talks Discuss Chinese Draft 
Accord N.Korea Is Close to Achieving Its 1956 Action Plan 
  
Six-nation talks resume at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in 
Beijing on Thursday amid hopes that North Korea can be persuaded 
to freeze its nuclear program. On arriving at Beijing airport on 
Wednesday, the chief U.S. delegate Christopher Hill told 
reporters, "I want to emphasize the real success is we complete 
the joint statement of 2005" whereby the North agreed to 
dismantle the program in return for aid and security guarantees. 
"So we are not going to finish that this week. We will maybe just 
make a good first step,¡± he added. 

Chief North Korean negotiator Kim Kye-gwan is to arrive on
Thursday morning. The official schedule starts with a meeting of
chief delegates in the afternoon, without a plenary session.
"There will be a succession of bilateral negotiations,¡± a South
Korean government official said. ¡°Once agreements are produced,
we will hold a plenary session." 

  The South Korean, U.S. and Japanese chief negotiators in the 
six-party talks (from left): Chun Yung-woo, Christopher Hill and 
Kenichiro Sasae./Yonap   
    
The big variables are the degree to which the North can be
brought to freeze its nuclear activities and the rewards offered
by the other five countries -- South Korea, the U.S., China,
Japan and Russia. In Berlin talks last month, Hill and Kim
apparently reached an agreement on the principle that the North
will halt operation of a reactor at Yongbyon in return for
energy assistance. But it is too soon to be confident of a final
agreement. First of all, the terms are vague. "As long as the
talks are premised on ¡®dismantlement¡¯, the term surely means
more than a simple 'freezing,'" a senior South Korean government
official said. 

But David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and
International Security (ISIS), who met Kim in North Korea right
after the Berlin talks, told Radio Free Asia on Wednesday that
North Korea would want to freeze its nuclear facilities to the
extent that they could be reopened within a month rather than a
year. It simply wants to halt operations, then, without taking
spent fuel rods out of the reactor and canning them. Dr. Kim
Tae-woo, a nuclear expert at the Korean Institute for Defense
Analyses, said, "The U.S. wants to take out and seal all fuel
rods, and dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. But North
Korea will highly likely decide on the level of freezing
depending on the level of compensations it can get in return." 

    
  Press members line up at Beijing Capital International Airport 
to cover the arrival of the delegates to the six-party talks on 
North Korea¡¯s nuclear program on Wednesday./Yonhap   
    
There is fodder for conflict between South Korea, the U.S. and
Japan over who shoulders the main burden of assistance to the
North and how much cost each party should carry. Washington and
Tokyo are less than keen to provide the energy assistance. Since
Pyongyang reneged on the 1994 Geneva Accords, the Bush
administration and U.S. Congress are reluctant to bear the
burden of resuming annual supplies of 500,000 tons of heavy oil
worth US$150 million. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo said
Tokyo can't offer anything unless North Korea ¡°shows
sincerity¡± over its abductions of Japanese nationals in the
1970s and 80s. 

Seoul is more proactive as it wants inter-Korean contacts to
resume this year, before the current government¡¯s term ends.
The South Korean government would therefore likely bear the
biggest burden, as it did in 1994. As a result of the Geneva
Accords, South Korea bore 70 percent or W3.54 billion
(US$1=W933) of the cost of construction of a light-water reactor
in North Korea. In actuality, South Korea paid more than W1
trillion until the project was suspended last year. 

The six-party talks have been an epic undertaking. Two rounds
have been held since the 2005 statement of principles, but no
progress was made because North Korea took issue with U.S.
financial sanctions. Officially, in any case, the current round
is billed as ¡°the third phase of the fifth-round six-party
talks." 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: NKorea raises hopes at start of nuke talks

 by Shigemi Sato and Jun Kwanwoo Thu Feb 8, 8:02 AM ET 		 	 

BEIJING (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Koreahas said it may be 
willing to give up its nuclear weapons as fresh six-nation talks 
began here amid warnings that four years of tough diplomacy on 
Pyongyang was at a crossroads. 

 Four months after North Korea conducted its first atomic test to 
back its claims of being a nuclear power, the isolated nation's 
chief atomic envoy said disarming was a possibility, but that the 
onus rested with the United States. 

Kim Kye-Gwan said he was prepared to talk about reviving a deal
made in the six-way talks in September 2005, under which North
Korea would scrap its nuclear programme in return for aid,
energy benefits and security guarantees. 

"We are ready to discuss the initial steps, but whether the US
will give up its hostile policy against us and come out for
mutual peaceful co-existence will be the basis for our
judgement," Kim told reporters ahead of the talks. 

"There are still lots of contentious points yet to be settled.
It depends on how we settle those contentious points. We'll have
to wait and see." 

South Korean envoy Chun Yung-Woo said the negotiations would be
picking up in pace Friday when host China would draft an
agreement. 

"Tonight or tomorrow, China is expected to make a draft
agreement based on today's keynote speeches and discussions at
the plenary session, and pass it on to others," Chun said after
the Thursday meeting was over. 

Before the on-again, off-again negotiations resumed Thursday
afternoon, US envoy Christopher Hill said he believed North
Korea could be enticed into recommitting to the 2005 deal. 

The agreement fell apart only two months after it was signed
amid North Korean protests over unrelated US sanctions imposed
against it for alleged money laundering and counterfeiting. 

Although the sanctions standoff remains, Hill said he expected
Kim would negotiate this week on reviving the deal, following
positive direct talks between the pair in Berlin last month. 

"I have every reason to believe that, but it's really between
him and his boss," Hill said. 

China is the host of the six-way talks, which began in 2003 with
the initial aim of getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear
ambitions. 

The stakes were raised after North Korea's atomic test in
October last year, and the forum now hopes to convince the
Stalinist regime to disarm entirely. 

As well as China, North Korea and the US, other countries in the
process are Japan, Russia and South Korea" /> South Korea. 

China's chief envoy Wu Dawei said he wanted a "new beginning" to
the process, following repeated false dawns, stalemates and
disputes. 

"I sincerely hope... all parties will make further efforts to
make this session... a fresh start in the process towards the
denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula," Wu said in comments
broadcast on national television. 

The Japanese envoy, Kenichiro Sasae, who earlier said the
diplomatic process had reached a watershed moment, told his
counterparts on Thursday that North Korea must agree to quickly 
take concrete first steps towards disarming. 

The initial steps must be for North Korea to freeze activities at 
its Yongybyon nuclear reactor and allow International Atomic 
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyinspectors, 
who were kicked out in 2002, back into the country. 

"These measures... need to be implemented in a relatively short 
period of time," Sasae said, according to a copy of his statement 
released to the press. 

Hill has in recent days talked of possibly offering North Korea 
economic incentives in a "first tranche" of measures that would 
see Pyongyang take initial steps towards fulfilling its 
commitments under the 2005 accord. 

However he has also warned that there were no prospects of North
Korea completely disarming any time soon. 

South Korea's Chun said Thursday the negotiations were at a
"crossroads", while Hill conveyed a similar sense of urgency. 

"It's a very important round because those of us who have been
involved with this know that this cannot go on forever," he
said. 

No timeframe has been released for this round of talks, although
delegates have said they expected it to last at least two or
three days. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: China Hands Out Accord at Nuclear Talks

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 8, 2007 5:31 PM

AP Photo TOK210 

By BURT HERMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING (AP) - China has distributed a draft agreement to the 
countries at international talks seeking to persuade North Korea 
to abandon its nuclear weapons programs, a South Korean official 
said early Friday. The official, speaking on condition of 
anonymity due to the ongoing diplomacy, gave no details of the 
draft. However, other delegates said earlier the agreement would 
outline initial steps for implementing a September 2005 agreement 
from the six-nation talks where Pyongyang pledged to disarm in 
exchange for aid and security guarantees. 

``We had a good first day today,'' Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill told reporters Thursday evening after North
Korea agreed in principle to take initial steps toward
dismantling its nuclear programs. 

``We hope we can achieve some kind of joint statement here,'' he
said. 

Unlike the last round of talks in December, Hill said the
countries ``were able to make progress on discussing
denuclearization.'' 

Hill had said the draft agreement expected from China would
detail a ``set of actions taken in a finite amount of time.'' He
declined to give specifics, but said the moves would take place
in a matter of ``single-digit weeks.'' 

Hill remained cautious on prospects for an agreement, saying
``the first step of a journey is often the most difficult
step.'' 

Pyongyang's envoy had said before the talks began that he was
ready to discuss the initial steps toward nuclear disarmament. 

``We are prepared to discuss first-stage measures,'' Kim Kye
Gwan said on arriving in Beijing for the meeting at a Chinese
state guesthouse. 

U.S. experts who visited Kim in Pyongyang last week said North
Korea would propose a freeze of its main nuclear reactor and a
resumption of international inspections in exchange for energy
aid and a normalization of relations with Washington. 

Kim said Thursday that any moves by North Korea would depend on
the U.S. attitude. 

``We are going to make a judgment based on whether the United
States will give up its hostile policy and come out toward
peaceful coexistence,'' he said, adding that the U.S. was ``well
aware'' of what it had to do. 

North Korea had twice boycotted the nuclear talks for more than
a year, claiming various U.S. policies show the Bush
administration intends to topple its government. 

``I'm not either optimistic or pessimistic because there are
still many points of confrontation to resolve,'' Kim said. 

Still, his comments marked a change in North Korea's position
from the December round of talks, when Kim refused to even
discuss disarmament and demanded the lifting of U.S. financial
restrictions against a Macau bank where North Korea held
accounts. 

South Korean envoy Chun Yung-woo said all sides had agreed ``it
is important to reach agreement at this round of talks on
first-phase measures.'' 

The lack of any on-the-ground results in disarming North Korea
has raised the issue of the credibility of the talks, which
involve China, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and the two Koreas. 

Since 2003, they have produced only a single joint statement in
September 2005 on principles for North Korea to abandon its
nuclear program in exchange for aid and pledges that Washington
won't seek the regime's ouster. 

Chun said earlier Thursday the negotiations were at an
``important crossroads'' and needed to move beyond words to
actions. 

``Joint efforts, wisdom and flexibility from all six countries
are badly needed now more than any other time,'' he said. 

The latest nuclear standoff with the North started in late 2002
after Washington accused North Korea of having a secret uranium
enrichment program in violation of a 1994 deal between the two
countries. North Korea expelled international nuclear inspectors
and restarted its reactor, moves that culminated in its
first-ever test atomic detonation in October. 

Although the U.S. and key North Korean allies China and Russia
backed U.N. sanctions in the wake of the nuclear test,
Washington has since engaged in a series of diplomatic overtures
that have drawn praise from the North. 

They included a trip by Hill to Germany last month to meet Kim,
along with separate U.S.-North Korean talks on the financial
restrictions placed on the Macau bank. 

The U.S. accuses Banco Delta Asia of complicity in North Korea's
alleged counterfeiting and money-laundering, and blacklisting
the bank has scared off other financial institutions from
dealing with the North for fears of losing access to the U.S.
market. 

--- 

Associated Press reporters Jae-soon Chang, Alexa Olesen and
Hiroko Tabuchi contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 12 Buffalo News: Alternative energy is best answer
              
Friday, February 9, 2007

2/8/2007

By ROBERT SAMUELSON

WASHINGTON - You could be excused for thinking that we'll
soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - an international
group of scientists - concluded that, to a 90 percent
probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier,
Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation
a top priority and 10 big U.S. companies (including General
Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action
seems at hand. 

Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this:
We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy
comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main
sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains
economic growth, which - in all modern societies - buttresses
political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil
fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions,
governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would
truly affect global warming. 

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious
exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or
contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive,
self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians
mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when they're
not. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets
created by new environmental regulations. 

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach
these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric
tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions,
they'll grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the
International Energy Agency in Paris. About three-quarters of
the increase comes from developing countries, two-fifths from
China alone. By 2009, the IEA expects China to pass the United
States as the largest source of CO2. 

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth - lowering
poverty, fostering political stability - to placate the rich
world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per person
basis, their CO2 emissions are only about one-fifth the level of
rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the
population even has electricity. 

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue
us. The IEA did an "alternative scenario" that simulated the
effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use; for example,
fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30
percent by 2030. The result: by 2030, annual CO2 emissions would
rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. 

I do not say we should do nothing; but we should not delude
ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and
trade." It's environmental grandstanding. In practice, no
plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb
global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low
as to shut down the economy. What we really need is a more
urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear
power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of
CO2. 

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued
before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more
fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure
oil imports, but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly,
we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from
wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That
would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and
industrial processes. 

Washington Post Writers Group
 
Buffalo News Services 
*****************************************************************
 13 ENS: Effects of Bush Climate Science Censorship Linger 
                 
Environment News Service (ENS)
 
By J.R. Pegg 

WASHINGTON, DC, February 7, 2007 (ENS) - The Bush
administration's political interference with climate scientists
has done lasting damage to the nation's ability to prepare for
the challenges of global warming, a former senior associate with
the federal climate research program told a Senate panel today. 

"Even if we succeed in lifting this heavy hand of censorship
there is still the problem of getting the political leadership
to embrace the findings put forward by the scientists," said
Rick Piltz, who resigned his position with the Climate Change
Science Program, CCSP, in 2005 in protest of White House
interference with climate science. 

Piltz appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee, which held
the hearing to examine new allegations the Bush administration
has censored federal climate scientists. 

[Piltz] For 10 years until June 2005, Rick Piltz worked for the
federal program that coordinates global climate change research
for federal agencies, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
(Photo by Nick Sundt courtesy CCSP) A report released last month
by the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, and the Government
Accountability Project, GAP, found that nearly half the 279
climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being
pressured to delete references to "global warming" or "climate
change" from scientific papers or reports and many said they
were prevented from talking to the media or had their work
edited. 

The UCS/GAP report added to other allegations the Bush
administration has repeatedly interfered with federal scientists
who have tried to publish research or speak to the media about
the reality and impacts of global warming and have edited
climate change documents to downplay scientific consensus on the
issue. 

Committee Chair Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, said
investigating the allegations is critical for lawmakers
wrestling with climate change. 

[Inouye] Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii chairs the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (Photo
courtesy Office of the Senator) "To deny federal scientists the
right to speak, to change the findings of their work, or to deny
the release of their work, basically creating an atmosphere of
intimidation and fear, is a great disservice to the public,"
Inouye said. 

The acting head of the CCSP said the allegations were isolated
incidents, adding that the Bush administration "takes the
concerns of its scientists very seriously." 

"To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested the science or
the research findings have been interfered with," said Bill
Brennan, deputy assistant administrator for international
affairs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, and acting CCSP director. 

The concerns that have been reported, he said, center on the
"intersection of science policy and science and how that is
communicated to the public." 

The administration is taking steps to remedy the situation,
Brennan added. 

[Brennan] Bill Brennan is acting director of the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program. (Photo courtesy CCSP) "Each department
and agency is reviewing, and if necessary modifying, its
policies to ensure government scientists do not face censorship
on any scientific matter, including climate change issues," he
said. 

The Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, is readying a
new policy that encourages, but does not require, scientists to
go through the public affairs office prior to speaking with the
media, according to Dr. James Mahoney, the former director of
the CCSP. 

"This revised policy should resolve most or all of the recent
complaints by some NOAA scientists," Mahoney told the panel. 

Tom Knutson, a climate scientist with NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory, said he and his colleagues are "anxious to
see how NOAA will interpret and implement the new policy." 

Knutson, who has published studies linking global warming to
increased hurricane strength, told the committee he has faced
"unreasonable levels of interference with my communication with
the media." 

[Knutson] Tom Knutson is a research meteorologist with the
Climate Dynamics and Prediction Group of NOAA's Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. (Photo courtesy GFDL) Neither Mahoney
nor Brennan touched on what Piltz called the administration's
"central climate science scandal," namely its treatment of a
national assessment on climate change impacts. 

Completed in 2000, the national assessment was mandated by the
1990 Global Change Research Act. It was intended to be
continually updated and to serve as a centerpiece of the
government's effort to inform the policymakers and the public in
developing a national climate policy. 

The administration effectively killed the program and suppressed
discussion of it by participating agencies, according to Piltz,
who now directs GAP's Climate Science Watch. 

That action "has done, and continues to do, the greatest damage
in undermining national preparedness in dealing with the
challenge of global climate change," Piltz told the committee. 

"It is clear that the reasons for this were essentially
political, and not based on scientific considerations," Piltz
added. "The White House through the Council on Environmental
Quality directed this suppression, which was then implemented by
the CCSP leadership." 

[Sun] A thickening blanket of greenhouse gases is holding heat
from the Sun close to the planet, raising the global
temperature. (Photo courtesy FreeFoto) The witnesses at the
hearing were also asked about edits made to a 2003 Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, report by Phillip Cooley, a petroleum
lobbyist who at the time was the chief of staff for the Council
on Environmental Quality. 

Cooley edited the draft document to eliminate a reference that
human activities were causing global temperatures to rise and
weakened language on the consequences of climate change - the
edits prompted EPA officials to delete the entire climate change
section from report. 

"They were attempts to create a more moderate picture," Mahoney
responded. "No doubt some people did interpret their jobs as to
reducing the fear factor." 

Piltz said Cooley "clearly had a political agenda" and his
actions reflected a "tremendous amount of White House pressure"
to suppress scientific concern about global warming. 

Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told colleagues
the Bush administration's actions were "almost criminal." 

"They take the science and tailor it to reflect their political
goals," he said. "The interference is stunning … it is George
Orwell at its best. It has to stop." 

Piltz also urged the committee to examine the state of federal
spending on climate science. 

"The administration has cut the climate change research budget
to its lowest level since 1992 and is presiding over what
appears to be a growing crisis in the global climate observing
system, thus undermining a critical national intelligence
gathering process," Piltz said. 

Unless funding is reinstated for the observation system, the
number of U.S. satellites monitoring the Earth's climate could
drop from 29 today to seven by 2017, warned Richard Anthes,
president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research, a nonprofit consortium of North American member
universities based in Boulder, Colorado. 

Anthes told the committee, "We have reached the golden age of
Earth observation from space if this trend is not reversed."   

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 14 Open Letter on the President's Position on Climate Change

For Immediate Release
 February 7, 2007 

Following last Friday’s release of a new report by the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change, a number of media reports perpetuated inaccuracies that 
the President’s concern about climate change is new. In fact, 
climate change has been a top priority since the President’s 
first year in office. 

Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently 
acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are 
contributing to the problem. Consider the following statements by 
the President: 

  + “First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is 
warming…There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to 
warming…And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the 
increase is due in large part to human activity.” – June 11, 2001 

  + “My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation's 
greenhouse gas intensity…by 18 percent over the next 10 years. 
This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our 
greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then 
reverse the growth of emissions.” – February 14, 2002 

  + “America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that
will enable us to live our
 lives less dependent on oil….they will help us to confront the
serious challenge of global
 climate change.” – January 23, 2007 

President Bush committed the United States to continued 
leadership on the issue and since 2001 has dedicated nearly $29 
billion to advance climate-related science, technology, 
international assistance, and incentive programs. This is far 
more than any other nation. Since 2002, the Administration has 
spent more than $9 billion of this amount on climate change 
research and, under his direction, agencies developed a 10-year 
strategic research plan for climate science that was endorsed by 
the National Academy of Sciences. Further, federally funded 
scientists have conducted an abundance of research, published 
their findings in peer reviewed papers and journals and talked 
with colleagues, policymakers, and media around the world about 
their findings. 

The President is firmly committed to taking sensible action on 
climate change that will, as the President said in 2002, “harness 
the power of markets, the creativity of entrepreneurs, and draw 
upon the best scientific research.” He also has set ambitious 
goals. In 2002, he announced plans to cut our Nation's greenhouse 
gas intensity -- how much we emit per unit of economic activity 
-- by 18 percent by 2012. 

Between 2003 and 2006, the President committed nearly $3 billion 
annually–more than any other country in the world – to climate 
change technology research and deployment programs. His 
administration is carrying out dozens of federal programs, 
including partnerships, consumer information campaigns, 
incentives, and mandatory regulations. These programs are 
directed at developing and deploying cleaner, more efficient 
energy technologies, conservation, biological sequestration, 
geological sequestration and adaptation. The U.S. is also the 
global leader in promoting the production and use of biofuels – 
consuming more than any other nation last year – and commercial 
deployment of highly efficient advanced coal technology – moving 
forward with a multi-billion dollar private sector commitment to 
build nine projects in nine states, qualifying for a billion 
dollars in new tax incentives, with more on the way this year. 
z Our unparalleled financial commitment and responsible policies 
are working, and we are on track to meet the President’s goal. 
Our emissions performance since 2000 is among the best in the 
world. According to the International Energy Agency, from 
2000-2004, as our population increased and our economy grew by 
nearly 10%, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by only 1.7%. 
During the same period, European Union carbon dioxide emissions 
grew by 5%, with lower economic growth. 

Internationally, the President is working closely with his G-8 
counterparts and other key world leaders to address the serious, 
long-term challenge of global climate change, recognizing that 
energy security, clean energy, and climate change go hand in hand 
and must be tackled in an integrated manner. Since 2001, the U.S. 
has established 15 bilateral climate partnerships with countries 
and regional organizations. In addition, there are multiple 
multilateral climate change initiatives. Among the most notable 
efforts is the recently established Asia-Pacific Partnership on 
Clean Development and Climate, which is a proactive approach to 
engage developing countries like India and China, which do not 
have targets under the Kyoto protocol. 

This year the President once again made clear in his State of the 
Union Address his commitment to confronting climate change. The 
policies he has in place, coupled with his bold energy initiative 
to cut gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years, will continue to 
yield results. The President has been, and will continue to be, 
an international leader on climate change by, in his words, 
“advancing new technologies that will enable us to do two things 
– strengthen our economy, and at the same time, be better 
stewards of the environment.” 


  Sincerely, James L. Connaughton Chairman Council on 
Environmental Quality     John H. Marburger, III Director Office 
of Science Technology Policy   
*****************************************************************
 15 Don't forget to sign letter opposing McCain-Lieberman nuke
 
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:32:01 -0800


<x-flowed>

February 8, 2007



Dear Friends:



As you can see below, more than 100 organizations have signed on to this 
letter opposing the McCain-Lieberman climate change bill because of its 
support and funding for new nuclear reactors.



We are tentatively planning to release this letter on February 14 to go 
along with the national Valentines Day call-in to Congress (and dont forget 
to let all your colleagues, members, etc., know about this important 
call-in day to challenge the Bush budget and redirect funds from nuclear 
power to renewables and energy efficiency!). Contact NIRS if you need any 
more information on the call-in day, at 
<mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org>nirsnet@nirs.org.



Please check and make sure your group is signed on to the letter below 
(note, we havent finished putting them in order of States yet, so please 
check all the way through). If youre not, please join us and sign-on by 
sending your name, organization, city and state to 
<mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org>nirsnet@nirs.org by 5 pm, Tuesday, February 13. 
Lets force Congress to focus on real solutions to the climate crisis!



Thanks for all your help and everything you do,



Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service



----------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator:



As environmental, consumer, and public health organizations, we are strong 
advocates of decisive, effective U.S. action to reduce global warming 
pollution.  Thus, we are greatly disappointed that we must oppose the 
Senators Lieberman and McCains Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 
230), which would provide unnecessary and counterproductive support for 
nuclear power.



Nuclear power continues to be plagued with economic, safety, security, 
radioactive waste, and proliferation problems. Moreover, according to MIT, 
just to achieve a significant reduction in the expected increase in carbon 
dioxide emissions, at least 1,000 gigawatts of electricity (about 800-1,000 
large reactors) would have to be built around the world by 2050. This scale 
of construction would require building as many as one reactor every 18 days 
for 40 years. There is at present no plausible basis for believing the 
global nuclear industry can be scaled-up and sustained at this level, or 
that the resulting non-carbon environmental and global security impacts 
would be acceptable even if this build rate were achievable. Energy 
efficiency, conservation, and renewable energies are safer, cleaner, 
faster, and more sustainable means to meet our energy needs, while reducing 
global warming pollution.



The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 would provide loan 
guarantees and direct subsidies for construction of three new reactor 
designs. These provisions are not only duplicative of measures passed in 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but they are also an unwarranted subsidy to 
a mature industry that already has received the lions share of federal 
energy funds over the past 50 years. Between 1947 and 1999, the nuclear 
industry was given more than $115 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies, 
compared to a mere $5.7 billion for wind and solar over the same period.



Specifically, the bill:

¨      Provides up to $600 million for certifying three new nuclear reactor 
designs.  The nuclear industry has already certified two new designs with 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and has several more in the pipeline, 
without any federal subsidies.

¨      Provides an unlimited amount of additional federal subsidies for 
licensing new reactors. As part of DOEs Nuclear Power 2010 program, DOE has 
already awarded a consortium of nuclear companies $260 million to assist 
them with licensing activities and has agreed to fund another license 
application in Virginia.

¨      Requires DOE to further speed up an already accelerated NRC 
licensing process, placing the right of meaningful public involvement in 
major environmental decisions at risk.  The Energy Policy Act of 1992 made 
sweeping changes to the NRCs licensing process for new reactors, none of 
which have been fully tested yet.

¨      Provides secured loans and loan guarantees that would cover up to 80 
percent of the cost of building the three new reactors, which could cost 
taxpayers approximately $3 billion. Loan guarantees for various energy 
sources, including new nuclear power plants, were authorized in EPACT 2005.

¨      Provides federal support for reprocessing and other controversial 
radioactive waste disposal technologies.



We urge the Senate to focus its attention on supporting and enhancing 
renewable and efficiency technologies to reduce global warming pollution, 
not wasting more taxpayer dollars on nuclear power. We look forward to 
supporting your efforts in these areas.



Sincerely,



Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Washington, DC



Michele Boyd

Legislative Director

Public Citizen

Washington, DC



Jim Riccio

Nuclear Policy Analyst

Greenpeace

Washington DC



Ken Bossong

Executive Director

SUN DAY Campaign

Washington, DC



Daphne Wysham

Co-director
Sustainable Energy & Economy Network

Washington, DC



Stephen Kretzmann

Executive Director

Oil Change International

Washington, DC



David Swanson, Co-Founder AfterDowningStreet.org

After Downing Street Coalition

Washington, DC



Kaye Kiker

Organizer

Citizens Task Force

York, AL



Betty Schroeder

Arizona Safe Energy Coalition

Tucson, AZ



Julia Rouvier, Co-founder

Flagstaff Nuclear Awareness Project

Flagstaff, AZ



Pat Birnie

Tucson Branch, WILPF   (Women's International League for Peace and Freedom)

Tucson, AZ



Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa

Nuclear Resister

Tucson, AZ



Frank C. Subjeck

AirWaterEarth  Org.

Lake Havasu City, AZ



David Krieger

President

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Santa Barbara, CA



Jane Williams

Executive Director

California Communities Against Toxics

Rosamond, CA



Rochelle Becker

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

San Luis Obispo, CA



Phil Klasky

Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition

San Francisco, CA



Joanie Misrack

Pathways to Peace

San Rafael, CA



Nicole Paul

Loving Earth Gardens

Arcata, CA



Bernard August

The Committee Against Plutonium Economics (CAPE)

Newark, DE



Elaine Nichols

Karen Lowman

NoNuke Coalition

Tampa, FL



Joanne Steele

Board President

Action for a Clean Environment

Sautee-Nacoochee, GA





Dave Kraft

Nuclear Energy Information Service

Evanston, IL



Carolyn Treadway

No New Nukes

Normal, IL



John Blair

President
Valley Watch, Inc.
Evansville, IN



Mary Lampert

Director

Pilgrim Watch

Duxbury, MA



Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director

C-10 Research and Education Foundation

Newburyport, MA



Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Brunswick, ME



William Linnell

Cheaper, Safer Power

Portland, ME



Henry W. Peters, Director

Radiological Evaluation and Action Project,

Great Lakes (REAP-GL)

Ewen, MI



Ryan McCoy

PISSED (People Interested in Stopping Senseless Environmental Destruction)

South Haven, MI



Judi Poulson

Chair

Fairmont Peace Group

Fairmont, MN



Gladys Schmitz, SSND

Mankato Area Environmentalists

Mankato, MN



Sue Skidmore

Citizens for Accountable Government

Springfield, MO



Robbie Sweetser

Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads

Asheville, NC



Kathryn Kuppers, Clerk,

Charlotte Area Green Party

Charlotte, NC



Laura Sorensen, NC State Coordinator
Department of Peace Campaign

Asheville, NC



Laura and Ole Sorensen

Solar Dynamics

Asheville, NC



Buffalo Bruce

Board Chair

Western Nebraska Resources Council

Chadron, NE



Lionel Delevingne

co-Director

Clamshell-TVS

Portsmouth, NH



Elizabeth Mozer
SUM - Stop Uranium Mining

Montclair, NJ



Manuel Pino

Laguna Acoma Coalition For A Safe Environment

Paguate, NM



Rev. Larry Bernard, O.F.M.
Pastor
St. Joseph Church
Laguna, NM



Lee Cheney

Citizens Nuclear Information Center

Hobbs, NM



Judy Treichel
Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Las Vegas, NV



Dr. Kathleen Sullivan

Coordinator

Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project

ESR Metro

New York, NY



Alice Slater

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York

New York, NY



Connie Hogarth

Center for Social Action

Manhattanville College

Purchase, NY



Arnold Gore

Consumers Health Freedom Coalition

New York, NY



Chris Trepal

Executive Director

Earth Day Coalition

Cleveland, OH



Chuck Johnson

Board member

Center for Energy Research

Portland, OR



Sally Flax

Womens International League for Peace and Freedom

Philadelphia, PA



Ernest Fuller

Vice-Chairman

Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety

Saxton, PA



Joseph Mangano

Executive Director

Radiation and Public Health Project

Norristown, PA



Karen H. Prather

Concern About Radiation In the Environment (CARIE)

Corry, PA



William W. Smith III

U.S.A. Nica Windpower, Inc.

Jamestown, RI



Greg Wingard,

Executive Director

Waste Action Project

Seattle, WA



Peter Alexander

Executive Director

Biodiversity Project

Madison, WI



John LaForge

Nukewatch

Luck, WI















Citizens For Renewable Energy

S. (Ziggy) Kleinau, Co-ordinator, CFRE
Lion's Head  ON







Jeremy Maxand

Snake River Alliance

Boise, Idaho





Corinne Whitehead

Coalition for Health Concern, Inc.

Benton, Kentucky



Michel Lee, Esq.

Chairman

Council on Intelligent Energy

& Conservation Policy

White Plains, New York



Paula Gotsch

Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES)

Normandy Beach, NJ



Eileen McCabe, Nuclear Policy Advisor

Green Action Committee

Salt Lake City, UT



Deanna Taylor, Director

Blue Sky Institute

West Jordan, UT



Greg Mello

Los Alamos Study Group

Albuquerque, NM



Mary Davis

Yggdrasil, a project of Earth Island Institute

Lexington, Kentucky



Julie Enslow

Peace Action Wisconsin

Milwaukee, WI



Judy Miner

Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice

Madison, WI



Nancy Watson

RAMP (Rochesterians Against Misuse of Pesticides)

Rochester, N.Y.



Sue Ann Martinson

Alliant Action

Minneapolis MN



Robert Auer

Energy Solutions, LLC

Shelton, CT



Dennis Larson

PASE (People's Action for Safe Energy)

Parthenon, AR



Paige Knight

Hanford Watch

Portland, Oregon



Deb Katz

Citizens Awareness Network

Shelburne Falls, MA



Jill ZamEk

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

San Luis Obispo, CA



Judi Friedman, chair

PACE (Peoples Action for Clean Energy)

Canton, CT



Wells Eddleman

NC Citizens Research Group

Durham, NC



Susan Shapiro, Esq.

Rockland Friends United for Safe Energy (FUSE)

Spring Valley, NY



Dave Menzer

Utility Campaign Organizer

Citizens Action Coalition of IN

Indianapolis, IN



Rosemary Bassilakis & Sal Mangiagli
Citizens Awareness Network
Haddam, CT



Chris Daum

Oasis Montana Inc.

Renewable Energy Supply & Design

Stevensville, MT



Susan Blake

Coordinator

PeaceSmiths

Long Island, NY



Katie Nekola

Energy Program Director

Clean Wisconsin

Madison, WI









Elena Day

Peoples Alliance for Clean Energy

Charlottesville, VA



Adele Kushner, Executive Director

Action for a Clean Environment

Alto, GA



Michael J. Keegan

Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes

Monroe, MI



Alice Hirt

Don't Waste Michigan

Holland, MI



Keith Gunter

Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two

Monroe, MI



Glenn Carroll, Coordinator

Nuke Watch South

Atlanta, Georgia



Lewis E. Patrie, M. D.

Chair, Western N. C. Chapter

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Asheville, N. C.



Avram Friedman

Executive Director

Canary Coalition

Sylva, NC



Tom Ferguson

Foundation for Global Community

Atlanta, GA



Bob Darby

Food Not Bombs

Atlanta, GA



Grandmothers for Peace/San Luis Obispo County Chapter

Molly P Johnson, area coordinator

San Miguel, CA



Susan Gordon

Director

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

Seattle, WA



Ned Ryan Doyle

Southern Energy & Environment Expo

Asheville N.C.



Susan Corbett

Conservation Chair

South Carolina Chapter, Sierra Club

Columbia, SC



Brad Heavner

Environment Maryland

Baltimore, MD



David R. Harper

Chair,

Citizens for Smart Choices

Hartsville, TN







</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 16 FW: State seeks boost in nuke plant fee
 
Lawmakers must act before owners pay

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

BY GARRY LENTON

Of The Patriot-News

State officials want to raise by 50 percent the fee that nuclear 
power plant owners pay each year to cover the cost of emergency 
planning, radiation monitoring and other tasks.

The state loses about $1.5 million a year for the programs 
because the fee has not been raised in 15 years.

Plant owners such as PPL and Exelon Nuclear reached an agreement 
with the Rendell administration last year to pay an additional 
$300,000 per plant. But the payments have yet to be made because 
the Legislature last year failed to amend the law.

A bill introduced in the House and Senate in July never came up 
for a vote.

A new version of the bill will be introduced in the House by 
state Rep. Camille George, D-Clearfield, chairman of the House 
Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

The measure, being circulated for co-sponsors, would formalize an 
agreement with the owners of Pennsylvania's five nuclear power 
plants to pay an annual $900,000 fee to the state. Roughly 
$550,000 would go to the Department of Environmental Protection 
and the rest to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. A 
small part would go to the state police.

George was asked to re-introduce the bill by DEP Secretary 
Kathleen McGinty, PEMA Director James Josephs, and State Police 
Col. Jeffrey Miller.

Failure to pass the bill could jeopardize the state's ability to 
monitor radiation levels outside the plants and respond to a 
nuclear event, they wrote in a letter to George.

The fees would provide $1.5 million for radiation monitoring, 
waste shipment inspections, training for emergency responders and 
medical workers and equipment.

The plant owners support the bill. In an earlier interview, Ralph 
DeSantis, spokesman for TMI operator AmerGen Energy, said the 
company supported the measure. AmerGen is an subsidiary of Exelon 
Nuclear, which owns three plants in the state -- TMI , Peach 
Bottom and Limerick in Montgomery County. The increase would cost 
the company $900,000 a year.

"We feel we have a responsibility to the public and this is one 
way of providing a level of public confidence," said Alan Nelson, 
director of Emergency Services for the Nuclear Energy Institute, 
a industry group that represents plant owners.

Eric Epstein, chairman of Harrisburg-based watchdog group Three 
Mile Island Alert, said the fee was not increased enough. TMIA 
recommended $1.2 million per plant and urged the state to make 
the payment retroactive.

There are 64 nuclear plants in the U.S. Each pays a fee to its 
host state for developing and maintaining emergency plans. 
According to NEI, fees ranged from $200,000 per site to a high of 
$3 million.

About 16 plants pay $1 million or more, NEI officials said.

GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com
*****************************************************************
 17 The Hindu: Govt. nod for nuclear power project 

Thursday, February 8, 2007 : 1540 Hrs
 
New Delhi, Feb. 8 (PTI): A project aimed at meeting the uranium
fuel requirements of the nuclear-power programme is expected to
commence soon with the government deciding to give over Rs 13
crores to Andhra Pradesh for land acquisition. 

A meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)
chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today gave its approval
to deposit Rs 13,70,50,000 with the Andhra Pradesh government
for the land acquisition for the Tummalapalle Mining and Milling
Project. 

The project in Cuddapah district is being set up by Uranium
Corporation of India Limited, a public sector undertaking under
the Department of Atomic Energy. 

"The approval of the project will meet the uranium fuel 
requirement of the nuclear-power programme," Finance Minister P 
Chidambaram told reporters. 

Besides developing the area, the project will also provide direct 
employment to about 934 people in various categories. 

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 18 EEN: NRC chair says politics won't slow nuclear

  Energy Environment News 
  
  Posted on : Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:47:01 GMT | Author : Energy

  WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 The top U.S. nuclear regulator said though 
Congress has changed hands it likely won't stunt the growth in 
nuclear power which he's been planning for.Dale Klein, chairman 
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he expects more than 
30 new applications for new nuclear reactors in the United 
States, along with applications for license renewals and power 
uprates.

The political landscape obviously has changed, Klein said at the
Nuclear Energy Opportunities for Growth and Investment in North
America summit in Washington Thursday, organized by the global
energy information company Platts. I now visit different heads
of committees.In terms of how we are moving as a nation, we have
some challenges that our elected officials have to deal with,
Klein said of the threat of climate change, adding it was
politically real if not technically real.He expects legislation
to curb emissions that lead to climate change, which come from
nuclear's competitors of coal and crude oil.Then the issue is
what role does nuclear play in that? he said. If you get rid of
a lot of the emotions and look at what source of likely
generation is there ... you are choices get limited real quick,
Klein said. Renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and
hydropower are touted by environmentalists as an emissions-free
source. But those sources either lack the technology or
geographic capacity to make them commercially viable.This is 
where nuclear power comes in, Klein said. He said the NRC will be 
a hard but fair regulator.Copyright 2007 by UPI 									
									   
(c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 EEN: NRC chair hopeful Congress approves funds

  Energy Environment News | Home  
  
  Posted on : Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:55:00 GMT 


  WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 The top U.S. nuclear regulator said he's
spent a lot of time on the Hill this week and hopes it will pay
off with full funding of his agency.I am a believer that all
good things come to those who wait -- provided they work
feverishly while they are waiting, Nuclear Regulatory Chairman
Dale Klein said at the Nuclear Energy Opportunities for Growth
and Investment in North America conference in Washington,
organized by the global energy information firm Platts. My
fellow commissioners, the NRC staff and I have been working hard
to communicate to the Congress the importance of the work that
the NRC is and will be performing, Klein said. Congress at the
end of last year couldn't agree on most of the federal budget,
so it passed a continuing resolution flat-lining finances at
2006 levels.

But the NRC is expecting much more work this year, including
around seven applications for new nuclear reactors, license
renewal applications and power uprates. It also is preparing for
the 2008 application of the U.S. Energy Department for the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository.And it needs to continue
hiring staff to meet this demand during a retiree boom.An NRC
official also confirmed Thursday the agency is cautiously
optimistic the Senate will approve the $813 million budget the
House authorized last week. The NRC will recover 90 percent of
that funding through charges to utilities, plants and other
entities that utilize its regulatory services.All indications
are Congress will support us, Klein said. Copyright 2007 by UPI
									 									   
(c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: NRC Chairman Addresses Growth Issue at Platts Nuclear Energy Conference 

News Release - 2007-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 07-023     February 8, 
2007   

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein said Thursday 
the NRC hopes not be to an impediment to the licensing of new 
reactors that utilities want to build in the coming decade. 

I am a regulator and I cannot promote nuclear energy, Klein said
at the third Annual Platts Nuclear Energy Conference, but let me
indulge in a bit of optimism. I do not believe the NRC to be a
bottleneck in the process. Klein, describing his vision of
standard applications and a strong regulatory authority with set
requirements, said in prepared remarks that the NRC will strive
to provide the regulatory stability needed in the uncertain
first days of a rapidly expanding, technologically complex and
capital-intensive industrial sector. 

He also said he hopes to reduce the time necessary to process
new reactor applications. Were still looking at ways to reduce
the review time required for early site permits and combined
operating licenses, he said, with no compromise on safety. That
is not an unrealistic goal if industry does its job at the
beginning of the licensing process with standardized designs and
applications. 

He predicted that the pinch points in the licensing process are
finding high quality components, hiring sufficient qualified
personnel and connecting substantial numbers of new plants to
the nations electrical grid. He added that the NRC and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are working closely to
address issues associated with adding plants to the nations
electrical grid to meet increasing demand for electricity. 

In addition, he said the agency will make certain its rigorous
inspection program will ensure the quality and authenticity of
the components that go into new nuclear plants in the United
States. 

Praising the work of Congress in keeping funding flowing to the
agency, Klein said the current proposed fiscal 08 budget will
allow the agency to keep dealing with industry growth. He said
through the end of fiscal 08 the agency will hire about 600 more
individuals, helping to deal with the graying workforce the
agency is dealing with. 

Klein said the agency has worked hard to develop a successful
recruiting strategy. He also encouraged the nuclear industry to
work at encouraging young Americans to join the industry through
financial incentives to students. 

Look at it this way, said Klein. The nuclear industry will be
spending billions on hardware. It would be foolhardy not to
spend the millions necessary to develop the human capital to
operate all that expensive machinery efficiently. 

The full text of Kleins remarks can be found at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches
/2007/s-07-003.html .   
  
NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.   

 	 Last revised Thursday, February 08, 2007 	   
*****************************************************************
 21 RIA Novosti: Russia pins energy hopes on new nuclear monopoly

Opinion &analysis - 

08/ 02/ 2007

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna) - President
Vladimir Putin recently signed the so-called "tunnel law," which
is opening new vistas for Russia's civilian nuclear power
industry. 

Its official title is as follows: "The Law on the Peculiarities
of Managing the Property and Shares of Organizations Using
Nuclear Energy and on Relevant Changes in Some Legislative
Acts." The document had previously been approved by the Duma. 

The law is designed to rationalize the legal and institutional
conditions for the operation of the energy-and-industry sector,
and make it more competitive internationally and more attractive
for investment. It separates the Russian nuclear power sector
into military and civilian parts. 

Leaving intact the military branch, the law aims to establish a
state-controlled nuclear holding monopoly, Atomenergoprom, or
Atomprom, using the industry's civilian assets. It will be a
vertically integrated structure encompassing the nuclear
industry's full technological cycle. 

Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Rosatom, the Federal Nuclear Energy
Agency, said, "The holding should integrate all stages of
nuclear energy generation: uranium extraction and enrichment,
fuel production, and generation, as well as all related
industries, including nuclear and non-nuclear machine-building,
science, engineering, and construction." 

This is a revolutionary event - the state has established
control over the entire civilian branch of the nuclear industry.
It has revived the old but highly effective Soviet style of
management: government control. 

The holding, which brings together all nuclear power plants,
must remain federally owned, which rules out privatization. The
state has purchased a controlling interest in those plants that
have already been reincorporated as joint-stock companies. 

Atomprom will give a new lease on life to the Russian nuclear
power industry. Earlier, Sergei Kiriyenko suggested a plan to
build 40 power supply units in the next 25 years. This could
increase the share of the nuclear power industry in the federal
power supply system to 25% (it is now 16%). The project's price
tag is $60-$70 billion, and it will require a huge investment.
Investors prefer to deal with state-guaranteed projects, and in
this sense Atomprom is very attractive. 

The new monopoly is the offspring of a large-scale plan for the
development of the nuclear power industry which Rosatom started
carrying out in 2006. Russia's best nuclear specialists drafted
this ambitious program under Kiriyenko's guidance, and with
unqualified political and material support from the government
and President Putin. 

It is not easy for the conservative nuclear industry to make a
huge leap forward. Apart from structural reforms, this goal
requires a new mentality. Born in the 1950s, during the Cold
War, as a guarantee of state security, the nuclear industry was
first seen as an elite and closed structure. In the last 15
years, the Kremlin has not had a clear understanding on how to
reform this sensitive structure, and it lived by inertia,
struggling for economic survival. 

It had a large budget, and itself contributed a significant
amount of revenue to the treasury, but it was constrained by
collisions between its two branches. The new law has removed all
stumbling blocks in the way of uranium-enrichment projects,
which can now be implemented in cooperation with other
countries. It also permits ownership of fissionable materials
imported into Russia by foreign legal entities. The law allows
Russian legal entities to possess non-weapon nuclear materials,
plants, and storage depots, but a list of owners will be
determined by presidential decree. 

Having opted for nuclear energy at the turn of the century,
Russia has embarked on a fundamental restructuring of its
nuclear power industry. In 2003, the government announced its
intention to develop the industry in order to contribute to
energy stability and protect against predicted energy crises. 

In his annual address to the Federal Assembly in 2006, Vladimir
Putin emphasized the need to guarantee national energy security
and increase the nuclear industry's share of energy generation
from 16% to 25% by 2025. The government adopted a federal
strategy for developing the industry, which laid out goals and
ways of achieving them. 

"If nothing is done, by 2025 Russia will not have a nuclear
power industry for technical reasons; the service life of the
old nuclear power plants will soon expire, and they will be shut
down, whereas new ones will not appear," Kiriyenko summed up.
Experts have calculated that the only way out is to build at
least two nuclear power units a year. This is one of Atomprom's
tasks. 

One of its priorities is to be more competitive in the world
market. Today, Russia's nuclear power industry receives 90% of
its profits from exports. Atomprom has every opportunity to make
handsome profits from the construction of nuclear power plants
abroad, nuclear waste processing and disposal, and uranium
enrichment. 

An ambitious project to make a nuclear leap has been launched.
Now it remains to decide who should carry it out, and where to
find the intellectual and technical resources for its
implementation. 

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
and may not necessarily represent the opinion of the editorial
board. 

*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                         FR Doc E7-2088 
[Federal Register: February 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 26)] 
[Notices] [Page 6010-6011] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08fe07-81]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
Series.
 
This series has been developed to describe and make available to 
the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's 
regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the 
staff needs in its review of applications for permits and 
licenses.
 
Like its predecessor, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.196, 
``Control Room Habitability at Light-Water Nuclear Power 
Reactors,'' provides guidance and criteria that the staff of the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers acceptable for 
implementing the agency's regulations in Appendix A, ``General 
Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to Title 10, Part 50, 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 50), ``Domestic 
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' as they 
relate to control room habitability (CRH). Specifically, this 
guide outlines a process that licensees may apply to control 
rooms that are modified, are newly designed, or must have their 
conformance to the regulations reconfirmed.
 
In Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, General Design Criteria (GDC) 1, 
3, 4, 5, and 19 apply to CRH, as follows: GDC 1, ``Quality 
Standards and Records,'' requires that structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) important to safety be designed, fabricated, 
erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the 
importance of the safety functions performed.
 
GDC 3, ``Fire Protection,'' requires that SSCs important to 
safety be designed and located to minimize the effects of fires 
and explosions.
 
GDC 4, ``Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases,'' 
requires SSCs important to safety to be designed to accommodate 
the effects of, and to be compatible with, the environmental 
conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, 
testing, and postulated accidents, including loss-of-coolant 
accidents (LOCAs).
 
GDC 5, ``Sharing of Structures, Systems, and Components,'' 
requires that SSCs important to safety not be shared among 
nuclear power units unless it can be shown that such sharing will 
not significantly impair their ability to perform their safety 
functions, including, in the event of an accident in one unit, 
the orderly shutdown and cooldown of the remaining units.
 
GDC 19, ``Control Room,'' requires that a control room be 
provided from which actions can be taken to operate the nuclear 
reactor safely under normal conditions and to maintain the 
reactor in a safe condition under accident conditions, including 
a LOCA. Adequate radiation protection is to be provided to permit 
access and occupancy of the control room under accident 
conditions without personnel receiving radiation exposures in 
excess of specified values.
 
Since the NRC initially issued Regulatory Guide 1.196 in May 
2003, the staff determined that the information presented in 
Appendix B to that guide did not accurately represent a viable 
technical specification for CRH at light-water nuclear power 
reactors. In particular, it referred to failure of a particular 
surveillance as a plant state, rather than having the results of 
the surveillance factor into the operability determination. In 
addition, it did not provide for a definite time to restore 
functionality to the control room envelope, whereas all improved 
standard technical specifications (iSTS) contain such provisions. 
Moreover, Appendix B was included as a ``strawman,'' to be 
deleted when details had been more carefully worked out with 
industry participation, and those technical specifications placed 
in the iSTS with all other acceptable technical specifications.
 
As of the publication date of this Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 
1.196, no utility has been granted the technical specification 
changes represented by
 
[[Page 6011]] Appendix B to the original version of this guide. 
Consequently, the NRC staff elected to remove Appendix B (and all 
related references) from this revision. Removal of Appendix B 
from this revised guide does not require any stakeholder to take 
any action and does not reduce safety in any way. Moreover, 
public meetings with the owners' group Technical Specification 
Task Force have provided ample opportunity for public comment 
regarding this revision. Therefore, the staff views the removal 
of Appendix B as a neutral action, for which further public 
comments are unnecessary. For that reason, the staff chose not to 
issue this revision as a draft guide for public comment before 
publishing this Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.196. 
Nonetheless, the NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and 
suggestions in connection with improvements to published 
regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in regulatory 
guides that are currently being developed. You may submit 
comments by any of the following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand-deliver comments to: Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments 
to: Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415- 
5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Revision 1 of Regulatory 
Guide 1.196 may be directed to Harold Walker, at (301) 415-2827 
or HXW@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or 
downloading through the NRC's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/. In 
addition, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.196 is available for 
inspection or downloading through ADAMS at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession 
ML063560144.
 
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.196 and other related publicly 
available documents can also be viewed electronically on 
computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is 
located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR's 
reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. 
The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 
415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415- 3548, and by 
e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Please note that the NRC does not intend 
to distribute printed copies of Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 
1.196, unless specifically requested on an individual basis with 
adequate justification.
 
Such requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which 
may be reproduced) should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to 
DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone 
requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not 
copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce 
them.
 
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of 
January, 2007.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Sheron, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. E7-2088 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
 
                         FR Doc E7-2089 
[Federal Register: February 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 26)] 
[Notices] [Page 6011-6012] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08fe07-82]                         
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide 
Series.
 
This series has been developed to describe and make available to 
the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's 
regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the 
staff needs in its review of applications for permits and 
licenses.
 
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.200, ``An Approach for 
Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,'' describes one 
acceptable approach for determining whether the quality of a 
probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), in total or the parts that 
are used to support an application, is sufficient to provide 
confidence in the results, such that the PRA can be used in 
regulatory decision-making for light-water reactors. 
Specifically, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.200 provides 
guidance in four areas: (1) A minimal set of requirements of a 
technically acceptable PRA.
 
(2) The NRC's position on PRA consensus standards and industry 
PRA program documents.
 
(3) Demonstration that the PRA (in total or specific parts) used 
in regulatory applications is of sufficient technical adequacy.
 
(4) Documentation to support a regulatory submittal.
 
This guidance is intended to be consistent with the NRC's PRA 
Policy Statement, entitled ``Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
Methods in Nuclear Activities: Final Policy Statement,'' which 
the NRC published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1995 (60 
FR 42622) to encourage use of PRA in all regulatory matters. That 
Policy Statement states that ``* * * the use of PRA technology 
should be increased to the extent supported by the 
state-of-the-art in PRA methods and data and in a manner that 
complements the NRC's deterministic approach.'' Since that time, 
many uses have been implemented or undertaken, including 
modification of the NRC's reactor safety inspection program and 
initiation of work to modify reactor safety regulations. 
Consequently, confidence in the information derived from a PRA is 
an important issue, in that the accuracy of the technical content 
must be sufficient to justify the specific results and insights 
that are used to support the decision under consideration.
 
Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.200 is also intended to be 
consistent with the more detailed guidance in Regulatory Guide 
1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in 
Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the 
Licensing Basis,'' which the NRC issued in November 2002. In 
addition, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.200 is intended to 
reflect and endorse (with certain objections) the following 
guidance provided by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI): ASME RA-S-2002, 
``Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power 
Plant Applications,'' dated April 5, 2002.
 
ASME RA-Sa7-2003, ``Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,'' Addendum A to ASME 
RA-S-2002, dated December 5, 2003.
 
ASME RA-Sb-2005, ``Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for 
Nuclear Power Plant Applications,''
 
[[Page 6012]] Addendum B to ASME RA-S-2002, dated December 30, 
2005.
 
NEI-00-02, ``Probabilistic Risk Assessment Peer Review Process 
Guidance,'' Revision A3, dated March 20, 2000, with its 
supplemental guidance on industry self-assessment, dated August 
16, 2002, Revision 1, dated May 19, 2006, and an update to 
Revision 1 dated November 15, 2006.
 
NEI-05-04, ``Process for Performing Follow-on PRA Peer Reviews 
Using the ASME PRA Standard,'' dated January 2005.
 
When used in support of an application, this regulatory guide 
will obviate the need for an in-depth review of the base PRA by 
NRC reviewers, allowing them to focus their review on key 
assumptions and areas identified by peer reviewers as being of 
concern and relevant to the application. Consequently, this guide 
will provide for a more focused and consistent review process. In 
this regulatory guide, as in Regulatory Guide 1.174, the quality 
of a PRA analysis used to support an application is measured in 
terms of its appropriateness with respect to scope, level of 
detail, and technical acceptability.
 
This regulatory guide was issued for trial use in February of 
2004, and five trial applications were conducted. The staff 
subsequently revised Regulatory Guide 1.200 to incorporate the 
lessons learned from those pilot applications. The NRC solicited 
public comment on this guidance by publishing a Federal Register 
notice (71 FR 54530) concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1161. 
The public comment period closed on October 14, 2006, and the 
staff has considered and appropriately addressed all comments 
received. The staff's responses to all comments received are 
available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , 
under Accession ML070040474.
 
The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in 
connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as 
well as items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are 
currently being developed. You may submit comments by any of the 
following methods.
 
Mail comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand-deliver comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing 
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments 
to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415- 
5144.
 
Requests for technical information about Regulatory Guide 1.200 
may be directed to Ms. Mary T. Drouin, at (301) 415-6675 or 
MXD@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or 
downloading through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory 
Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Regulatory 
Guide 1.200 is also available for inspection or downloading 
through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , 
under Accession ML070240001.
 
In addition, Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.200 and other 
related publicly available documents, including public comments 
received, can be viewed electronically on computers in the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
make copies of documents for a fee. The PDR's mailing address is 
USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached 
by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 
415-3548, and by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Please note that the NRC 
does not intend to distribute printed copies of Revision 1 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.200, unless specifically requested on an 
individual basis with adequate justification.
 
Such requests for single copies (which may be reproduced) should 
be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and 
Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; 
or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be 
accommodated.
 
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is 
not required to reproduce them.
 
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of 
January, 2007.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Sheron, 
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
 
[FR Doc. E7-2089 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 24 Hudson Valley News: Clean Indian point screens more often, Westchester exec says   

Thursday, February 8, 2007 
  
White Plains  Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
Wednesday called on Entergy to improve its maintenance of the
filters that clean Hudson River water used to cool pumps and
other machinery in the plant. 

According to Entergy, the screens were covered with branches,
leaves and other debris on Monday morning. That condition,
coupled with low tide and cool temperatures, caused the plant to
enter into what is called an unusual event, the lowest of four
alert levels at the plant. 

The water in Indian Point had dropped more than four feet below
sea level. While the public was not in danger during the
emergency, Spano was disappointed to learn that the screens are
cleaned only once every four years. 

The emergency could have been much worse, Spano said. Entergy
needs to make sure that these screens are always clean of debris
so the plant can operate safely. 

Spano has repeatedly called for the closing of the Indian Point
plants and has recently filed a petition in federal court,
asking to reverse a decision by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.   
  
                                
  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
                only Internet radio news report. 
*****************************************************************
 25 Boston Globe: West Coast nuclear plant case could have an effect here

PLYMOUTH 

By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent  |  

February 8, 2007 

A recent US Supreme Court ruling involving a California nuclear 
plant may have an impact on whether the Pilgrim nuclear plant can 
operate an extra 20 years.

At issue is whether the threat of terrorist attack should be 
considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in deciding on 
licenses for nuclear facilities. Last month, the Supreme Court 
declined to review a federal court ruling requiring that such a 
possibility enter into the NRC's thinking in deciding whether to 
license the new Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant along 
California's central Pacific Coast.

The court's action means the NRC must weigh the environmental
impacts of intentional attacks on the nuclear waste storage
system proposed for the new facility.

Nuclear law specialists, as well as those who advocate including
security issues in the license review process, say the Supreme
Court decision may nudge the NRC to consider security issues for
all plants, not just Diablo Canyon.

"Everyone is waiting to see how NRC will apply this," said Diane
Curran, the attorney for the plaintiff in the Diablo Canyon case
who also represents the Massachusetts attorney general in a
related case.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said his agency will respond to the
court's decision on the Diablo Canyon case, but said it has not
yet decided how or when. He said the NRC believes the ruling
applies only to the West Coast district served by the federal
Ninth Circuit Court, where the case was heard.

Critics of Pilgrim's license extension request have so far been
unable to place the issue of the terrorist risks on the
regulatory table.

Former attorney general Thomas F. Reilly attempted to do so
before leaving office, but the NRC rejected his appeal, as well
as one by Pilgrim Watch, a local citizens group.

NRC staff conducting the review have said their agency's rules
prohibit them from considering terrorist attacks and the nuclear
waste storage issue from the lengthy, rule-bound license renewal
review process.

In a related development, the NRC last week issued new rules
that bear on the controversial issue of how nuclear plants
should be protected from attack. The NRC announced long-awaited
standards nuclear plant owners must reach to protect plants from
terrorist attack, including provisions to protect them against
multiple coordinated attackers, suicide attacks and cyber
attacks.

But the new standards failed to appease critics such as US
Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, who said
the standards exclude protection from air attacks and make no
mention of upgraded standards for the construction of new
nuclear reactors.

A statement by the NRC noted that "airborne attacks" are
addressed by the military and other federal organizations.

Meanwhile, nuclear skeptics hope the Diablo Canyon case changes
the regulatory environment. "The court was asked to answer the
question whether the NRC needs to consider terrorism in
licensing decisions," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch. "Their
answer was yes. We are involved now in a licensing decision" at
Pilgrim. "Terrorism must be considered here on a site-specific
basis."

Ways to mitigate the impacts of a terrorist attack are
important, Lampert said, because Pilgrim would be "the biggest
bang for the buck" for terrorists looking for targets in
Massachusetts.

In line with current rules, however, NRC staff excluded any
analysis of "severe accidents" to the plant's spent fuel pool,
where used nuclear fuel rods are stored, in a draft of their
study of the environmental impact of relicensing Pilgrim
released two months ago. Staff journeyed to Plymouth late last
month to take public comment on the study. Written comments may
be made to the NRC until the end of this month, and the final
report is due out in July.

The NRC disagreed with the federal court's conclusion that the
issue of safeguarding nuclear power plants from attack should be
addressed under the federal environmental law which requires the
agency to perform an environmental impact study for license
reviews such as Pilgrim's. The agency, said spokesman Sheehan,
contends that the Atomic Energy Act is the right tool for
protecting nuclear plants from attack.

"Since 9/11, we have aggressively used our authority to enhance
security at nuclear power plants," he said in an e-mail, "and we
will continue to do so."

 Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. [ /] ©

Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
*****************************************************************
 26 [southnews] Livermore Lab to escalate depleted uranium testing
 
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 02:43:30 -0600 (CST)


Livermore National Laboratory has been testing radioactive devices  
exploding depleted uranium and tritium into the open air  just 50 miles 
east of San Francisco since 1961. And now the lab has a permit to raise 
the amount of radioactive material they detonate yearly from 1,000 to 
8,000 pounds.

Livermore Lab to escalate depleted uranium testing

Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner

OpEdNews, PA - 17 hours ago

Marion Fulk, a highly respected Manhattan Project and Livermore atomic 
scientist, says that depleted uranium "is perfect for killing lots of 
people." That, in fact, along with contamination of the land, is the 
purpose of the devices being tested.

If it's news to you, you're not alone. Livermore National Laboratory has 
been testing radioactive devices  exploding depleted uranium and 
tritium into the open air  just 50 miles east of San Francisco since 
1961. And now the lab has a permit to raise the amount of radioactive 
material they detonate yearly from 1,000 to 8,000 pounds.

Those who know are spreading the word and calling on the Bay Area to 
turn out for two meetings next week in protest: the Tracy City Council 
meeting Tuesday, Feb. 6, 7 p.m., at Tracy City Hall, 325 East 10th St., 
and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board meeting 
Wednesday, Feb. 7, 10 a.m., at 4800 Enterprise Way in Modesto.

The test site, called Site 300 by the Livermore nuclear weapons lab, is 
located on 11 square miles in the Altamont Hills between Tracy and 
Livermore. Like the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, formerly the site of 
the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, Site 300 is a Superfund site, 
one of the most contaminated places in the U.S. According to the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Site 300 "is operated by the 
University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
primarily as a high-explosives and materials testing site in support of 
nuclear weapons research."

Site 300 Manager Jim Lane downplays the danger, saying in the Site 300 
Annual Report: "Depleted uranium is used routinely. ... It contains a 
trace amount of radioactivity. However, it is less than normal daily 
exposure to the sun."

Marion Fulk, a highly respected Manhattan Project and Livermore atomic 
scientist, however, says that depleted uranium "is perfect for killing 
lots of people." That, in fact, along with contamination of the land, is 
the purpose of the devices being tested.

The tests at Livermore Site 300 use exotic high explosives to detonate 
weaponized uranium gas in solid metal form. The uranium metal catches 
fire and burns at more than 3,000 degrees, producing fumes of 
radioactive gas  or aerosols  that are deadly to all life forms.

Even a microscopic particle of these depleted uranium (DU)  mostly 
Uranium-238  aerosols lodged inside a human lung can cause severe 
health problems, from cancers to diabetes, asthma, birth defects, organ 
damage, heart failure and auto-immune system diseases. And this 
radioactive gas travels long distances.

Nine days after the U.S. began its "shock and awe" bombing campaign in 
Iraq on March 21, 2003, Dr. Chris Busby found DU aerosols in giant high 
volume air filters in England, 2,500 miles from Baghdad.

The 7 million residents of the San Francisco Bay Area are all endangered 
by the testing at Livermore Site 300, as are the people and produce of 
the agriculturally rich Central Valley. In reality, San Francisco and 
Northern California are under attack by the Livermore nuclear weapons lab.

Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District issued 
Livermore the new permit on Nov. 12, "(t)wo 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," writes Washington, 
D.C., area-based investigative journalist Cathy Garger. A large turnout 
at the meetings Feb. 6 and 7 will show support for those appeals.

"Lawrence Livermore representatives will not reveal to Tracy residents 
precisely how many bombs might be 'tested' in a year," writes Garger. 
"Tracy Press reports 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."

Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award winner, newspaper correspondent 
and a frequent contributor to various online publications. Now 
completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear radiation war in Central 
Asia, he is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. He 
can be reached at DUweapons [at] gmail.com. To learn more, read Cathy 
Garger's story and blog at http://tinyurl.com/32pghh and 
http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com/. Bay View staff contributed to this 
report.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_bob_nich_070206_livermore_lab_to_esc.htm

____________________________________________________

OpEdNews

Original Content at 
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_cathy_ga_070202_depleted_uranium_poi.htm

February 2, 2007

Depleted Uranium Poison Targets US Citizens
By Cathy Garger

Depleted Uranium Poison Explosions Target US Citizens

By Cathy Garger

I Left My Heart In (a 2500 miles radius of) San Francisco

www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23826.shtml
Also at: http://tinyurl.com/32pghh

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 
14 the 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 Press 
reports 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.com quoted 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 admits 
that a small amount of additional toxic heavy metals and 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 Campaign are 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 states how 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 Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease states 
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 cancer in 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 Afghanistan with cancers and those born without 
limbs and unrecognizable facial features.

In effect, scientific evidence suggests 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 descendents which 
can lead to birth defects in the exposed individual's offspring.

Studies have also shown that 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 Lefo?=bvre, "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 Moret and Dr. Ernest Sternglass are 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 Service website: "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 reported 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" 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 Nichols offered, 
"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 summarizes the 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 Moret 
states, "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.htm that 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 paper submitted 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 admits that 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 Press reported 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 List due 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 300 is 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 cancers in 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 cancer 
than 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 children younger than 18 years - are affected by this disorder. 
Asthma is the cause of nearly three million doctor's visits and 200,000 
hospitalizations each year. In children ages 5-14 years, the rate of 
death from asthma almost 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 testimony provided 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 memo declassified 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 1o?= [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 inhaling the 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 m

Authors Website: www.mytown.ca/garger

Authors Bio: Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar and 
anti-radiation weapons 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. Halt DU Explosives: 
http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com/

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_cathy_ga_070202_depleted_uranium_poi.htm 

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited: 15 people test positive for poison 

From Press Association   

[UP] 

Press Association 

Thursday February 8, 2007 4:58 PM

The number of people who have tested positive for Polonium-210
and face possible health risks as a result has risen by two to
15, public health officials said. 

The radioactive substance, which caused the death of former
Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, has been linked to members of
the public who frequented the same areas as him on November 1,
the day he fell ill. 

The Russian visited a number of places, including the Millennium
Hotel and an Italian restaurant in Mayfair as well as the Itsu
sushi bar in Piccadilly. 

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said the two additional
people, who are not expected to fall ill in the short term but
have a very small increased risk in the long term, were a staff
member of the Sheraton Hotel Park Lane and a person who visited
The Pine Bar at the Millennium Hotel on November 1. 

Mr Litvinenko, 43, died in London's University College Hospital
at the end of November and Scotland Yard has launched a murder
inquiry into his death. 

The number of people who have shown signs of testing positive
for Polonium-210 has risen to 134. That figure is up five from a
fortnight ago. 

The HPA said the number of people who had probable contact with
Polonium-210, but with a dose meaning there was no health
concern, had risen by three to 119. 

The agency has tested 549 people whose results were considered
"below reporting level" and therefore were not exposed to the
radiation. 

Eighty-five people have displayed a tiny amount of the
radioactive substance, while the number showing a slightly
greater amount but still not enough to raise concern remains at
34. 

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. 

    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC: More test positive for polonium
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 8 February 2007
 
[Alexander Litvinenko]                                  

Mr Litvinenko was a known critic of Russia's security services                                                            

Two more people have tested positive for the radioactive 
substance which killed a former Russian spy. 

It brings the total number affected by polonium-210 and facing 
possible health risks to 15. 

In November, ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko died after being 
poisoned by the substance in London. 

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) say those also contaminated 
are people who visited the same areas as him on the day he was 
exposed. 

Mr Litvinenko, 43, visited a number of sites in the capital on 1 
November, including several hotels, an Italian restaurant in 
Mayfair and the Itsu sushi bar in Piccadilly. 

He also drank at The Pine Bar at the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair 
and according to the HPA one of the most recent victims also 
visited it that day. 

The HPA, which carries out the tests for radiation, says the 
second victim is a member of staff from the Sheraton Hotel Park 
Lane. 

'Risk increase' 

Neither are expected to fall ill in the short term, but both do 
have a slightly greater risk of developing cancer in the long 
term, it said. 

A spokeswoman for the HPA said: "The average person in the UK has 
a 23% chance of developing cancer and for these people that risk 
is increased by around 0.05%." 

Father-of-two Mr Litvinenko died at London's University College 
Hospital on 23 November and Scotland Yard are currently 
investigating his murder. 

As well as the 15 facing possible health effects, another 119 
people have been found with polonium-210 in their bodies, but at 
levels too low to cause concern.
*****************************************************************
 29 thewest.com.au: Cyanide spill raises nuclear waste fear

[Opinions]    									     									  [Community]    									
									 										    	 									 
8th February 2007, 13:37 WST    

 A cyanide spill on an outback highway raises serious concerns
about Commonwealth plans to transport radioactive waste through
the Northern Territory, environmentalists claim.

A road train carrying 20 tonnes of cyanide pellets rolled over
on the Stuart Highway, 130 kilometres north of Tennant Creek,
about 1.30pm (CST) on Wednesday.

The driver, who had lost control of the vehicle, was not injured
in the accident.

A similar spill of cyanide on the Tanami Highway in Central
Australia killed more than 850 birds and a dingo in February
2002.

Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF),
said a similar spill of nuclear waste could have devastating
consequences.

It also raised serious concerns about the viability of
transporting radioactive material on the rail network, he said.

The Ghan derailed after it collided with a truck on a level
crossing in Ban Ban Springs, 130km south of Darwin, last
December.

"These accidents highlight the transport vulnerabilities that we
have in the territory," he said.

"The government has not made a convincing or compelling case
about how we can safely move the waste through the territory."

The federal government is currently considering three sites in
the NT for a nuclear waste dump.

But Mr Sweeney claims it could potentially expose local
communities and the environment to unacceptable levels of
radiation.

"The federal governments response is politically driven, rushed
and lacks a scientific foundation," he said.

"Accidents can happen at any time and there is no way of
stopping them."

The Stuart Highway was closed until about 2pm on Thursday, with
police wearing protective masks blocking off the major artery
for more than one kilometre on either side of the spill.

Motorists were urged to avoid the area completely or delay their
trips while a specialist team began the clean-up.

The Environment Centre NT (ECNT) said the accident highlighted
the need for tighter mining industry regulations in the
territory.

"Mining companies are rushing to increase production to maximise
profits in the current boom, but government has failed to
increase resources to protect the public and the environment
from the adverse impacts of the boom," said ECNT coordinator
Peter Robertson.

Sloppy practices risked thousands of tonnes of zinc spilling
into the Gulf, he said, adding that there was insufficient
government oversight into the transport and use of toxic
materials such as cyanide and heavy metals.

"We do not accept initial assurances that the cyanide spill is
readily containable and will not result in any longer term
impacts," he said.

"Cyanide is a very complex chemical which, as well as being
toxic itself, forms a large number of toxic breakdown compounds,
especially when it comes into contact with water." 	AAP   


 'thewest.com.au'         'The West Australian' is a
trademark of West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 30 Connecticut Post: Atomic workers urged to check aid eligibility

ROB VARNON rvarnon@ctpost.com

Article Last Updated: 02/07/2007 11:09:56 PM EST

Connecticut workers who helped build atomic weapons  and may be 
dying from exposure to those materials  are again being offered 
help in navigating the confusing compensation process set up by 
the federal government.

 The Labor Department said Monday its resource centers are 
prepared to help those workers apply for lost wages and other 
benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program.

 But an advocate for atomic workers said people should instead be 
calling on Congress to rewrite the law because, in the program's 
seven-year life, fewer than 20 percent of the claimants have 
received payments to cover their medical costs and loss of wages. 
In Connecticut, the rate of payment is even worse, at about 13 
percent.

 Terrie Barrie, an advocate with Colorado-based Alliance of
Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups, said Wednesday the program is
so complicated very few people are receiving benefits, "less
than 20 percent" of those eligible.

 "We need comprehensive reform," Barrie said. "So these sick,
sick workers who are dying can get the compensation they
deserve."

 A spokeswoman for the labor department did not return a call
for comment Wednesday.

 EEOICP, as it is known, was enacted in 2000 after years of
pressure from advocates who claimed these workers were dying of
cancers and other diseases caused by handling nuclear materials.

 Successful claimants get a $150,000 lump-sum payment but 
additional payments depend on individual factors, such as lost 
wages and medical costs. The program lists work sites throughout 
the country where employees may have come into contact with 
atomic materials. The sites included U.S. Department of Energy 
facilities and contractors working for the department.

 In Connecticut, workers at American Chain &Cable Co. in
Bridgeport reduced the diameter of uranium rods used in the
Manhattan Project during 1944. The Manhattan Project produced
the world's first three atomic bombs, including the two dropped
on Japanese cities in 1945.

 Only people employed or relatives of those employed at American
Chain in 1944 are eligible to apply for compensation. As of
Wednesday, 34 applications for benefits were filed and only
three were approved.

 On the other side of Bridgeport in 1950, workers at Bridgeport
Brass Co.'s Havens Lab worked on ways to improve the process of
extruding uranium. They also stored, cut and may have rolled
uranium at Bridgeport Brass' Housatonic Pilot Plant between 1952
and 1962, according to the Department of Energy.

 Bridgeport Brass workers filed 77 claims; 26 were approved.

 In Seymour, at the Seymour Specialty Wire Co., employees also
worked on extruding uranium in the 1960s.

 There were 14 applications filed by Seymour Specialty Wire
workers or their relatives and none were approved.

 The Labor Department recognizes nine other Connecticut work
sites where components for atomic weapons were made. They are
Anaconda Co. of Waterbury; Combustion Engineering of Windsor;
Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory of Middletown;
Dorr Corp. of Stamford; Fenn Machinery Co. of Hartford; Machlett
Laboratories of Springdale; New England Lime Co. of Canaan;
Sperry Products Inc. of Danbury; and Torrington Co. of
Torrington.

 According to the Labor Department, 440 claims were filed in
Connecticut but only 58 received any payments, for that
approximately 13 percent approval rate.

 In its press release, the Labor Department said it will focus
on helping people who have already had claims approved for
medical assistance but who need to gain approval for lost wages
and other compensation.

 According to Barrie, the claims process and its multiple
applications is part of the problem. A person must first prove
he or she, or a relative, worked at the site during the years
the company used atomic materials. The applicant must also prove
there is some medical condition caused by exposure to that
material and that often involves cancer.

 Cancer claims really make the process difficult, she said,
because a division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control gets
involved and does what is called a "radiation dose
reconstruction." Barrie said the dose reconstruction is just
what it sounds like  the agency uses whatever documents are
available to calculate how much radiation a worker was exposed
to and, if it was not above a certain level, the claim is
rejected.

 Even when someone meets the government's criteria and gets
through the first round to win a $150,000 lump sum payment and
medical cost payments, he or she must reapply for any lost wages
due to sickness, according to Barrie.

 She said she works with Colorado workers who are dying while
they fight for compensation. "It's horrible," she said.

 For more information on the EEOIC program call the Labor
Department's Amherst, N.Y., office at 1-800-941-3943.Print
Friendly View   			 Email Article   					Return to Top  	 	  

 © 1999-2007 MediaNews Group Newspapers
*****************************************************************
 31 Salt Lake Tribune: Officials again protest Divine Strake explosion

Huntsman, Hatch, Utah Senate emphasize their reservations

By Robert Gehrke 
The Salt Lake Tribune 

Article Last Updated: 02/08/2007 01:04:44 AM MST

WASHINGTON - Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Utah 
Senate urged federal officials Wednesday not to conduct the 
massive blast known as Divine Strake at the Nevada Test Site, 
arguing Utahns have been burned by government promises in the 
past. 

    “People have died because of previous nuclear testing at the
Nevada Test Site,” Huntsman wrote in a letter to Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman. “The people who survived prior testing
should not have to fear that the unexpected or unexplained will
happen again.” 

    Wednesday was the deadline for public comments on the
proposed detonation of 700 tons of explosives, which would be
used to create computer models to simulate attacks on
underground bunkers. 

    Some Utahns were concerned it would spread radiation left by
Cold Ware atomic bomb tests. 

    Huntsman also forwarded transcripts of hearings he sponsored
where Utahns aired their opinions on the proposed test. 

    Hatch again urged officials to consider moving the test,
citing inconsistencies in the information that has been provided
to the public and “the lack of public acceptances of this
experiment.” 

    The Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency has said that 
relocating the test would cost about $100 million and set the 
research back several years, although Hatch says his staff was 
originally told that it would take $30 million. 

    Hatch also suggested that the Energy Department's
environmental study on the risk of Divine Strake should be
reviewed by a panel of independent scientists. 

    On Wednesday, the Utah Senate passed a resolution objecting
to the test, stating that “much more needs to be done to assure
that there is never a repeat of the immense suffering endured by
citizens of Utah and nearby states due to the nuclear fallout
from past tests at the Nevada Test Site.” 

    Washington and Kane counties, the city of St. George and the
town of Springdale also have passed resolutions opposing the
test. 

    However, Charles Wight, a physical chemist at the University
of Utah specializing in explosives tests, said that people are
unduly alarmed by the blast. 

    “I think a lot of people are very sensitive to what has
happened in the past and it's an emotional issue and not a lot
of people have taken a careful look at the scientific evidence,”
said Wight, who studied the government's analysis at Hatch's
request. 

    Wight said in an interview that each day Americans are
exposed to about 200 times the radiation that would drift off
the test site in a worst-case scenario, through things like
watching television, taking plane rides or receiving X-rays. 

    “It's safe,” Wight said. 

    Reno Attorney Bob Hager, who sued to stop the test on behalf
of two Western Shoshone Indian tribes and Downwinders, said
that, “There is no way this test exercise ought to be allowed to
occur.” 

    He said his experts can demonstrate that the test is far
riskier than the agencies acknowledge. 

   Small particles from the explosion, including plutonium left
over from past atomic tests, will be carried 1,250 miles by a
slow wind and, if they reach the upper atmosphere, could travel
around the world. 

    “The entire country is at risk from particles [described] in
this environmental assessment,” Hager said. “This is the third
time they have falsely assured us there is nothing to be
concerned about.” 
    
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 32 CBC: Hacker drops a bomb on nuclear watchdog's website
     
CANADA | OTTAWA
				 				 				 					Story Tools: E-MAIL | PRINT | Text Size: S M
Last Updated: Thursday, February 8, 2007 | 5:31 PM ET 

Someone hacked into the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's 
website and inserted a photograph of a nuclear explosion â€” 
spurring the agency to call in the RCMP. 

The commission said theÂ media releases section of its website
was vandalized byÂ the hacker. However, a spokesman emphasized
thatÂ a person without a secure governmentÂ loginÂ would not be
able to access potentially dangerous information â€”Â such
asÂ part of the agency's internal siteÂ that tracks the movement
of high-risk radioactive sealed sources. 

According to a report in Thursday's Ottawa Citizen, the
commission's current and archived news releases were renamed
"security breaches" and contained a photo of a mushroom cloud. 

The photo was under the heading "for Immediate Release" and was
accompanied by a caption reading: "Please dont [sic] put me in
jailÂ â€¦ oops, I divided by zero." 

Commission spokesman AurÃ¨le Gervais confirmed the defacement of
the site and said the pages were disabled minutes after the
newspaper contacted the agency. 

Gervais said the vandalism occurred on a part of the agency's
site run by an external provider with no link to the internal
site. 

A secure government login is needed to access the internal site
with sensitive information, he said. 

Still, the commission considers the incident "very serious" and
has called the RCMP to investigate, Gervais said. He said it is
the first time such a breach has occurred at the commission. 
Government sites 'surprisingly easy' to hack: expert
 

But the sensitivity of the commission's mandate raises
legitimate concerns about the safety of government-run websites,
said Brian O'Higgins, the chief technology officer with Third
Brigade, an Ottawa internet security firm. 

"It's surprisingly easy to get onto the big servers and do this
kind of defacement. The threat isn't getting better, it's
getting worse," O'Higgins told CBC News Online. 

O'Higgins said the increased variety of software and software
upgrades for publishing to the internet opens up more and more
vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit. 

O'Higgins said it was clear from the way the commission's site
was defaced that the hacker was more interested in drawing
attention to the vandalism than finding secrets. 

ButÂ he warned that defacement of sites is a declining trend as
more hackers adopt a stealthy approach in hopes of finding a way
to profit from their intrusions. 							 Continue Article 						
						 						 							 	 			 	 							 							 								
Copyright © CBC 2007                             
*****************************************************************
 33 SCT: Depleted uranium leaving Sequoyah Fuels this week

Sequoyahcountytimes.com

111 N. Oak St. Sallisaw, OK 74955 (918)-775-4433 or 
1-800-495-4433
  
 BY SALLY MAXWELL, MANAGING EDITOR 

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:03 PM CST 

The U.S. Army has begun removing about one million pounds of 
depleted uranium, or DUF4, from Sequoyah Fuels at Gore.

The removal of the DUF4 is another step in the plant's closing.

John Ellis, Sequoyah Fuels president, said the removal began 
Sunday and will most likely continue throughout the week.

He said the DUF4 is stored in sealed 55-gallon drums. The drums 
are stacked into steel containers, which are then welded and 
sealed. Each container holds about 38,000 pounds of DUF4, he 
added.

Both the drums and the steel containers are checked for leaks, he 
added. The containers are being taken to a former atomic bomb 
testing site in Nevada.

"It will actually will be buried at that site," Ellis said. 

Ellis said he expected the entire million pounds of DUF4 to be 
removed from Sequoyah Fuels by Friday.

The removal of the DUF4, which Ellis described as a
low-radiation product with a bright green color, was made
possible through the Defense Authorization Act sign by President
George W. Bush last year.

Ellis said the Oklahoma legislative delegation helped with the
removal of the depleted uranium. U.S. Congressman Dan Boren
(D-Okla.) and U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and U.S. Sen. Tom
Coburn (R-Okla.) worked on getting the language in the Defense
Authorization Act requiring removal of the depleted uranium by
the U.S. Army.

Sequoyah Fuels originally processed uranium for fuel rods for
nuclear power generators, and then sold the depleted uranium to
the U.S. Army for armor-piercing bullets.

Closed since 1993, Sequoyah Fuels has been in the long process
of closing ever since.

Ellis said the next step in closing the plant will be for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue a draft
environmental statement. He expects that will happen within four
months.

Then the NRC will hold a public hearing locally on the draft
environmental statement, probably in July or August. 

The final statement will then be adopted and reclamation of the 
property will begin. That will include the disposal, on site, of 
contaminated materials. The materials will probably be stored in 
a lined cell. It is expected that process may take as long as 
three years.

Ellis said the only thing left standing will be the main office
building, which he hopes can be useful to some company or
organization in the future.

When the site is finally closed, the U.S. Department of Energy
has agreed to take possession of the plant and between 100 and
300 acres surrounding the building.

Ellis said that the government will probably continue to monitor
the groundwater at the site.

Ellis said it will take about five more years to completely
close the site and transfer ownership. He has said in the past
that he plans to retire at that time. 

  © Cookson Hills Publishers, Inc.   
*****************************************************************
 34 New West Network: Utah Says, NO to Divine Strake 

If it's not love then it's the bomb that will bring us together
 				
Utah Says, NO to Divine Strake
 				
Utah lawmakers took a largely united stand Wednesday against the 
controversial Divine Strake test slated to take place in the 
adjacent Nevada desert. According to both The Salt Lake Tribune 
and Deseret Morning News, legislators passed a joint measure 
opposing Divine Strake with a vote of 26-3. 

In addition to this resolution Gov. John Huntsman, who has been 
an outspoken critic of the test urged Utahns, with the help of 
ABC Channel 4 News to enact an unprecedented letter-writing 
campaign, which ultimately yielded over 3000 letters expressing 
resistance to the blast. 

Utahs hostile opposition to the planned blast should come as no 
surprise. Citizens along with politicians joined forces in 
opposition to the detonation beginning as early as last summer, 
in perhaps the most bipartisan effort in recent state history. 
Rep. Jim Matheson, whose own father suffered the effects of 
living downwind of test sites in the 1950s was staunchly against 
the test from the beginning and spoke out against it early last 
year; but concerns about the test gained more mainstream 
legitimacy once some of Utahs iconic Republicans got on board. 
Sen. Orrin Hatch for example began expressing his own resistance 
to the test after meeting with concerned citizens in southern 
Utah last fall. 

When the Department of Energy failed to make good on claim to 
hold open information summits with Utahns last month, Gov. 
Huntsman himself stepped in, holding meetings, which allowed 
citizens to voice their anxieties openly. The meeting was 
emotional, but also informed as citizens took to the microphone 
to tell stories of loss and illness in their families that 
resulted from military tests performed in the same area during 
the 1950s. 

Department of Energy officials claim the detonation of the 
700-ton, non-nuclear bomb will not pose any health risks, Utahns 
arent buying it; and while its unusual to hear Utahns express 
distrust in their government, its understandable given past 
promises of safety that proved to be untrue. 

In the end, Utah has spoken, now all thats left to do is sit
and wait and maybe start preparing for a statewide campout in
the Nevada desert. 
				 				
© 2007 NewWest, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 35 Ventura County Star: Field Lab group meets tonight for reports 

Simi Valley

By Star staff

February 8, 2007

The Santa Susan Field Laboratory Work Group will meet from 6:30 
to 10 p.m. today at the Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center. 

The group reviews cleanup and related issues concerning the 
facility south of Simi Valley. At the meeting, a representative 
of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control will 
present an overview of the cleanup of the site. 

 In addition, a Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
representative will discuss the status of the Field Laboratory's
discharge permit, the appeal filed by the property's current
owner, Boeing Co., to the State Water Resources Control Board
and recent compliance issues. 

The public will be able to comment and ask questions. 

The meeting will be in the Main Stage Theatre at the Cultural
Arts Center, 3050 Los Angeles Ave. For more information, call
John Beach with the Environmental Protection Agency at
415-97347. 

  2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.       Ventura County Star
*****************************************************************
 36 ABC4.com: Huntsman: Divine Strake could lead to more testing in Nevada -
          
February 8, 2007 - 10:42 PM                                                                                                                                              

Utah's Governor is warning that Divine Strake could lead to
further bomb tests at the Nevada test site. 

That's why - in a new, strongly worded letter- Jon Huntsman is
turning up the heat on the Bush administration. 

Huntsman wants to make very clear to Washington that he not only
opposes Divine Strake but will also do everything in his power
to stop it. 

And the Governor makes this very clear in the letter to the
Secretary of Energy. "...there is no assurance that this test
will not lead to a resumption of testing at the Nevada test
site," Huntsman wrote. 

The Governor also writes passionately about those Utahns who
have already suffered or died from nuclear fallout. "People who
survived prior testing should not have to fear that the
unexpected will happen again." 

Congressman Jim Matheson is also again weighing in on the issue.

He now wants complete details on how much Divine Strake will
cost and is also pressing the Energy Secretary to look at
alternative sites.
*****************************************************************
 37 reviewjournal.com: Report to show Yucca plan too costly

  Feb. 08, 2007

Nevada raising questions about repository

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU        

WASHINGTON -- The state of Nevada plans today to unveil a report 
that argues the true cost of a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository "vastly exceeds" that of leaving radioactive waste at 
reactor sites for the foreseeable future. 

In the latest move to raise questions about the Yucca site, 100 
miles northwest of Las Vegas, state officials commissioned an 
economic analysis they said shows more savings the longer spent 
fuel is kept on site. 

"The cost savings of storage relative to constructing Yucca 
increase the longer the repository is delayed," a summary states. 
Over 200 years, it would be cheaper by $24.1 billion to store 
waste at reactors than to build the Nevada repository, the study 
concludes. 

The study assumes that by then alternatives to Yucca Mountain 
will have been discovered or developed, making the Nevada site 
unnecessary. 

The Energy Department was forwarded a copy of the report 
Wednesday but had no comment. 

The study, performed by Nevada technical consultant Michael 
Thorne, applies a "discount rate" accounting principle to 
DOE-estimated costs to build the repository versus keeping waste 
on site. The principle holds that a dollar spent today is worth 
more than a dollar spent tomorrow. 

Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said the White House budget office requires agencies to
incorporate such discount rates into long-term projects, but he
said the Energy Department for some reason did not do that for
Yucca Mountain. 

DOE in 2002 estimated a Yucca Mountain repository will cost $58
billion to build and operate while dry cask storage would cost
$4 million per reactor per year, multiplied by 103 active
plants, more costly in the long run, according to the report. 

"DOE did a faulty analysis that illustrated reactor storage was
vastly more expensive than Yucca Mountain, but when you apply
the discount rates that they were required to do the numbers
come out differently," Loux said. 

"I would say take these same assumptions and run them through
OMB or GAO or CBO and they will show these numbers are not
cooked in any way," said Loux, referring to government financial
agencies. 

Brian O'Connell, an executive who monitors Yucca Mountain
financial matters, said the analysis could prove helpful to
explore long-term repository costs, an area where there still is
much uncertainty. 

"It is the first such calculation I have seen using discount
cost methodology," said O'Connell, nuclear waste manager for the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 

O'Connell added that cost is only one among several reasons the
government and industry have advanced for building a repository.
	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 38 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Waste dump loses support 

Today: February 08, 2007 at 7:39:52 PST 

Nuclear regulator says government should scrap Yucca Mountain 
dump and start over

Outgoing Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr.
has said what Nevadans have been saying for two decades: Forget
Yucca Mountain. 

The planned nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas
has been fatally flawed since the beginning, and McGaffigan says
a major part of the problem is that the process to select the
site was unfair. 

All along, Congress has ignored science and chosen political
solutions. Instead of studying three sites in Nevada, Texas and
Washington, as had been mandated under federal law, lawmakers
did the politically expedient thing in 1987 by singling out
Nevada, which at the time had a small and not very powerful
congressional delegation. Congress passed the so-called Screw
Nevada Bill, which bypassed a study and designated Yucca
Mountain as the site. Nevada has been in strident opposition
since. The state and federal governments have spent millions of
dollars in legal fights, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev., is leading the strong congressional effort to stop the
Yucca Mountain repository. 

McGaffigan has declared that the project is not "politically
viable." 

"There is no chance Yucca can go forward under current statute,"
McGaffigan said in a story by Lisa Mascaro in Wednesday's Las
Vegas Sun. "I would go back to the beginning. When you go out of
process it's a problem, it's a huge political problem. If a
process is done fairly, I think you have a shot." 

He said the plan needs to be put "on a path where states are
treated from the get-go with great respect and deference - and I
don't believe that will result in 50 states saying no. 

"If you chose a course that is hostile to the state ... if you
try to jam something down a state's throat, it won't work." 

McGaffigan is speaking out because he is dying from cancer. He
is a supporter of nuclear energy and the creation of a waste
repository, but beyond the inequity, he sees other problems with
Yucca Mountain. People at the Energy Department, he feels, have
been avoiding issues, making unrealistic promises and hoping
succeeding administrations would fulfill them. 

Energy Department officials "managed to lock themselves into
solutions that didn't work," he said. "I grew more frustrated
over time that we weren't honestly dealing with the issue." 

There is no question the project was simply a bad idea to start
with, and it has been compounded by terrible science and shoddy
work, some of which has had to be redone. "Rework is not a good
sign of a healthy project," McGaffigan said. 

In a commentary piece written for Energy Daily, McGaffigan said
there had been a "quarter century of bad law, leading to bad
regulations, bad personnel policy, bad budget policy and bad
science advice." 

Still, President Bush, who approved the project in 2002, wants
to push ahead and has put nearly $500 million for Yucca Mountain
in the proposed budget he sent to Congress. Energy Department
officials expressed "some level of confidence" they can meet
their latest deadline - completing the license application next
year. But the department has a sorry performance history. The
project was originally slated to open in 1998, and now, using
the most optimistic projections, it could open in 2020. 

Burial of high-level nuclear waste is not the answer, whether at
Yucca Mountain or anywhere else. It is simply too dangerous. It
would require carting the highly radioactive waste around the
country, causing increased risk of nuclear accidents on the
nation's highways. Burial would also make the waste susceptible
to earthquakes, which could split casks open and hasten what
appears to be inevitable - that the waste will eventually leech
into the ground water. 

The only realistic answer is to store the waste, as many
reactors are doing, in heavily fortified above-ground casks
until there is a better answer, such as recycling. McGaffigan
has said a blue-ribbon panel should be appointed to study
proposals and bring a new plan to Congress after the 2008
elections. 

World Nuclear News, an industry online publication, quoted
Edward Sproat, the Energy Department official in charge of Yucca
Mountain, as responding to that criticism with what is simply an
incredible answer. "The site is Yucca Mountain," he said. "That
decision was made in 2002. The next step is, can you license a
repository at that site? That's where we are now." 

The answer should now be clear. No, absolutely not. The
administration should be listening to the wise words of Edward
McGaffigan. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 World Nuclear News: BNFL breaks up further

 07 February 2007 

The Sellafield site (Image: British Nuclear Group) 	   

BNFL has commenced the sale of its specialist nuclear 
decommissioning business, British Nuclear Group Project Services 
(BNGPS).
 	 	 	 	 	 	
The concern employs over 730 workers with extensive technical 
waste and decommissioning expertise in the nuclear and hazardous 
waste industries. BNGPS has many contracts at civil nuclear sites 
in the UK, including significant involvement at Magnox nuclear 
power plants and the Sellafield site, Europe's largest. It 
performs that work as a contractor for the sites' owner, the 
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which in future will put such 
work out to competitive tender.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
BNGPS's Ben Todd told WNN the company is "A hard one to value, 
but a great unit for sale." It holds no licenses, has no 
regulatory issues and consists mainly of ready-trained nuclear 
experts, complete with a business support units. Todd added: "The 
price would be purely up to the market, and the value of the 
skill set and experience set against each bidder's own ambitions 
in the decommissioning marketplace."
 	 	 	 	 	 	
A BNFL statement said that BNGPS also has a "strategic foothold" 
supporting the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) to 
develop its framework to safely decommission the Russian navy's 
nuclear fleet. 
	 	 	 	 	 	
In addition, BNGPS works in partnership with the European Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development on projects in Eastern Europe 
such as the Project Management Unit at Kozloduy, Bulgaria. That 
unit is responsible for the design, program management and 
implementation of decommissioning strategies for nuclear 
facilities.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Todd told WNN that the sale could be fast, in line with 
government policy to dispatch its nuclear assets to create a new 
industry in line with its new energy policy, due this summer.

BNFL British Nuclear Group
*****************************************************************
 40 Deseret News: EnergySolutions bill moves on to the House
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, February 8, 2007

As expected, SB155, allowing EnergySolutions a freer hand at its 
one square mile property in Tooele County, passed the Utah Senate 
with little opposition Wednesday.

       However, Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. remains undecided on the 
bill, should it pass the House.

       The bill would remove gubernatorial and legislative 
oversight from changes made on the specified property, and give 
sole discretion to state regulators. EnergySolutions remains 
required to handle only the least "hot" radioactive waste, 
designated A Waste.

       On a 22-5 vote the bill now heads to the House. 

      "The governor is evaluating this bill," Huntsman spokesman 
Michael Mower told the Deseret Morning News. Huntsman "has not 
made a final decision on whether or not he will sign this 
legislation." 
			  		 		   
© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company                                   [ /]                                   
*****************************************************************
 41 The Spectrum: Passage of SB 155 an outrage

www.thespectrum.com - The Spectrum, St. George, UT             

Thursday, February 8, 2007          

The Utah Legislature is sending a mixed message to its residents 
and the nation by allowing a bill that benefits EnergySolutions 
to operate on its own 1-square-mile property in Tooele County 
without legislative or gubernatorial regulation.

Senate Bill 155 passed the Senate by a 23-6 vote Wednesday, the 
day after Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr., made a televised plea to Utahns 
by commercial to voice public opposition to Divine Strake, a 
700-ton ammonium-nitrate, fuel oil bomb to be detonated at the 
Nevada Test Site. Though the public comment period on the 
conventional explosion closed Wednesday, opinions about SB 155 
may still hold some water in Utah's House of Representatives that 
has yet to vote on the bill.

The reality is that the end of the Cold War has left the United 
States with a high quantity of radioactive waste. The disposal of 
this waste is as intense an issue as the nuclear plants and 
nuclear warheads that generate it. Yet despite that, the issues 
have remained separate though they are closely related. That's 
why it's hypocritical of Utah's elected officials to say on the 
one hand, oppose Divine Strake at the Nevada Test Site - home of 
hundreds of nuclear tests that can be directly attributed to 
thousands of cancer cases in Southern Utah - and on the other 
hand approve a bill that will enable one company to raise its 
disposal cell from the current 54 to 83 feet.

Any legislation that benefits one company is just plain wrong,
aside from whether there is regulation or deregulation. It sets
a precedent the Beehive State shouldn't begin to initiate.

While EnergySolutions stores low-level radioactive waste not
associated with nuclear warheads, it has repeatedly appealed to
store hotter or "high level" radioactive waste that could come
from such an arsenal. Giving them full reign to their facility
without governmental oversight will strengthen their position to
attract and store such hotter waste - more than they were
originally contracted, zoned and permitted to place on its site.

Let's not turn a blind eye to the fact that the largest company
of its type in this country has also made strides in winning its
way into people's hearts. Its goodwill and confidence campaign
of tens of millions of dollars is branded on the former Delta
Center, and now has a foundation that offers scholarships to
Utah's 10th graders.

This even extended to 53 state political candidates for a total
of $12,450 in campaign contributions. Therein lies a strong
appearance of EnergySolutions buying its way out of the vice of
governmental regulation and public dissension, which is as
offensive as the fact that Utah has already amassed a reputation
as a nuclear dumping ground. Residents should be outraged and
appalled by the Senate passing the bill so easily. We certainly
are.

 Copyright ©2007 The Spectrum
*****************************************************************
 42 CBC: Time for a uranium refinery, Areva boss says

Bruce Johnstone, Saskatchewan News Network; 

Regina Leader-Post
                        
Published: Thursday, February 08, 2007                           

REGINA -- Saskatchewan's uranium industry, which produces 
one-third of the world's natural uranium, needs to have a 
refinery in the province in 10 years, says the head of the 
province's second-largest uranium company.

That means a decision on a refinery has to be made soon, says
Don Ching, president and CEO of Areva Resources Canada, which
operates the McClean Lake uranium mine and mill in northwestern
Saskatchewan and is developing the nearby Midwest project.

Saskatoon-based Areva Resources also has minority positions in
the Cigar Lake and McArthur River uranium mines and Key Lake
mill, which are all operated and majority owned by Cameco Corp.

Areva company produced 9.5 million pounds of uranium oxide, or
"yellowcake," in 2005.

"Cameco and Areva, who are two of the big players in this
industry, have both indicated that a new processing plant is
going be required by the industry in approximately 10 years,"
Ching told the Regina and District Chamber of Commerce on
Wednesday.

While a decade might seem like a long time, Ching said the lead
times required by the highly regulated, capital-intensive
uranium industry necessitate an early decision on any refinery
or processing facility.

"It takes two to three years" to develop plans for the facility,
said Ching, a former labour lawyer and Crown corporation
executive who took over the top job at the French
government-owned uranium exploration and mining company in
January 2005.

"It takes at least four years, in my mind, to get through the
regulatory process, and it takes at least a year to a year and a
half to identify a site and make sure that the folks who live in
that area are comfortable with being the site for this kind of
project," he told chamber members.

"We're getting very, very close to the time period where one has
to make a decision as to what you're going to do, or are we
going to do it," he added.

The public will have to strongly support any proposed uranium
refinery or processing facility in order for Areva or any other
company to proceed with the multi-million-dollar facility, Ching
said.

He was referring to plans in the late 1970s to build a uranium
refinery at Warman that were opposed by a significant number of
local residents and eventually scuttled.

But support for uranium mining in Saskatchewan has been rising
during the past decade to 84 per cent at present from a low of
63 per cent in 1990, according to recent opinion polls.

In addition, 80 per cent of respondents would like to see
further value-added processing of uranium in Saskatchewan, while
just over 70 per cent support building a nuclear reactor in the
province.

"So there's good, strong support," Ching said, adding the
industry will not proceed with any large project without it. "I
know for a fact that Areva will not build a plant anywhere in
the world where the local folks are not prepared to accept it
being in their community."

Ching added communities where the "vast majority of residents"
support the building of a uranium refinery or processing
facility, and actually host the construction of such a facility,
are the most likely to see further developments. © The
StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007 		 	 	  	          	 		 		 		  		 

This site is a part of the canada.com Network.

Â© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of . All rights
*****************************************************************
 43 [NYTr] Activists Warn UN on Downgrading Disarmament
 
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:46:05 -0500 (EST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Dave Muller (southnews)

InterPress Service - Feb 7, 2007
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36480

Activists Warn UN on Downgrading Disarmament

by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 7 (IPS) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who last 
month acknowledged the positive role of civil society in the peace 
process in Africa, is facing the wrath of a formidable coalition of 
non-governmental organisations opposing his plans to restructure one of 
the politically sensitive departments in the world body: the Department 
for Disarmament Affairs (DDA).

Turning to U.N. member states for help to block the controversial 
proposal, the 12 groups say stripping DDA of its departmental status may 
undermine its capacity to fulfill its present functions and most 
certainly prevent it from realising its potential.

"A demoted DDA would lack the flexibility, mandate, and resources to 
play a significant role in emerging issues on the arms control agenda," 
the coalition argued in a letter sent Wednesday to all 192 U.N. missions 
in New York.

The coalition includes the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy; the 
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Hague Appeal for 
Peace; Global Action to Prevent War; Global Policy Forum; International 
Action Network on Small Arms; and the NGO Committee on Disarmament, 
Peace and Security.

Representing mostly New York-based civil society organisations, the 
members of the coalition traditionally work on issues relating to 
disarmament and security in the U.N. context.

Addressing a closed-door meeting of the General Assembly Monday, Ban 
formally introduced his proposal to change the status of DDA into an 
"Office for Disarmament Affairs" -- "with a direct line to me, thus 
ensuring access and more frequent interaction."

He also proposed that the new office would be headed by a Special 
Representative of the Secretary-General or a High Representative. But he 
gave no indication of rank, triggering speculation about the possibility 
of a downgraded DDA.

The existing DDA is headed by an Under-Secretary-General (USG), the 
third highest rank in the Secretariat, after the secretary-general and 
his deputy. The proposed new office is likely to he headed by an 
Assistant Secretary-General, lower in rank to USGs.

Asked whether the United States is behind the effort to demote DDA, John 
Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers Committee on 
Nuclear Policy, told IPS: "I don't know."

But Ban's proposal, he said, is reminiscent of the successful campaign 
of U.S. Senator Jesse Helms and other conservatives in the U.S. Congress 
in the 1990s to dismantle the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

"That laid the groundwork for the retrograde U.S. positions on 
disarmament in this decade," Burroughs said.

"It should be recognised that the influence of the anti-multilateralist 
neo-conservatives is on the decline in the United States; their agenda 
should not be imitated at the United Nations."

Last week, the 117-member Non-Aligned Movement expressed reservations 
over the proposal to downgrade DDA. So have Western nations such as 
Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Austria and New Zealand.

In its letter to member states, the coalition said that DDA, as an 
independent department, is shielded to some extent from the intense 
political pressures that disarmament/non-proliferation issues generate.

"If DDA is more closely associated with the secretary-general, 
inevitably political pressures from all quarters would impede 
achievement of objectives," the coalition pointed out.

Further, the secretary-general himself could be harmed by failure to 
meet heightened expectations. The secretary-general can find other ways 
to strategically intervene on important matters where his influence 
could make a difference, the coalition noted. In a separate letter to 
member states, Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security 
Institute, points out that downgrading the head of Disarmament Affairs 
-- regardless of the title -- places this person in a position junior to 
many of the principal officers with whom he or she must work.

This includes the chief U.N. official servicing the Conference on 
Disarmament in Geneva, as are the heads of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency and the verification bodies for the Chemical Weapons 
Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

"All these officials have the rank of USG," said Granoff, "How this 
person is to exercise any authority when he or she is in fact junior to 
all other officials (dealing with disarmament) is not explained."

Burroughs told IPS putting a Disarmament Affairs office directly under 
the secretary-general would expose disarmament matters to political 
pressure from the Permanent Five (the United States, Britain, France, 
China and Russia), and also from groups like the Non-Aligned Movement.

Further, he said, the secretary-general would run the risk of failing to 
meet heightened expectations.

"It is better to have an independent DDA, somewhat shielded from these 
pressures, and for the secretary-general to intervene strategically when 
he can make a difference."

Burroughs said the mission of DDA is too important to play politics with 
restructuring.

Member states should work with the secretary-general, as he has invited 
them to do, to create an outcome that preserves DDA's status as an 
independent department.

Non-aligned countries should refrain from seeing the head of Disarmament 
Affairs as a position for one of their nationals or as a platform to 
pursue particular issues, Burroughs said.

The secretary-general's proposal affirms that the office would continue 
to implement existing directives. But in practice it might be different.

"In short, we do not want DDA's mandate and chief to change from being 
part of the U.N. secretariat's institutional framework to being 
personally linked to changing secretaries-general," he said. (END/2007)

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 44 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Movement Nuclear-Free Middle East
 
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:43:19 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Granma Daily - Feb 7, 2007
http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/english/news/art56.html

Non-Aligned Movement Wants Nuclear Free Middle East

UNITED NATIONS, February 6.-- The Non Aligned Movement (NAM) called Tuesday
for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, in response to
Israel's admission that it has such arms, reported Prensa Latina.

The organization, made up of 118 member nations, reaffirmed its support for
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation articulated in several documents
including those approved at its 14^th summit held in Havana last September.

The NAM calls for a speeding up of the process based on resolutions passed
by consensus at the UN Security Council and General Assembly, which call
for concrete steps to be taken. It also reiterates that the Israel's
nuclear capacity constitutes a serious and constant threat to the security
of its neighbors and other States, and criticizes Tel Aviv for continuing
to develop its nuclear arsenal.

NAM further demands that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the International
Atomic Energy Agency. Israel is the only country in the region that is not
a member.

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 45 [du-list] Livermore Lab to Escalate Depleted Uranium Testing
 
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:32:00 -0800


<x-flowed>

Article at
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/>http://www.opednews.com/articles/
genera_bob_nich_070206_livermore_lab_to_esc
.htm
Livermore Lab to Escalate Depleted Uranium Testing

__._,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/message/11023;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dmNrNXRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BG1zZ0lkAzExMDIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOAR0cGNJZAMxMTAyMw-->Messages 
in this topic (1) 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOGVraTB2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BG1zZ0lkAzExMDIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA--?act=reply&messageNum=11023>Reply 
(via web post) | 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDc4amZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA-->Start 
a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMnVtZ2JvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA-->Messages 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZ2gwbTkxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Files 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmFkdjY0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA-->Photos 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMTA3cmNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Links 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjZXAxYjNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Database 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaTh1dmJvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Polls 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGgyNWc2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA-->Members 
| 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJkMWpzMjdlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2NhbARzdGltZQMxMTcwOTY3NzE4>Calendar 

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNWxrM3UxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTcwOTY3NzE4>49ff86.jpg 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGkybmRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Change 
settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: 
<mailto:du-list-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: 
Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest | 
<mailto:du-list-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: 
Traditional>Switch format to Traditional
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbzA3bGplBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTcwOTY3NzE4>Visit 
Your Group | <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use 
| <mailto:du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=>Unsubscribe
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcTY5NDloBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDk4OTIEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDgzMjY5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDk2NzcxOA-->Visit 
Your Group
Give Back

<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJtazlqbjRzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNicmFuZARzdGltZQMxMTcwOTY3NzE4;_ylg=1/SIG=11314uv3k/**http%3A//brand.yahoo.com/forgood>Yahoo! 
for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar

<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJvbXI4MTd2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawN0b29sYmFyBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg-;_ylg=1/SIG=11c6dvmk9/**http%3A//toolbar.yahoo.com/%3F.cpdl=ygrps>Get 
it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups

<http://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJvdjljY2p0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMTAwOTg5MgRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwODMyNjkEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNncm91cHMyBHN0aW1lAzExNzA5Njc3MTg->Start 
a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.
.
49ff9a.jpg
__,_._,___  
</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 49ff86.jpg: 00000001,30b565e5,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 49ff9a.jpg: 00000001,30b565e6,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 46 Star-Telegram: Safety lapses found at Pantex

02/08/2007 | 

 By ANNA M. TINSLEY STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER 

Safety signs. Fire extinguishers. Better inventories of hazardous 
chemicals. 

Those steps and others are needed at the nation's only nuclear
weapons assembly plant -- Pantex, near Amarillo -- according to
a new inspection report from the U.S. Energy Department. 

The 9,100-acre facility houses about 3,000 kinds of hazardous
chemicals. 

"We concluded that in most respects, BWXT [the prime contractor]
implemented an effective chemical safety program," according to
the report. "However, we identified several areas that needed
improvement." 

They are: 

Assessing hazards and fire protection equipment and technology.
A compressed-gas facility that contains numerous flammable
chemicals lacked a fire extinguisher and a means to summon the
fire department. 

Posting needed warnings, including outside several facilities
that hold hazardous chemicals. 

Testing all eye wash stations and safety showers in buildings
that hold hazardous chemicals. 

Raising the accuracy of inventories of hazardous chemicals. The
quantities of some chemicals in the database apparently didn't
match up with the amount of chemicals present. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration agreed with the
findings and has asked the contractor to develop a plan to fix
the problems, according to a letter from the administration. 

Anna M. Tinsley, 817-390-7610
*****************************************************************
 47 Grist: Hanford so low | Gristmill: 

The environmental news blog 

by Sarah Kraybill Burkhalter 

at 9:11 AM on 08 Feb 2007 
		

The following is a guest post from Natalie Troyer, publications
and volunteer coordinator at Heart of America Northwest. 

Let's shake a Magic 8-Ball and ask it a probing question. 

[Nuclear waste sign.] "Is it a good idea to dump more nuclear
waste into a site that's already listed as the most contaminated
spot in the Western Hemisphere?" 

"My sources say no," the 8-Ball replies. 

In fact, I think if the 8-Ball had vocal chords, it'd say
something like, "Oh yeah, that's a genius idea. Ranks right up
there with Britney Spears facing her baby the wrong way in a car
seat. Or the invention of fake dog testicles." 

Utterly nonsensical. 

Yet that's exactly what the Department of Energy wants to do --
haul a heap of radioactive waste across our roadways and dump it
off at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Eastern Washington. 

Since it was established in 1943, Hanford has evolved from
producing plutonium and uranium for the U.S. nuclear weapons
arsenal to a Superfund cleanup site dealing with the radioactive
and toxic wastes generated by those operations. Don't be
deceived by the word "cleanup," though. Hanford still looks like
the remnants of a kindergarten classroom after acrylic paint day
-- one big eyesore. 

More than 450 billion gallons of contaminated waste have been
dumped into unlined soil trenches at Hanford. More than a third
of the 177 underground storage tanks have leaked, resulting in
more than a million gallons of liquid high-level nuclear waste
contaminating groundwater near the Columbia River. There's even
talk of restarting a nuclear reactor at Hanford and reprocessing
spent fuel. 

The real kicker, though, is the meager amount of Benjamins
allotted to get the job done effectively and efficiently. The
DOE's recent request for fiscal year 2008 cuts cleanup funding
nationwide by $173 million, after cutting it $760 million in
2007. The president's 2008 budget request for Hanford cleanup is
$1.84 billion. If Hanford cleanup was held "level" with 2005
funding, the cleanup request for 2008, adjusted for inflation,
would be $2.288 billion. 

The president and energy secretary are breaking prior promises
to increase cleanup funding at Hanford, the most contaminated
site in the western hemisphere, and other nuclear waste sites
across the nation. As it stands, the existing cleanup budget
will delay the design of facilities to vitrify the second half
of the high-level nuclear wastes in Hanford's leaky tanks, and
will further postpone cleanup of soil and groundwater. It's
asinine. 

I say, let's grab the Magic 8-Ball and ask it several additional
questions: "Should the federal government spend more to meet its
cleanup obligations at Hanford? And should the DOE focus its
energy on cleaning up the existing mess at Hanford before trying
to add more?" 

Shake, shake, shake. "All signs point to yes." 

You know, the DOE is starting to sound a bit like those
recurring contestants on American Idol, the ones who come in for
their 12th audition, sing a bad karaoke rendition of the
Pussycat Dolls, then throw a temper tantrum when told by the
panel of judges they're not "Idol material." 

Well, in struts the DOE, singing the same old off-key tune about
how hauling more nuclear waste to Hanford and slashing the
cleanup budget are positive things. 

If I had the opportunity, I would tell them, "Excuse me. I don't
mean to be rude, but whatever just came out of your mouth was
excruciatingly horrendous. And, by the way, you look like one of
those creatures that live in the jungle with the massive eyes.
What are they called? Bush baby." 

In my best Simon Cowell accent, of course. 


comment:

  Ok, so where SHOULD it go?

 I used to work at Hanford (affectionally known as "The World's
Largest Daycare" by some), and I can tell you that, in many
respects the place is horribly mismanaged, in addition to having
been the site of a great crime for which, as far as I know, no
one has been jailed ("The Green Runs"--the intentional
unreported release of huge amounts of radioactive contamination
to determine the result).

 But, for all its ills, it is--as HEAN notes--the most crapped
up place in the Western Hemisphere.  Seems like the best place
to put the nasties to me.  Yellowstone doesn't seem wise, or any
other pristine place, and most of the other places have a lot of
people in them, or ag value, or what not.  In fact, if you were
looking for a place to put the most horrible materials, you'd
probably be hard put to find a better place than Hanford (other
than Chelyabinsk).

 We can argue until the cows come home that we ought not to be
creating this waste in the first place, and I say "Roger that,"
but meanwhile Congress, in its infinite wisdom, is pouring
billions into trying to restart commercial nuclear construction
(as Lovins says, it's like putting the paddles to a corpse--you
can make it jump, but it still won't come back to life).  And
those 103 nukes and all those medical facilities and
non-destructive test facilities, and 100 other little
incidential uses are constantly creating nuclear waste.  

 Where should it go?  I vote for Hanford as opposed to anyplace
else.  The people in the Tri-Cities have made their peace with
their deal with the devil--they get billions of federal money
spent there annually that creates lots of cushy jobs for
over-educated types who would either be unemployable elsewhere
and who could never pull down the kind of money that the Hanford
contractors pay.  So there's very little opposition to more
waste in the Tri-Cities (not zero, but pretty close).  And not
nearly as much as there is anywhere else.

 So, again, where should it go?

   
  by JMGat 2:54 PM on 08 Feb 2007 

Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
*****************************************************************
 48 Aiken Today: County endorses SRS nuclear recycling

+ AikenStandard.com 	
 	
Thu, Feb 8, 2007
 		
By PHILIP LORD Senior writer

The Aiken County Council has unanimously endorsed a plan to
bring nuclear recycling to the Savannah River Site.

A resolution was presented to the body Tuesday that supports the
goals of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and
encourages the location of the new U.S. Department of Energy
mission at SRS.

"Energy independence in the United States is critical," the
letter signed by all nine Council members reads. "Aiken County
Council believes that in order for us to become less dependent
on foreign energy sources we must accelerate our commercial
nuclear energy programs. But, only by addressing the issue of
waste from our current reactors and future reactors can our
citizens feel comfortable that the waste will be dealt with in a
safe and efficient manner with minimum risk of proliferation."

The letter added, "We fully support the State of South
Carolina's position that nuclear waste products brought into
South Carolina for processing purposes with an approved pathway
out-of-state storage is the correct approach."

Currently a group comprised of the Savannah River National
Laboratory, which is partnered with the Economic Development
Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield counties, and EnergySolutions
are in the running to be considered for the GNEP mission.

SRNL proposes locating the GNEP mission at SRS, where a new
energy park would be built. EnergySolutions plans to build its
proposed GNEP plant in Barnwell County.

GNEP has the potential to bring $16 billion in capital
investment and crate 8,000 long-term jobs to any of the 11 sites
currently being considered.

All sites are currently doing site characterization work to
determine the possibility of hosting an advanced nuclear fuel
recycling center and/or an advanced recycling reactor, according
to a statement from DOE.

GNEP seeks to create energy by reprocessing nuclear waste that
is currently discarded in America.

Current nuclear technology employed by reactors in the
production of electricity around the world leaves behind tons of
spent nuclear fuel that contains plutonium and other highly
radioactive elements that can be weaponized. Instead of burying
the waste rods – which continue to be radioactive and
heat-producing for centuries – the Bush administration's plan
calls for building special advanced burner reactors that can
fully break down the plutonium and create electricity while
rendering the resulting waste much safer, according to the U.S.
Department of Energy.

Critics of the GNEP program, however, say the Bush plan could
allow the countries supplied with U.S. fuel rods to misuse them
and stockpile plutonium or have it stolen by terrorists despite
the plan's lofty goals. Published reports say the Bush
administration's plan is similar to an ill-fated 1970s
initiative by then-President Jimmy Carter. That plan involved
using specialized fast reactors, none of which currently operate
in the U.S. Carter abandoned the program in 1977 after India
detonated a nuclear weapon that was developed with plutonium
extracted with the aid of a U.S. reprocessing system.

Despite that history, ever-increasing costs for petroleum-based
fuels are leading the Bush administration and nuclear energy
supporters to point to new reactors as a big part of the
solution to the world's energy future. While questions about
funding for the program and whether it should even be
undertaken, rage on in Washington, local officials say they are
excited about the impact winning the project could have on the
local area and on the future of SRS.

Contact Philip Lord at plord@aikenstandard.com                 

  © 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 49 Amarillo Globe Business: Pantex cited for lack of signs 02/08/07

amarillo.com

amarillo.com The Pantex Plant has an effective chemical safety 
program, but government inspectors cited concerns about 
record-keeping discrepancies and the plant's failure to post 
warning signs outside facilities that stored hazardous chemicals 
or high explosives, an audit report released Wednesday said.--> 

Web-posted Thursday, February 8, 2007 

By Jim McBride jim.mcbride@amarillo.com

The Pantex Plant has an effective chemical safety program, but 
government inspectors cited concerns about record-keeping 
discrepancies and the plant's failure to post warning signs 
outside facilities that stored hazardous chemicals or high 
explosives, an audit report released Wednesday said.

 The Energy Department's Office of Inspector General issued a
report Wednesday on its recent review of Pantex's chemical
safety protocols for storing about 3,000 different kinds of
hazardous chemicals.

 "We concluded that in most respects, BWXT, the primary
contractor at the Pantex Plant, implemented an effective
chemical safety program; however, we identified several areas
that needed improvement," the report said.

 Investigators found significant discrepancies in chemical
inventories listed in a plant database, including gallons of
flammable, toxic or corrosive chemicals such as ammonia gas and
hydrochloric acid.

 "We believe that upgrading the database and having an accurate
physical inventory are significant steps toward improving site
emergency assessment and planning," the investigation report
said.

 Investigators also cited concerns about a compressed gas
facility that contained numerous flammable chemicals, had no way
of summoning plant firefighters and lacked a fire extinguisher.

 In another instance, several facilities that contained
hazardous chemicals, including high explosives and flammable
materials, did not have safety warning signs posted outside as
required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
and the National Fire Protection Association. 

An eye wash station and a safety show in a hazardous chemical
storage building also were not inspected as Pantex procedures
require.

 Michael C. Kane, the National Nuclear Security Administration's
associate administrator for management and administration,
agreed that the report identified several areas for improvement
and directed contractor BWXT Pantex to submit a corrective
action plan.

 BWXT said it has transferred its chemical inventory to a new
computer system that will track chemicals more effectively. 

The company also has added a phone and a fire extinguisher to
the compressed gas facility cited in the report and is
conducting reviews of other facilities to ensure that proper
safety signs are posted as appropriate.

 "Once the issues discovered in this inspection were addressed,
Pantex used this as an opportunity to look at its chemical
safety program across the plant to see what additional
improvements can be made to enhance worker safety," BWXT said.
*****************************************************************
 50 The Enquirer: Fernald petitioners win 2nd review
 	 
Last Updated: 8:15 pm | Thursday, February 8, 2007

BY PEGGY O’FARRELL |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

MASON – A federal advisory board today asked for a second
opinion on a petition seeking special compensation status for
former Fernald workers.

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Workers Health today asked
independent consultants Sanford, Cohen and Associates of Vienna,
Va., to review the petition filed by Monroe resident Sandra
Baldridge on behalf of workers employed at the old uranium
foundry in Crosby Township.

The firm also will review documents and data presented by the
National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health, which
determines whether workers at Fernald and other former
Department of Energy sites were made sick because of radiation
and other toxins they were exposed to on the job.

NIOSH officials today recommended denying Baldridge’s petition,
saying they had sufficient information to properly determine how
much radiation Fernald workers were exposed to.

But Baldridge and other petitioners argued the data NIOSH is
using is flawed, incomplete, and, in some cases, falsified.

Staff at Sanford, Cohen and Associates will review Baldridge’s
petition as well as NIOSH’s information and make a
recommendation to the advisory board on whether to grant or deny
the petition.

Baldridge said today that she’s happy with the board’s action.

“That’s what they needed to do. If they had voted today, it
would have been to agree with NIOSH’s recommendation against our
petition,” she said.

Baldridge’s father, Julian Wolff, worked in the inspections
department at Fernald for several years. He died 35 years ago
from rectal and lung cancers.

Baldridge applied for compensation under a federal program
administered by the Department of Labor, but her claim was
denied after a review by NIOSH staff found there was
insufficient proof that radiation at the foundry was the
probable cause of Julian Wolff’s cancer. 					 					 					
 					 					[E-mail this] E-mail this   |   [Printer-Friendly]
*****************************************************************
 51 The Enquirer: Fernald aid hard to get, families say
 	 
Last Updated: 7:56 pm | Thursday, February 8, 2007
 					   				 			
Documenting health claims tough if papers are buried

BY PEGGY O'FARRELL |

MASON - Former workers from one Department of Energy nuclear site 
can't get documents to back up their health claims because the 
paperwork is buried with radioactive waste at another DOE site.

It would be funny, said Daniel McKeel, if only those workers 
weren't dying of cancer.

Members of a federal advisory board heard from about a dozen
former atomic workers and their advocates and family members
Wednesday about problems with the process that governs how those
workers and their families are compensated for illnesses caused
by their jobs.

The process is broken, said McKeel, a retired pathologist from
St. Louis who is helping men and women who worked at DOE sites
in Madison, Ill., file claims for compensation.

If the government does dig up the buried records - they're at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico - there's no
way to know if the records are accurate or complete, McKeel
said, or if the paper they are printed on will survive the
decontamination process.

Those are the sorts of issues the men and women who worked at
the Fernald uranium foundry are up against, said Sandra
Baldridge.

Baldridge's father, Julian, worked at Fernald for several years.
He died of rectal and colon cancer 35 years ago.

Today, the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health will
hear a petition Baldridge filed to have people who worked at
Fernald declared a group for whom NIOSH scientists cannot
determine how much radiation they were exposed to. That
designation would save workers and their families several steps
when they seek compensation for illnesses probably caused by
on-the-job exposure.

Former workers and their survivors argue the dose reconstruction
process is flawed. Records about job duties and contaminants at
DOE sites are incomplete, unavailable or inaccurate, they argue,
and the process doesn't take into account all the hazards
workers faced.

And for survivors such as Ron Wilson, whose father delivered the
mail at Fernald for 31 years, just trying to file a complaint is
too complicated.

Wilson's father, James, died of colon cancer in 1998. "He
carried the mail all over that plant," Wilson said.

The Fairfield man filed a claim to get compensation for his
father, but it was denied. He wants to resubmit the claim, but
the process is too confusing, he said.

At least after Wednesday's hearing, he said, he had a phone
number to call for help.

Larry Elliott, who oversees the dose reconstruction process for
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, said
the agency is trying to make filing claims easier for former
workers and their families. An ombudsman and a claims counselor
have been hired to guide people through the process, he said.

"We hope these folks will aid in minimizing the amount of
frustration that folks who are filing claims or petitions are
experiencing," Elliott said.

The agency is also changing some of the criteria used to
reconstruct how much radiation DOE workers were exposed to as
more information is gathered about how they were exposed and how
cancers develop.

The federal government has paid out about $2.4 billion in
compensation for medical costs and lost productivity to former
energy workers since 2001, when the compensation program was set
up.

About $57 million has been paid out for claims filed by or on
behalf of men and women who worked at Fernald.

Randall Cox, 53, of Hamilton is awaiting word on a claim he
filed on behalf of his father, Manford, who died of cancer in
2003.

Manford Cox made atomic weapons at the old Associated Aircraft
plant in Fairfield.
*****************************************************************
 52 Tracy Press: Council gives support to explosion increases

John Upton/Tracy Press

Thursday, 08 February 2007

An appeal against a permit allowing an increase in outdoor 
explosives testing has been postponed until March. By John Upton 

The morning after the Tracy City Council’s Tuesday 3-1 vote to 
support additional outdoor explosives testing at Site 300, an 
appeal against a permit that allowed the increase was postponed 
until March 7.

Activist Bob Sarvey, whose appeal against the San Joaquin Valley 
Air Pollution Control District permit charged in part that 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had not sufficiently 
investigated the health or sound impacts of the blasts, was 
granted the postponement after the district failed to provide him 
with data he had requested.

The proposed 5,500-home Tracy Hills development next to Site 300 
has dropped its appeal against the permit.

The permit allows as many as 20 blasts up to the equivalent of
350 pounds of TNT at Site 300 in the hills southwest of Tracy,
but Lawrence Livermore spokespeople have said that only three
such blasts are planned in the coming 18 months. Outdoor blasts
greater than 100 pounds have required an air district permit
since 1997.

Larry Sedlacek, deputy associate director of operations in the
lab’s Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, said recently that
the planned blasts wouldn’t include tritium, but he wouldn’t
rule out scheduling additional tests or using tritium in those
tests. Forty-four pounds of depleted uranium were included with
a 350-pound blast in a computer model simulation performed for
the Environmental Protection Agency.

Only Councilwoman Irene Sundberg voted to oppose the increased
explosives tests Tuesday. Mayor Brent Ives did not vote because
he works for the lab.

Councilman Steve Abercrombie said Wednesday he supported the
blasts because explosives testing “is what they do out there.”

Sundberg was one of a handful of locals to attend a Wednesday
evening information session in Tracy that explained steps being
taken by Lawrence Livermore to clean uranium, tritium, volatile
organic compounds, percholates and nitrates from soil and
groundwater at Site 300, which is owned by the U.S. Department
of Energy.

Longtime resident Hector Hernandez attended the session. He said
he can remember one of Site 300’s first blasts in 1955, because
it blew the window out of the front room of his home near the
airport.

“It’s nice that they’re going to do something,” Hernandez said
of the cleanup effort, which could take decades to complete. The
EPA considers the site one of the nation’s most polluted areas.

The city last year asked the lab to spend $74 million to
excavate contaminants. Instead, cleanup funding will be cut from
$16.2 million in 2006 to $8.7 million in 2008.

At least a dozen Lawrence Livermore and Department of Energy
employees were available to answer questions Wednesday, though
they ended up chatting mostly among themselves. Watchdog group
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
provided its own information at the workshop.

Lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver said posters from the information
session would be added in the coming days to
www-envirinfo.llnl.gov.

 To contact reporter John Upton, call 830-4274 
*****************************************************************
 53 KTVB.COM: Energy Co. buys 4,000 acres on Snake River for proposed nuclear
plant

06:17 PM MST on Thursday, February 8, 2007 

Associated Press 

BOISE -- An alternative energy company announced an agreement 
today to buy 4,000 acres along the Snake River to build a 
proposed nuclear power plant. 

Virginia-based Alternate Energy Holdings in December announced 
plans to build a 1,500 megawatt nuclear plant in southwestern 
Idaho. 

The company signed the land purchase agreement with a farmer on 
February first but announced the agreement today. 

Company CEO Don Gillispie says the purchase price was about $20 
million. He declined to identify the farmer. 

If built, the plant would be the first commercial nuclear power 
plant in Idaho. 

The closest community to the proposed plant is Bruneau, south of 
Mountain Home and west of the popular Bruneau Dunes State Park. 
The only commercial nuclear plant in the region sits near the 
Hanford nuclear reservation in southeastern Washington. 

Updated Thu 2.8.07

Edward R. Murrow award for best NW region website - three years

© 2007 KTVB-TV
*****************************************************************
 54 Knox News: ORNL's Zinkle wins prestigious award for radiation research

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

February 8, 2007

OAK RIDGE - Steven Zinkle of Oak Ridge National Laboratory was 
named Wednesday as one of eight winners of the E.O. Lawrence 
Award, a prestigious science honor that includes a gold medal and 
$50,000 honorarium. 

Zinkle, director of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology 
Division, was honored for his research on the effects of 
radiation on materials and the applications for nuclear fission 
and fusion reactors. 

"It's a tremendous honor to be included in the ranks of people 
who've won this award. It's a privilege to be in that company," 
Zinkle said Wednesday. 

The Lawrence Awards are given annually in seven different 
categories, and Zinkle received the top honor for nuclear 
technology. 

The U.S. Department of Energy recognizes scientists and engineers 
at midcareer for exceptional contributions that support DOE 
missions. 

The awards program was created in 1959 and named after Lawrence, 
a Nobel Laureate who invented a particle accelerator called the 
cyclotron and who also has two national laboratories named after 
him. 

Zinkle is the 13th scientist or engineer from ORNL and the 18th 
from Oak Ridge to win the Lawrence Award. Among those previously 
honored was long-time ORNL Director Alvin Weinberg in 1960. 

His early research was mostly related to fusion energy, but in 
recent years Zinkle has done studies funded by NASA that involve 
materials of potential use in space-bound nuclear reactors. 

He came to ORNL in 1985 as a Wigner Fellow. He holds four degrees 
from the University of Wisconsin, including a doctorate in 
nuclear engineering. He has received many honors, published more 
than 180 scientific articles and served as a visiting scientist 
at research institutes in Denmark, Russia and Germany. 

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************