***************************************************************** 02/18/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.40 ***************************************************************** 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: Edwards: Lack of Iran Talks a Mistake 2 Haaretz: Rice to Haaretz: This is not 1938 and Iran is not Nazi Germ 3 Guardian Unlimited: Once George Bush has got hold of a bad idea he j 4 Daily Times: VIEW: Iran's troubled rise Paul Salem 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI investment in Iraq to reach $1.8b 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: US allegations cover up for its fail 7 UPI: Iran says it won't stop nuclear program 8 Gulfnews: Delhi and Islamabad to sign nuclear treaty 9 AFP: Iran rules out nuclear suspension ahead of deadline 10 Independent: US piles pressure on Iran as Rice flies into Baghdad 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Indonesia calls for N-coop with IRI 12 AFP: US not seeking Iran showdown - Pentagon official 13 Newsweek: Time to Change Tacks on Iran - 14 Antiwar.com: Son of Agreed Framework - 15 Scotsman.com: Next stop Iran? 16 AFP: Nuclear energy Iran's 'future and destiny' - Khamenei 17 AFP: Syria, Iran vow unity against US plots 18 Guardian Unlimited: Top Official: Iran Needs Nuclear Fuel 19 AFP: Iran flap exposes public skepticism of US intelligence, intenti 20 New York Times: Deciding on the Enemy Worth Talking To - 21 [NYTr] Nukeyular North Korea 22 USNews.com: North Korea Deal Is a Breakthrough of sorts, but It 23 Japan Times: Nuclear uncertainties linger 24 AFP: NKorea will have to perform over nuclear deal - White House 25 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, China Agree to Cooperate on Korea 26 Newsweek: Now Comes the Hard Part - 27 Guardian Unlimited: Report: IAEA Official to Visit N.Korea 28 ContraCostaTimes.com: North Korea deal no slam-dunk for Bush 29 Korea Herald: Roh eyes massive N.K. aid; Mnister Song to visit U.S. 30 [NYTr] Russia May Unilaterally Quit INF Treaty 31 AFP: China strengthens controls on nuclear exports 32 Newsweek: Putin and the New Cold War 33 UPI: China takes firmer stance on WMDs NUCLEAR REACTORS 34 US: Nuke Power Plants To Stay Open In Case Of Flu Pandemic 35 YONHAP NEWS: Malfunction causes shutdown of nuclear power reactor in 36 US: Star-Banner : Could Levy reactor repeat Crystal River's success? 37 US: APP.COM: NRC disregarding signs of trouble at Oyster Creek 38 US: Detroit Free Press: Power up new nuclear energy plants 39 Turkish Weekly Comment: Energy strategy and nuclear energy in 40 Thomasville Times Enterprise: Council discussing piece of nuclear pi 41 Japan Times: Reactor stops after detecting radioactivity 42 London Times: Go nuclear, save the planet 43 US: Recordnet.com: It's time to think solar and nuclear 44 US: The State: New S.C. reactors planned 45 Sunday Herald: Nuclear Delay Casts Doubt Over Future Of Energy 46 US: Capital Times: Nuclear comeback heats UW classroom 47 US: Business: Looking for an alternative 48 US: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Alternate energy 49 Sunday Business Post: Chairman of ESB puts nuclear on the agenda 50 US: Star-Telegram: Nuclear-plant financing bill could hit ratepayers 51 The Hindu: Left to oppose nuclear deal 52 US: Oberlin Review: Nuclear Energy: a Convenient Solution to an Inco 53 US: New York Times: Rising Price of Electricity Sets Off New Debate NUCLEAR SECURITY 54 Guardian Unlimited: China Controls Seek to Prevent Terrorism NUCLEAR SAFETY 55 Burlington Free Press.com: Vermont and Vieques -- connected on many 56 US: Digital Journal: Best Kept Military Secrets: The Broken Arrows 57 icNewcastle: In the grip of nuclear fear NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 58 US: Herald News: GE plans nuclear recycling 59 US: Monroenews.com: Wrestling with waste 60 US: Courier Post Online: Shieldalloy promotes plan to bury radioacti 61 US: Newswire: US Produced Uranium ‘To Be Highly Sought 62 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Waste elevated: Gov. Huntsman should veto SB1 63 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Radwaste declines at Tooele County landfill 64 US: The State: Utah firm envisions big roles for S.C. 65 US: PE: Governor asked to turn up pressure on perchlorate cleanup in 66 Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Nuke Capital Mulls Radwaste Repository 67 US: Tucson Citizen: Radioactive dump cleanup needs action now | PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 68 YHRO: Yakamas want damage assessment from Hanford operations 69 KnoxNews: UT-Battelle gets highest score ever 70 Tri-City Herald: Science, technology earn good grades for PNNL ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Edwards: Lack of Iran Talks a Mistake From the Associated Press Sunday February 18, 2007 11:46 PM AP Photo IAMH103, IAMH102 By TODD DVORAK Associated Press Writer DUBUQUE, Iowa (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons. ``It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran,'' Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque. ``What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them.'' America's relationship with Iran emerged as a hot topic last week amid reports the Iranian government was shipping armor-piercing weapons to militias in Iraq. Some intelligence reports suggested the shipments were being authorized by top Iranian officials. President Bush acknowledged Iran was providing hostile weapons to Shiite groups, but stopped short of blaming top Iranian leaders. Edwards said Bush's reluctance to open diplomatic lines with Iran and Syria was costing the United States in its efforts to stabilize Iraq. The former North Carolina senator said the U.S. and its European allies have the leverage and resources to enlist Iran's cooperation. ``The way for America to engage them on this issue is to use the economic tools available ... to make it clear if they are willing to give up their nuclear weapons we are willing to make nuclear fuel available to them,'' he told the AP. Edwards said the United States should offer a serious package of economic incentives and make it public, ``so the Iranian people, who have not been historically anti-American, know that we've made this offer ... and hopefully drive a deeper wedge between a radical leader (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and his own people.'' Edwards also discussed the Senate's failure Saturday to pass a resolution opposing Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He said it was up to Congress to find other ways to curtail America's involvement. ``That means using its appropriations authority in the Constitution to put a cap on the number of troops in Iraq so they can force (Bush) to start drawing down the number of troops,'' he said. Edwards also addressed criticism aimed at his campaign pledge to fight poverty in America. In recent weeks, Edwards has taken heat for his new multimillion-dollar home in North Carolina. Laughing at a question about the home, Edwards said the work he and his wife, Elizabeth, have done to help less fortunate people speaks for itself. ``We've shown that commitment through our lives, not just in our public lives but in our private lives as well,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 Haaretz: Rice to Haaretz: This is not 1938 and Iran is not Nazi Germany - Mon., February 19, 2007 Adar 1, 5767 By Aluf Benn U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected any comparison between the international community's handling of Iran's nuclear program and its policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany in 1938. "I am fond of historical analogies, but not that fond," Rice told Haaretz in an interview, responding to a question about the analogy frequently cited by opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu. However, she did lambaste Iran's behavior. "We clearly face a country that is pursuing policies in an assertive way that are contrary to the interests of the United States and are contrary to the interests of all people who want a peaceful Middle East," she said. "We are seeing it in Iraq, where the Iranians continue to support destabilizing activities, including the transfer of technologies that are killing our soldiers. We see it in Lebanon; we see it in the Palestinian territories. Unfortunately, Syria has decided to be Iran's sidecar in all of these activities ... [And] of course, the Iranians are seeking nuclear technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon. This, with a president in Iran who says things that should never be said by the president of any nation, that 'Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.'" Rice detailed the steps that Washington has taken to contain Iran, including securing the unanimous passage of a UN Security Council resolution on sanctions, which "was a shock, I think, to the Iranians," sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, and initiating various activities that target Iran's banking system and foreign investment in Iran. Can we Israelis rest assured that it is not 1938? Rice: "I can't speak to that historical analogy, but I can tell you that the one thing that we do know is that when the international community does not come together early to address aggressive behavior, that it never turns out well, and that's why it is important to address Iranian behavior now, not later." © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Once George Bush has got hold of a bad idea he just can't let it go We watch plans for an attack on Iran unfold even as the official narrative for the run-up to the Iraq war unravels Gary Younge Comment Monday February 19, 2007 The Guardian On December 20 1954, a woman known as Marion Keech gathered her followers in her garden in Lake City, Illinois, and waited for midnight, when flying saucers were supposed to land and save them from huge floods about to engulf the planet. Keech had received news of the impending deluge from Sananda, a being from the planet Clarion, whose messages she passed on to a small group of believers. Unbeknown to her, the group had been infiltrated by a University of Minnesota researcher, the social psychologist Leon Festinger. As dawn rose on December 21 with no flying saucer in sight, Keech had another revelation. Sananda told her that the group's advanced state of enlightenment had saved the entire planet. They rejoiced and called a press conference. "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change," wrote Festinger in his book on the cult, When Prophecy Fails. "Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." George Bush is a man of conviction and clearly a hard man to change. When reality confronts his plans he does not alter them but instead alters his understanding of reality. Like Keech and her crew, he stands with a tight band of followers, both deluded and determined, understanding each setback not as a sign to change course but as further proof that they must redouble their efforts to the original goal. And so we watch the administration's plans for a military attack against Iran unfold even as its official narrative for the run-up to the war in Iraq unravels and the wisdom of that war stands condemned by death and destruction. As though on split screens, we pass seamlessly from reports of how they lied to get us into the last war, to scenes of carnage as a result of the war, to shots of them lying us into the next one. One moment we see the trial of Dick Cheney's former deputy, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, revealing how the administration sought to discredit critics of the plans to invade Iraq; the next we see them discrediting critics of their plans to attack Iran. On one page, newly released documents reveal how the defence department contorted evidence to justify bombing Baghdad; on the next, the administration is using suspect evidence to justify bombing Iran. "It is absolutely parallel," Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, told Vanity Fair magazine. "They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux." The administration, of course, denies this. Despite the fact it has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled and has just sent a second aircraft carrier as well as more patriot missiles and minesweepers to the Gulf, they swear these allegations are groundless. Robert Gates, the new defence secretary, recently insisted: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran." The sad fact is Gates can say it as many times as he likes because no one believes him. In April 2002, Bush told Trevor McDonald: "I have no plans to attack [Iraq] on my desk." An $8 cab ride to the Pentagon and Bush would have found the plans on Donald Rumsfeld's desk. He knew this because he put them there four months earlier. On November 21 2001, he asked Rumsfeld: "What kind of war plan do you have for Iraq?" True they are pursuing diplomatic avenues to derail Iran's nuclear programme, but we now know that this may be little more than a sideshow. The day before Iraq was due to let in UN weapons inspectors, Bush told Rumsfeld and the head of central command, General Tommy Franks, to "dissociate a big deployment or build-up from what Colin [Powell] is doing on the diplomatic front ... Don't make it look like I have no choice but to invade". The aim here isn't to reprosecute the case against the Iraq war - in almost every venue but the White House and Downing Street that has been won - but to illustrate that the duplicities from that war and a possible next one are playing out concurrently. Whatever excuses people make for backing an attack on Iran, what they can't say is they didn't know. Nor does it mean America will attack tomorrow. But it does mean they are almost ready to attack today. "Targets have been selected," says Vincent Cannistraro, a US intelligence analyst. "For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place. We are planning for war." These plans run not in historical parallel with the period before the attack on Iraq, but rather in lockstep with the current situation there. They do not so much replicate the preparations as seek to exploit the dire situation caused by the invasion. For the time being, US focus has shifted from Iran's desire to acquire a nuclear bomb - a development that should be resisted by diplomatic means, because it will undermine prospects of stability and peace in the region - to its involvement in Iraq. The accusation is that the Iranians are supplying insurgents with a bomb known as the "explosively formed penetrator", which, the Pentagon says, is responsible for killing at least 170 US military personnel and wounding a further 620. Bush claims these weapons were provided by Quds, an elite branch of the Iranian military. He admits he has no idea whether the Iranian government is involved or not. There are a few problems with this. First, the US is in no position to condemn other countries for meddling in the foreign affairs of Iraq. Second, the administration's credibility, like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, is non-existent. Recently, the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, slammed Rumsfeld underling Douglas Feith for wilfully contorting intelligence about links between Iraq and al-Qaida in order to justify the Iraq war. Feith compiled a briefing that was "inappropriate" with conclusions that were "not fully supported by the available intelligence", concluded Gimble, who fell just short of branding Feith an outright liar. But most importantly, the region's biggest obstacle to peace and stability is not Iran but the US. The invasion of Iraq has both bolstered Iran's standing by installing a friendly Shia regime in Baghdad, and given Iran every reason to arm itself for fear of imminent attack from US bases now embedded on its border. Each time the White House issues threats against Iran, it strengthens the crude, anti-semitic prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who can rally the nation around a foreign enemy - a strategy with which Bush is all too familiar. "We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq," says Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former US air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target. "It is an air operation." Like Keech before him, it seems once Bush has got hold of a bad idea he just can't let it go. Just because it is irresponsible, irrational, unpopular and unconscionable doesn't mean he won't do it. "History does not repeat itself," Mark Twain once wrote. "But it does rhyme." g.younge@guardian.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Daily Times: VIEW: Iran's troubled rise Paul Salem Leading News Resource of Pakistan Sunday, February 18, 2007 Iran's regional foreign policy has not yet caught up with its new pre-eminence; it is making as many enemies as it is gaining friends. If Iran and the Arab countries and alongside them the US and the international community do not manage today's tensions wisely, the region could enter a period of protracted warfare America’s decision to target Iranian agents in Iraq who may be involved in supporting violent militias is but another sign of the massive influence Iran is exercising in that troubled country. But the United States in fact facilitated Iran’s growing influence by toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime and that of the Taliban in Afghanistan, thus removing two factors that had kept the Iranian regime hemmed in for the last two decades. Moreover, high oil prices have filled the national treasury, and Iran is benefiting from the opportunity created by America’s been bogged down in Iraq and the growing international weight of Russia and China. Iran is also reaping the returns of long-term investments. It has supported Iraqi Shiite groups since the early 1980s and has an equally long-standing alliance with Syria. In Lebanon, Iran helped create Hezbollah, which recently survived a head-on war with Israel and is the leading opponent of the anti-Syrian, Western-backed government. Iran’s investment in Palestine is more recent, but its backing for the Hamas-led government, which has been frustrated elsewhere, is no less significant. A country of 70 million, Iran also has potential influence with Shiite communities in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE. Iran’s rise is causing alarm in the Arab Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but also in Egypt. Though a Shiite country in an overwhelmingly Sunni region, Iran’s radical Islamism resonates with the politicised Islamism that is energising most Arab opposition movements, and its militant opposition to the US and support for groups that engage Israel in battle is very popular on the Arab street and in the Arab media. At another level, Iran’s rise, reinforced by its suspected bid for nuclear weapons threatens to awaken historical hostilities, between Sunnis and Shiites and between Persians and Arabs. Both Iran and the Arab countries are struggling to come to terms with the consequences of Iran’s newfound assertiveness. To be sure, Iran’s longstanding support for regional Shiite groups is paying off. But its successes in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine are creating great anxiety, and even hostility, in some quarters. The rapid Shiite rise has already turned into a sectarian civil war in Iraq and recently has threatened to generate the same outcome in Lebanon. If Iran does not properly manage its growing power, it could unwittingly trigger a drawn out sectarian war throughout the region, a nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and war with Israel, the US, or both. It could also draw in major Sunni powers, such as Egypt and Turkey, which have at times been dominant in the region, but lately have been disengaged. Too many Iranian successes, and too many Sunni debacles, could also lead to immense pressure in Syria, where a minority Alawi regime dominates a Sunni majority. The loss of Damascus would cost Iran its influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine in one fell swoop. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s administration is maintaining its radical rhetoric, perhaps looking ahead to a post-Bush era, when the US has withdrawn from Iraq and Iran has developed nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Iran also feels the need for accommodation with its adversaries. For example, while Iran may not be happy with the American presence in Iraq, it realises how close the country is to full-scale civil war. As a result, it has expressed a willingness to cooperate with the US on finding a soft landing for Iraq. Likewise, while Iran supports Hezbollah, it has also held Hezbollah back from outright rebellion, which might trigger a further Sunni backlash in the region. In the Gulf, Iran has tried to reassure its Arab neighbours that Iranian power is not aimed at them and can in fact be a pillar of gulf security. But the Arab world is divided about how to deal with the sudden rise in Iranian power. The tension is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, which has warned the US about the dangers of Iraq’s possible collapse and now finds itself in an unequal face-off with Iran. Some in the kingdom argue that Saudi Arabia must confront Iran, stand up for Sunni Arab interests, and become a hands-on regional power. Other Saudis believe that confrontation will only lead to wider wars and are urging dialogue and accommodation. In this view, the US, not Iran, produced the region’s current problems. Iran’s regional foreign policy has not yet caught up with its new pre-eminence; it is making as many enemies as it is gaining friends, and it might squander the windfall gains that it made in the past three years. If Iran and the Arab countries — and alongside them the US and the international community — do not manage today’s tensions wisely, the region could enter a period of protracted warfare. But there is a way forward, because all players in the region share an interest in security and stability. Leaders in Tehran, Riyadh, Washington, and other key capitals must realise the costs of further mismanagement, step back from the brink, and work toward cooperative solutions before it is too late. —DT-PS Paul Salem is the Director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, Lebanon Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI investment in Iraq to reach $1.8b 2007/02/18 Iran's investment in Iraq will reach dlrs 1.8 billion in the next Iranian year (starting on March 21), Co-chairman of Iran-Iraq Chamber of Commerce, Hassan Tizmaghz, said on Saturday. Tizmaghz said in a symposium titled of 'Study of Development of Iranian Economic and Industrial Relations with Iraq' that currently the value of Iran's investment in Iraq has reached 1.3 billion dollars. He described the current budget of Iraqi government as promising which provides the ground for speeding up implementing development projects in that country. He noted that northern part of Iraq is secure and other states can invest in that area like Iraqis. He also gave a proposal for opening of Iranian representative offices in northern and southern Iraq to secure Iran's economic interests. The one-day symposium was held at Iran Chamber of Commerce in the presence of Chief of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines as well as a group of businessmen. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: US allegations cover up for its fail 2007/02/18 An Iranian lawmaker said Saturday that America raises allegations against Islamic Republic of Iran to cover up its failure and as a way to get out of Iraq quagmire. Majlis deputy from Tabriz, Azarshahr and Osku Hojjatoleslam Mohammad-Reza Mirtajeddini said on Saturday that America is both domestically and internationally under strong pressure for its poor performance in Iraq. Mirtajeddini said the charges levelled against Islamic Republic of Iran by America that Tehran was involved in unrest in Iraq is a move in the same direction. He said the world public opinion are well aware that Iran has always been supporting the Iraqi government and nation. The Iranian nation have done its best for restoration of calm, peace and friendship in Iraq, he added. "The American charges would not have the slightest effect on Iran-Iraq relations," announced the parliamentarian. He said American military, al-Qaeda, America's allies and Zionists are responsible for all bombings, assassinations, killings and murders in Iraq and discord among Muslims. Only Iraqis can restore calm and security in Iraq, he added. SM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 7 UPI: Iran says it won't stop nuclear program United Press International - Updated: 02/18/2007 11:05:46 PM -0500 UTC TEHRAN, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- As a United Nations deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium neared, an official in Tehran Sunday said the country would not end its nuclear ambitions. "The question of a suspension of uranium enrichment belongs to the past and has no legal or logical justification," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying by Arabic TV's Alalam News. The U.N. Security Council has given Iran a Feb. 21 deadline to halt its uranium enrichment process amid fears the country is making fuel for nuclear weapons. Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes such as energy production. Hosseini said there are other ways to end the standoff with the West, Alalam reported. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Gulfnews: Delhi and Islamabad to sign nuclear treaty Last updated: 12:36 (GMT+04) Gulfnews: Delhi and Islamabad to sign nuclear treaty IANS New Delhi: In significant confidence-building steps, India and Pakistan will sign a nuclear risk reduction agreement and discuss liberalisation of the visa regime and re-opening of consulates during the three-day visit of Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri that begins tomorrow. Two more agreements on preventing incidents at sea and quick return of inadvertent border crossers are also likely to be inked. The two ministers will also hold talks on the reopening of consulates in Mumbai and Karachi respectively that was derailed after a dispute over the choice of the property chosen by the Pakistani high commission with the owner of the building in Mumbai. Reducing the risk In a major step that can bridge the trust deficit between the nuclear-armed neighbours, the two sides will ink an agreement on reducing the risk from accidents relating to nuclear weapons on Wednesday. The text of the agreement was finalised during the foreign-secretary level talks in November last year and was subsequently endorsed by the two ministers during Mukherjee's visit to Islamabad over a month ago. The treaty will build up on nuclear confidence as reflected in the practice of exchanging the list of their respective nuclear installations at the beginning of every year. Liberalisation of the visa regime will figure prominently in the discussions. Kasuri is coming armed with a set of proposals that include doing away with police reporting for certain categories and allowing citizens 65 years and over to get visas on arrival, reliable sources said. Pakistan is also mulling enhancing the number of religious sites to be visited by each side, increasing the number of days for visiting Indian businessmen, allowing group visas and balancing the number of religious pilgrims so that an equal number of Pakistanis are also allowed inside India. The visa regime dates back to 1974 and requires updating in the light of improved relations between the two countries. Two years ago, Delhi had given Islamabad a draft of a new visa regime to which Pakistan had responded with its own set of proposals. Reliable sources here said that Pakistan has "watered down" many of Indian proposals, including the introduction of pilgrimage and student visas. India's contention about "cross-border terrorism" and new disclosures made by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan about the "misuse of stock exchanges in Chennai and Mumbai by extremists operating from Pakistan" will figure in the discussions. But this will find fuller expression when the joint anti-terror mechanism hold its first meeting in Islamabad on March 6. © Al Nisr Publishing LLC 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Iran rules out nuclear suspension ahead of deadline Sun Feb 18, 4:58 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran reaffirmed it has no intention of suspending sensitive uranium enrichment despite a looming UN deadline, saying there were other ways to end the nuclear standoff with the West. "The question of a suspension (of uranium enrichment) belongs to the past and has no legal or logical justification. It is unacceptable," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, according to the IRNA agency on Sunday. The UN Security Council, which has already imposed sanctions against Iran for its failure to suspend enrichment, has set Tehran a new deadline of February 21 to freeze to freeze the process. Hosseini said contacts with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to find a way out of the crisis would continue, pointing to a suggestion that Tehran could guarantee to keep its enrichment to low levels. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said last week that Iran could keep its uranium enrichment to a degree of only four percent, well below the levels required for nuclear weapons. "Larijani at the Munich security conference said this could be a good start in negotiations and spoke with Mr Solana. These talks will continue," said Hosseini. The United States accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, a charge denied by Tehran which insists its atomic programme is peaceful in nature. Although Washington has said it wants the nuclear standoff resolved through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action to thwart Iran's atomic drive. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Independent: US piles pressure on Iran as Rice flies into Baghdad As Secretary of State arrives in Iraqi capital, US Senate joins barrage of criticism of President Bush's troop surge By Raymond Whitaker in London, Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Angus McDowall in Tehran Published: 18 February 2007 Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad yesterday to check on the progress of the American-led "surge" against militia violence in the Iraqi capital - violence which Washington is increasingly seeking to blame on Iran. The American commander in Baghdad, Major-General Joseph Fil, said bloodshed had declined since troops had poured into the streets, but warned that the lull was unlikely to last: "Many of these extremists are lying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it." He added: "We do expect there are going to be some very rough, difficult days ahead. This enemy, they understand lethality and they have a thirst for blood like I have never seen anywhere before." The question raised, but not answered, by Maj-Gen Fil was who the Americans see as "the enemy". The past few days have seen a torrent of sometimes inconsistent US accusations that Iran is supplying sophisticated technology to Iraqis kill American troops. Ms Rice did not address the issue, merely saying that "if in fact militias decide to stand down and stop killing innocent Iraqis ... that can't be a bad thing". What was important was how the Iraqis used the breathing space created by the "surge". Unlike the allegations made in the run-up to the Iraq war, however, the claims against Iran have not gone unchallenged. Senior Democrats were sceptical, and on Friday the party used its majority in the House of Representatives to pass a resolution, also supported by 17 Republicans, to condemn George Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. Yesterday, the Senate was considering a similar motion. Iran has not considered it necessary to answer the claims, made in most detail in an anonymous Baghdad briefing by three American officials. But with Tehran facing a UN deadline this week to cease uranium enrichment, and the US sending a second carrier group to the Gulf, there is concern in Iran that the Bush administration is seeking justification for a new war. The questions have multiplied since last weekend's briefing, especially when an Iraqi newspaper disclosed that one of the briefers was Major-General William Caldwell, the chief US military spokesman in Iraq. The Americans said they had delayed the event until they were sure of their evidence, but if that was so, why did they not present it publicly? The briefing introduced a new acronym: instead of the humdrum IED, or improvised explosive device, pictures were shown of EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators, which had killed 170 coalition troops. These were of a sophistication that pointed to Iran, it was claimed. As the week went on there was a growing sense that the Bush administration was creating a narrative which is not supported by facts. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, declined to support the conclusions of the briefers in Baghdad. He said: "It is ... clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." Later comments from Washington suggested that a section of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, rather than the government, might be responsible. This line was supported by President Bush, although he denied he was preparing for war. Critics also pointed out that Shia militias had killed 100 Americans, but more than 1,000 had died from IEDs planted by Sunnis, who would be unlikely to have connection to Iran. Why is the US pushing this? The claim that Iran has been supplying weapons components is not new. Dr Michael Knight, a Middle East expert with the Olive Group, a British private security company, said British troops discovered as far back as September 2005 that a group operating out of the Jamiat police station in Basra was dealing in arms. Some components came from Iran: "They were selling the EFPs to whomever." The British ambassador to Iran, William Patey, said at the time that Iran had been supplying technology used to kill British troops, and that he had complained to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. But again, after a flurry of accusations, military sources in Basra failed to support the claims. Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, believes the Bush administration has been persuaded to act now, not as a result simply of Iran's purported nuclear ambitions, but because Washington perceives that Iran has emerged as a regional power. "The Bush administration has so undermined the US's influence that Iran has become a contender for dominance - at least in the eyes of the US. There is a major push-back against Iran. The problem is that it ... will not fix Iraq," he said. Hardliners in Washington see signs of the pressure telling on Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opponents believe his inflammatory outbursts have increased the danger of sanctions at a time when the economy, despite his promises, is performing badly, and there has been a spate of attacks on him in the press and the Iranian parliament. Thanks to him, critics feel, it is Iran which is losing influence. "[Mr Ahmadinejad] and his administration don't think there's a problem. They think they have won," said an insider close to the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. "But the body of experts and the elite are worried by the political imbalance against Iran in the world." Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on foreign, security and nuclear policy, is said by informed Iranians to have reined in the President while Iran's case comes up for international reappraisal. "The strategy is to protect Mr Ahmadinejad from himself," said the insider. With little likelihood of a compromise this week on the nuclear issue, one former official was pessimistic, saying: "I think another [UN] resolution will come and the conditions will be much worse in the future." That mood is matched on the streets, where people are worried about the possibilities of a US military attack. "Iran has the right to nuclear technology, but the price mustn't be so high that it hurts people," said Narmin, a student. "I just don't want a war." © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Indonesia calls for N-coop with IRI 2007/02/16 Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Jakarta on Friday called for expansion of nuclear cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran within framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations. Yudhoyono made the request in a meeting with the visiting Iranian Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, who is currently in Jakarta for an official three-day visit. The Indonesian President pointed to IRI's peaceful nuclear activities and called for settlement of ongoing issue over the nuclear case through diplomatic channels. He expressed his country's willingness to benefit from IRI's experience in application of nuclear technology for peaceful aims. The President expressed Indonesia's readiness to boost cooperation with IRI in the fields of technology, investment, tourism and culture. Pointing to ongoing developments in Iraq, he called for withdrawal of occupying forces from the country. Haddad-Adel, for his part, said IRI's political will is based on expansion of ties with Indonesia. He said current era is the time of Islamic vigilance and added that such an achievement was the result of occupation and oppression against Muslims forcenturies. During the meeting, Haddad-Adel and Yudhoyono also discussed implementation of joint projects including investment for establishment of a factory in IRI for production of chemical fertilizer, an oil refinery in Indonesia in cooperation with IRI, a direct flight between Tehran and Jakarta and cooperation in various tourism fields. M/D Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US not seeking Iran showdown - Pentagon official Sat Feb 17, 6:25 AM ET ABU DHABI (AFP) - Washington is not seeking a military confrontation with Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme, a senior Pentagon official told a Gulf security conference. "We are not seeking a military showdown with Iran. We are not seeking military confrontation," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for the Middle East Mark Kimmitt told the conference in the United Arab Emirates capital on Saturday. "We believe that diplomacy remains the best way to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem," added Kimmitt, rejecting mounting accusations from some Democratic lawmakers that the Republican administration is seeking a new war in the region. Kimmitt said Washington was concerned about the regional ambitions of Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his efforts to take advantage of the turmoil in iraq since the US-led invasion of 2003. "We have concerns about the hegemonic aspirations of Iran," he said. "They seem to think that the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq and the absence of a regional counterweight provides them with the licence to expand their influence and presence throughout the Gulf." Opening the one-day security conference, UAE Education Minister Sheikh Nahayan Mubarak al-Nahayan stressed the "importance for the whole world" of the security of the six oil-rich Gulf Arab states. The seminar precedes the Middle East's biggest arms show, IDEX-2007, which opens Sunday and runs to Thursday. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Newsweek: Time to Change Tacks on Iran - MSNBC.com By By Ray Takeyh Feb. 26, 2007 issue - Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, the United States has pursued a series of failed policies toward Iran. It has variously sought to topple the regime, threatened military action and proposed strictly limited dialogue-all with an eye toward boxing Tehran in and limiting its influence in the region. This strategy of "containment" continues to dominate U.S. policy. President George W. Bush repeatedly insists that "all options are on the table"-a not-so-subtle reminder that Washington might yet use force to halt Tehran's nuclear program. Yet realistically, the United States has no military option. Iran has dispersed many nuclear facilities and hardened others. Even if U.S. forces could find and destroy those targets-quality intelligence is a serious hurdle-they could be rebuilt relatively quickly. The bottom line: Washington must accept certain distasteful facts-beginning with Iran's ascendance as a regional power and the staying power of its regime. It should open talks with Iran, not in order to limit its growing power-an impossibility-but with a view toward regulating it and curbing potential excesses. In other words, Washington should embrace a policy of détente, just as it did in the past with such seemingly intractable enemies as China and the Soviet Union. Could Tehran ultimately prove to be as willing a negotiating partner as Beijing and Moscow once were? There are reasons to hope so. One is Iran's emergence as the largest and most militarily powerful state in the Persian Gulf. That very fact will force Tehran to choose between coexistence and confrontation with the United States. For all its hot rhetoric, Iran is no Nazi Germany; by and large, its leaders are tactical opportunists. They seek to avoid war. Furthermore, the Iranian regime is undergoing a transformation of its own. This internal divide is not as commonly thought: moderate reformers versus conservative fundamentalists. No, the real fissure is generational. The elders of the 1979 revolution retain ultimate authority-but they are increasingly challenged by a rising cohort of younger conservatives, eager to abandon failed policies of the past. This emerging group looks askance at the strident rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Its members tend to stress Iranian nationalism over Islamic identity, and pragmatism over ideology. The only way for Iran to realize its potential, they argue, is for it to behave more judiciously in the international arena. That means accepting certain limits on Iranian influence, acceding to certain international norms-and negotiating with the nation's adversaries. Over the past two years, members of this pragmatic faction have risen to influence within the highest ranks of government, the intelligence community and the military. Among them: the commander of the Iranian Navy, Abbas Mohtaj, and the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, who has been leading Iran's negotiating team in talks with the United States and Europe. Building on their links to traditional clerical networks and their intimate ties to the Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, these men are trying to wrest control of Iran's international relations from the most militant old-guard mullahs. The real significance of Iran's municipal elections in December 2006, in which Ahmadinejad's camp scored poorly, lay not so much in the revival of the reform movement as in the fact that many of these younger conservatives did well. So far, the new pragmatists have managed to nudge Khameini toward accepting the idea of potential negotiations with the United States. "We may be sure that the Americans are our enemy," said Larijani in a recent speech. But he added: "Working with the enemy is part of world politics. I believe that normalizing relations would in itself be beneficial." Yet Iran's political landscape is volatile. America's declining fortunes in Iraq, Hizbullah's touted victory against Israel last summer and the success of Ahmadinejad's defiant nuclear diplomacy seem to prove right those who call for confrontation. As it stands, Khameini, generally prone to indecision, seems disinclined to settle this internal debate. For Washington, the challenge is to resolve the uncertainty in its favor. A more imaginative policy of engagement, with normalization as the starting point of talks rather than the endpoint, might pave the way for a broader breakthrough on issues from nukes to terrorism. Armed with the prospect of a new beginning with the United States, the pragmatists might find themselves in a position to sideline Tehran's aging radicals-and usher in a more stable era of U.S.-Iran relations. Takeyh is a fellow at the New York Council on Foreign Relations. This essay is adapted from a forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs. © 2007 Newsweek, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Antiwar.com: Son of Agreed Framework - by Gordon Prather February 17, 2007 On November 29, 1990, the United Nations Security Council authorized "Member States co-operating with Government of Kuwait" to "use all necessary means" to compel Iraq "to withdraw all its forces to the positions in which they were located on August 1, 1990." It then took about three months for a coalition of Member States – led by President Bush the Elder – to accomplish what the Security Council had authorized. Of course – even then – there were neo-crazies in and out of our government hell-bent on establishing an American Hegemony. They wanted to exceed the authority provided by the Security Council. To ignore the Security Council and the UN Charter. To keep going to Baghdad. To depose Saddam Hussein and hang him from a sour-apple tree. But Bush the Elder would have none of it. Even worse for the neo-crazies, on September 27, 1991, Bush the Elder announced that the United States would unilaterally withdraw all land-based tactical nuclear weapons from our overseas bases and all of its sea-based tactical nuclear weapons from our U.S. ships and submarines. Approximately 100 of our nuclear weapons had been based in South Korea, and many more were aboard our ships and submarines making port there. On December 31, 1991 – as a direct result of President Bush's decision to withdraw our U.S. nukes from South Korea and from warships off-shore – President Roh Tae Woo and Premier Kim Il Sung signed the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, wherein both countries agreed not to "test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons" or even to "possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities." "The South and the North "Desiring to eliminate the danger of nuclear war, through denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and thus to create an environment and conditions favorable for peace and peaceful unification of our country and contribute to peace and security in Asia and the world, "Declare as follows; "1. The South and the North shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons. "2. The South and the North shall use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes. "3. The South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. Under the declaration, both countries agreed not to "test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons" or even to "possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities." However, we kept our land-sea-air bases in South Korea and have continued to this day to conduct the twice-yearly "exercises" of our Korean "contingency plan," which may [or may not] involve the use of nukes. In 1994, in part because of those twice-yearly exercises, which may have involved the possible use of nukes, the North Koreans threatened to withdraw from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to be free to develop their own nukes. As a result, under considerable congressional pressure, President Clinton ordered the development of a plan to "take out" all North Korean nuclear facilities, using cruise missiles, presumably carrying nuke warheads, and presumably launched from U.S. warships. Perhaps Clinton didn’t actually re-deploy nukes to the Korean Peninsula or to our warships offshore. But whether he did or not, it was obvious to the Koreans that we could re-deploy nukes to the peninsula in a matter of days or even hours after a decision to do so. Hence, under the Clinton-negotiated Agreed Framework of 1994, under which North Korea – aka the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea – agreed to not only remain a NPT-signatory, but to "freeze" its plutonium-producing graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and to "eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities." What did the DPRK want in return?, "The US will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the US." Furthermore; "1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions. "2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other’s capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions. "3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and the DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level." Now, during negotiations for the Agreed Framework, DPRK dictator Kim Il Sung died and our negotiators didn’t expect the regime of his son, Kim Jong Il, to last long. Five years at most. Well, five years later, with Kim Jong Il now firmly in power, Clinton concluded he would have to begin to implement the "normalization" provisions of the Agreed Framework after all. But then George Bush the Younger became President and almost immediately repudiated Clinton’s efforts to implement the Agreed Framework, telling South Korea’s president and North Korean emissaries he had no intentions of "normalizing" relations with North Korea. In his 2002 State of the Union Address – after specifically naming Iran, Iraq and North Korea – Bush the Younger had this to say: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. "In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Nine months later the Bush administration unilaterally abrogated the Agreed Framework, charging that North Korea had been violating it all the while, having a secret enriched-uranium nuke program. No longer subject to the Agreed Framework, North Korea announced on the eve of Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq it was withdrawing from the NPT, restarting its "frozen" plutonium-producing reactor and its plutonium-recovery facility and – according to CIA estimates – now probably has a dozen or so plutonium implosion-type nukes. Interestingly enough, while displaying to visiting scientists and dignitaries – with obvious pride – the weapons-grade plutonium they have produced since withdrawing from the NPT, the North Koreans continue to vehemently deny ever having an enriched-uranium nuke program. Despite repeated requests for him to do so, Bush has never provided anyone – including the Chinese – any convincing evidence that North Korea has such a program. in 1994, neither Russia or China were the powerhouses they have since become, so President Clinton was allowed to deal one-on-one with North Korea. But after Bush the Younger deliberately precipitated the withdrawal from the NPT – and subsequent development of nuclear weapons – by their next-door neighbor, North Korea, the Russians and Chinese decided to do something about the mess Bush made. Hence, the Six-Party [China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and US] talks. In their Joint Statement, issued 19 September 2005 – "The Six Parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the Six-Party Talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. "The DPRK committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards. "The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons. "The ROK [South Korea] reaffirmed its commitment not to receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons within its territory." The Third Round of the Fifth Six-Party talks on implementing that Joint Statement have just concluded in Beijing, wherein the parties agreed to take, inter alia, the following actions in the initial phase: "The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of the eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification as agreed between the IAEA and the DPRK. "The DPRK and the U.S. will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations. The U.S. will begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism, and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect with the DPRK." The neo-crazies are going nuts. Antiwar.com Home Page Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 15 Scotsman.com: Next stop Iran? Sunday, 18th February 2007 THE ingredients most likely to spark confrontation between the United States and Iran could scarcely be simpler or more combustible: a tin filled with an explosive charge and a lump of copper is all that is needed to manufacture what the US military calls an Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP). When the device is triggered by an infrared sensor it fires a molten ball of metal at its target with sufficient speed to penetrate most American vehicles' armour. The consequences can be horrific. Hezbollah routinely uses such devices against Israeli forces, leading the US to suspect Iran has been supplying Shi'ite militias in Iraq with the devices that have, according to one estimate, killed as many as 170 coalition troops in Iraq. The use of EFPs doubled in Iraq last year, prompting the Bush administration to secretly approve measures to counter Iranian "meddling" in Iraq. As a result of that decision, in December, US troops raided the Baghdad offices of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's biggest political party and one that receives support from Tehran. That raid resulted in two arrests. Three weeks later the US arrested five more Iranians following a raid on an Iranian diplomatic office in the northern city of Irbil. The Bush administration sees the hand of the Quds Force - the secret overseas operations directorate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - at work. "We know that the Quds Force is involved," defence secretary Robert Gates told reporters on Thursday. "We know the Quds Force is a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. So we assume that the leadership of the IRGC. knows about this. Whether or not more senior political leaders in Iran know about it, we don't know." The bottom line is clear: "Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq," the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq states. With his legacy on the line and facing a Congressional revolt against his Iraq policy, President George W Bush used a press conference this week to vow he would "do what is necessary" to protect American troops in Iraq. Though Bush said it was "preposterous" to accuse the administration of exaggerating the extent of Iran's destabilising influence in Iraq, the wounds caused by the intelligence debacle concerning Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes are still raw. The administration has used up its alloted share of the benefit of the doubt. "The begging question of a smoking gun, of an Iranian standing over an American, with a gun, it's never going to happen," said a US analyst who briefed reporters on Iranian involvement in supplying military hardware in Iraq last week. In Washington, however, the sense that America is preparing the ground for a military confrontation with the Iranians is growing steadily. The situation was tense when it was confined to Iran's nuclear ambitions; adding a growing rivalry for influence in Iraq to the mix makes the situation even more dangerous. Some analysts in Washington go further still, suggesting that Bush is actively seeking an excuse to launch air strikes against Iran. "They [the White House] intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," said Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. Flynt Leverett, a former CIA official and Middle East expert at the National Security Council, accused the administration of trying to provoke an Iranian reaction by "setting the stage so that the odds are rapidly rising that Iran will eventually respond to provocations, like having diplomats arrested, having Iranian officials taken into custody and detained by American officials, having orders outstanding for US troops to kill or capture Iranians found in Iraq . . . Eventually, Iran will respond to that, and then the administration will have a casus belli [justification for acts of war]." This was denied by Gates this week. "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran," he said at a Pentagon briefing on Thursday. "We are not planning a war with Iran." Nonetheless, hawks and doves alike sense that the relationship between Washington and Tehran is, if anything, deteriorating. Whatever their exact involvement in Iraq, Iran is flexing its muscles wherever it can, causing consternation among other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, who fear Iran's desire for regional supremacy. Last week the Iranians completed a missile test near the Strait of Hormuz to remind the Americans that Tehran has military options too. Last November, the Iranians warned they could mine the straits through which no less than 20% of the world's oil supply passes en route to markets around the globe. Admiral William Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, told a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month that it is clear the Iranians want to "deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity". To guard against such an eventuality the US is moving a second aircraft carrier group to the region. By the end of the month the USS John C Stennis will have joined the USS Dwight Eisenhower on the Persian station. For the first time since 2003 the US will have two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. Though a land invasion of Iran would put an impossible strain on an already over-stretched army, air strikes against Iranian nuclear and command and control facilities could easily be launched from the carriers. Washington has three broad policy options: engagement, containment and confrontation. While Democrats in Congress largely prefer a course based on cautious engagement designed to try to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration's Iraq policy begins with containment and increasingly favours confrontation. If military action remains a last resort for hawks within the administration, it is a resort they are psychologically and temperamentally willing to reach quickly. "I wish I could tell you that it is impossible," said Ken Pollack, a former CIA officer and author of The Persian Puzzle. "But I don't think it is. I think a war with Iran would be very messy and would cost us a lot more than we would gain. While many members of the administration agree, others do not, and some seem willing to risk it to accomplish other goals. Some degree of quiet pressure on Iran to stop their more damaging operations in Iraq could be useful, and the Iranians probably would back down under those circumstances. But the president's policy risks engaging Iran's nationalist pride, its strategic interests, and its real fear of the United States." Though none of the major contenders for the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination have ruled out using military means to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Democrats on Capitol Hill are demanding that the president seeks authorisation from Congress before acting against Iran. Jim Webb, the newly elected Democrat from Virginia, asked Condoleezza Rice last month a question that was, for a Senator, unusually pithy and direct: "Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?" So far, Webb says, he has not received a satisfactory or clear answer. "The president has said that he supports a diplomatic solution of the situation in Iran," said the new speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. "I would take him at his word. I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear there is no previous authority for any president to go into Iran." Both houses on Capitol Hill have made that very point this weekend with regard to Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. Many Democrats now think they were too timid in the run-up to the Iraq war. If so, that's not a mistake they are keen to repeat with Iran. Yet according to Rand Beers, who worked on the National Security Council for four different presidents, including George W Bush, military action is the worst possible course of action. At best, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan might only set back the Iranian nuclear programme by a few years. "There is now a vigorous debate in Tehran over whether Iran's nuclear program is worth the risk of additional international opprobrium," said Beers, adding that Washington's crackdown on Iranian financial interests overseas was beginning to have some effect. On Friday, Japan approved a fresh list of sanctions against Iran to punish Tehran for its continued defiance of the UN, while in Washington the Treasury Department added another three Iranian firms to its lengthening list of "proliferators" that US citizens are barred from doing business with. "The diplomatic 'carrots and sticks' seem to be working. Unfortunately, the administration's ham-handed military posturing and rhetoric risk torpedoing these efforts and offering [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad a reprieve," said Beers. "We should be fostering this debate with a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, not undermining it." Washington will press European capitals to impose their own sanctions on Iran if, as expected, Iran fails to meet Wednesday's UN deadline for it to end its uranium enrichment programme. The Bush administrations' sabre-rattling may please hawks at home, but one by-product of Washington's impatience with Iran is that it boosts the standing of Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president suffered a humiliating reverse in the most recent local elections, but finds his popularity recovering as the US threatens Iran. "The more the rhetoric is ratcheted up, the more Ahmadinejad is given a life vest," said Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation, a centrist Washington think tank. One other group, then, has good reason to oppose military conflict between Iran and the United States: the Iranian opposition. President Bush allocated $75m last year to be spent on supporting democracy and the internal opposition in Iran, but America's reputation in the Middle East is now so tarnished that the money lies unclaimed as opposition groups fear that being associated with, or funded by, Washington would immediately compromise their message. "We need to be able to give the democrats room and space to be able to manoeuvre," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, adding that "nothing has hurt the pro-democracy movement more" than the present impasse. Bombing Iran might make matters even worse, setting back the reformist cause for years amidst a nationalist uproar denouncing the US yet again as "the Great Satan". Bush once argued that the promotion of democracy across the Middle East was a great and generational cause that would one day be seen as a pivotal moment in the region's history. It would be a grim irony if he embarked upon a policy that ruined the cause of reform in Tehran and handed another unearned victory to the most reactionary elements of the Iranian regime. Democrats fail to force issue on Iraq troop build-up IN A move that came as a relief to President Bush, the US Senate last night refused to consider a resolution on denouncing the Iraq troop build-up that the US House of Representatives had passed the day before. For the second time in two weeks, the Senate voted not to debate a non-binding measure that would repudiate George Bush's recent decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq to bolster security in Baghdad. The Democrats had wanted to bring the measure to the floor, but they failed to overcome Republican resistance. The vote was 56 in favour and 34 against. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor for debate. Before the vote, Democrats argued in vain for minority Republicans to break with Bush and support taking up the measure in line with US public opinion. "If we believe plunging into Baghdad neighbourhoods with more American troops will not increase chances of success, we are duty bound to say so, and a minority of senators should not thwart that expression," said Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the armed services committee. The Democrats' failure in the Senate contrasted with Friday's Congressional vote in which the 435-member House, capping four days of impassioned debate, defied the Republican president, voting 246 to 182 against the troop increase in what amounted to the first such rebuke since the US-led invasion in March 2003. But in the Senate, procedural rules allow a minority to block debate. However, the Democrat leadership secured a partial victory by blocking a vote on a rival Republican-backed proposal forbidding a cut-off of funding to US troops. The Senate's rare Saturday session came on a day US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad. 1. Bill, Dunblane / 1:00am 18 Feb 2007 Well, Bush has already decided to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, he only has to wait for (or manufacture) an excuse. Tony of course, will just roll over and do as he is told! The Anglo-American military-industrial-petroleum-intelligence-axis will not allow any nation-state in the Caspian Basin or the Persian Gulf to attain hegemonic status. Ipso facto, Iran's regional ambitions will be challenged by the Anglo-American condominium. This might mean a conventional conflict or a series of proxy wars. The theater of operations radiates from Iraq into Iran including Syria, Lebanon, the rest of the Gulf States and the Levant. By extension, this theater also subsumes interests in the Horn of Africa, the Caucuses and the Caspian Basin. The mainstream media are only able to hold up a mirror and reflect half the story. One must know the history of the region and the dynamic tensions that exist to see what is transpiring. Sound bites about "lies" and secret dodgy dossiers are red herrings - pablum for the hoi polloi. Geostrategy, geopolitics, international relations, and geoeconomic considerations are far too complex to be reduced to the phantasmagorial schizophrenia of the 24 hour news cycle and ephemeral literature. This transcends the tendentious rhetoric of the Washington elite as well. US foreign policy is crafted and perpetuated regardless of which party ostensibly holds power. I proffer here for consideration the Carter Doctrine. Carter propounded: "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." To attack the basis of the Bush Doctrine, one must first confront the realities of the aforementioned Carter Doctrine. The two are inextricable linked and share a common foundation. I believe this evinces a continuum in foreign policies across presidential administrations. Rhetorically, Carter and Bush are antipodal; however, in the sphere of national security, their weltanschauungs run confluent. Carter’s abdication from this stance after leaving office is ancillary and inconsequential. His ability to shape and prosecute foreign policy ended with his ouster from office. Regional suzerainty has been the declared US stance in the Middle East for more than a generation; the lineaments of this structure may have been augmented and updated, but the broad brush strokes remain the same. The Anglo-American axis will continue to pursue and preserve hegemony in the Persian Gulf and its logical peripheries: Africa and the Caspian basin. With this I believe we are witnessing the prosecution of a grand foreign policy scheme rather than a reactive, autistic attempt to extricate our forces from the Middle East. The antecedents run deep and the goal is clear: A fragmented Middle East. Report as unsuitable ©2007 Scotsman.com ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Nuclear energy Iran's 'future and destiny' - Khamenei by Aresu Eqbali Sat Feb 17, 8:21 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given his unequivocal backing to Iran's nuclear programme, saying it was the "future and destiny" for a country whose fossil fuels would one day run out. Khamanei also lashed out at "superficial and narrow-minded" critics who have warned the drive could come at too great a cost for Iran, saying such comments only served to encourage the enemy. "Nuclear energy is the future and destiny of the country," state television quoted him as saying in a speech in Tehran on Saturday. The television said Khamenei "criticised some who, with superficial and narrow-minded views, say that nuclear energy is not necessary for the country at this cost." He said Iran's huge oil and gas reserves "would not last forever". "If a nation does not care about the future of its energy, it must remain dependent on the domineering powers," he said in allusion to Western governments. Iran is the world's fourth biggest producer of crude and has the second largest natural gas reserves after Russia, although it lags well behind other countries in terms of gas exports. "The reason for the powers' objection to the Iranian nation's achievement of nuclear energy, even though they use it themselves, is that they want to take hold of the destiny of the world's energy," said Khamenei. A widely reported study published in December by the academic Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University in the United States said Iran could soon face its own energy crunch owing to failing infrastructure and lack of investment. Khamenei's intervention comes as pressure mounts from Western countries for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used both to make fuel for nuclear power stations and the core of an atomic weapon. But there has also been an intensification of diplomacy in recent weeks, with chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani holding talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana while attending the Munich security conference. The United States accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, a charge denied by Tehran which insists its atomic programme is peaceful and that it has every right to the full nuclear fuel cycle. Although Washington has said it wants the nuclear standoff resolved through diplomacy, it has never ruled out military action to thwart Iran's atomic drive. "In this path, one should not be frightened by the enemy... One should be strong against the enemy. Any expression of weakness will make the enemy bolder," said Khamenei. Voices have been raised in parliament and the press in recent weeks over the confrontational stance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the nuclear issue, which they said has come at too great a diplomatic cost. "Some people with their comments exaggerate problems that do not exist in the country. This encourages the enemy. This is wrong," said Khamenei. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: Syria, Iran vow unity against US plots by Stuart Williams Sat Feb 17, 2:22 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Close allies President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged they would work together to confront US and Israeli "plots" in the Middle East. Assad had earlier arrived in Iran for a two day visit aimed at further bolstering already robust ties, his second trip to the Islamic republic since Ahmadinejad took power in August 2005. The two men, both under fire from the United States for their countries' alleged meddling in the region, warned against the dangers of disunity between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, in particular in multi-confessional Lebanon and Iraq. "We should cooperate and work to make the public aware of the sinister aims of the United States and the Zionists," Assad said in his meeting with Ahmadinejad, according to the state-run IRNA agency. "Iran and Syria support the peoples of the region and the enemies will only reach their goals by creating pessimism and disunity amongst Muslims," he added. Ahmadinejad agreed that "we should be careful about the enemies' efforts to create division and conflict amongst Muslims and make sure they do not reach their sinister goals." "Under the current conditions it is necessary that Islamic countries preserve their vigilance, unity and wisdom to prevent the establishment of new conspiracies," he added. Accompanied by Foreign Minister Walid Muallem and Vice President Faruq al-Shara, Assad also met former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He is scheduled also to meet supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Creating conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq and Lebanon is the final card that America and its allies have... they try to cover their failure with false propaganda," Assad told Rafsanjani. Assad was the first world leader to visit Ahmadinejad following his election victory -- just five days after he took office -- and relations have remained strong ever since. The Iranian president visited Damascus in January 2006, where he held talks with Assad and the Syria-based political leaders of Palestinian militant groups. Assad's latest visit to Tehran comes at a time when both Syria and Iran have been accused by the US of "meddling" in the region. Both vehemently deny the charges. Washington, which is planning to send more troops to bolster the US-led force of around 140,000 soldiers in Iraq, accuses the two countries of helping stir up insecurity there by supporting insurgents and allowing militants to cross their borders. Damascus has also been accused of fomenting the violence which has dogged Lebanon since the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, while Tehran stands accused of arming the militant Shiite group Hezbollah. Syria is a staunch supporter of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, which the US alleges is a cover for making nuclear weapons. Washington's major ally Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East although it has never officially confirmed this status. Iran insists its atomic drive is solely aimed at generating energy, to which it has every right. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Top Official: Iran Needs Nuclear Fuel From the Associated Press Saturday February 17, 2007 11:16 PM AP Photo VAH104 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's top leader said Saturday the country's oil and gas reserves will eventually dry up and defended the drive to produce nuclear fuel, claiming it was the only way to avoid dependence on the West for energy. ``Oil and gas reserves won't last forever. If a nation doesn't think of producing its future energy needs, it will be dependent on domination-seeking powers,'' state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying. Iran produces 4.2 million barrels of oil per day, the second largest exporter of crude among the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. It has the world's second largest natural gas reserves. The country's recoverable oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrels, or 12 percent of the world's overall reserves. Iran's gas reserves are believed to stand at 28 trillion cubic meters. The United States and its European allies have disputed Iran's nuclear program - which Tehran says is only for producing fuel and not for making weapons. Iran's officials have argued they need alternate energy sources for when oil reserves run out and say they see no reason why some of the most advanced technology should be off limits. Tehran plans to produce 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants in the next two decades. Khamenei said those who say Iran does not need nuclear technology are ``shallow-minded.'' A U.S. defense official on Saturday said Washington was not seeking military confrontation or regime change in Iran despite Tehran's defiance of international demands to halt uranium enrichment. Speaking at a weapons conference in the United Arab Emirates capital Abu Dhabi, Mark Kimmitt, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, said an ``increasingly belligerent Iran'' believes it can ``control, threaten and intimidate.'' But Kimmitt, a former U.S. Army brigadier general, said he believed ``diplomacy is the best solution'' to solving the Iran crisis. ``We do not seek a military confrontation. We do not seek regime change,'' he told an audience at the opening day of the 2007 International Defense Exhibition and Conference. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran has achieved full proficiency in nuclear technology. However, the president said the nuclear advances will only gradually be made public over the next two months. Last February, Iran announced it had enriched uranium for the first time using two cascades of 164 centrifuges, a sophisticated technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or materials for a nuclear bomb. Iran was last week expected to announce the start of the installation of 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, central Iran. However this did not happen, leading to speculation the hookup was delayed or that Tehran sought to avoid the political ramifications of such an announcement. In December, the U.N. Security Council imposed limited sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to halt the enrichment program. On Dec. 23, the council demanding Iran stop enrichment within 60 days or face more sanctions. As supreme leader, Khamenei has final say on all policy. Although he too advocates the pursuit of nuclear technology - which in Iran is a source of national pride - he has recently echoed the criticism of other conservatives, and even some moderates, of Ahmadinejad's nuclear diplomacy tactics. Iran plans to install up to 54,000 centrifuges in all, which would allow for larger-scale enrichment that would produce enough nuclear fuel to run a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant for a year. Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel even at the risk of sanctions but has offered guarantees that it will not make a bomb. In the 1970, when Iran was under pro-Western ruler Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the United States and Europe approved the building of 20 nuclear power plants across the country and provided the former ally with nuclear technology. This course was reversed after the 1979 Islamic revolution which toppled Pahlavi and brought hard-line clerics to power. ----- Associated Press Writer James Calderwood in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Iran flap exposes public skepticism of US intelligence, intentions - by Jim Mannion Sun Feb 18, 1:13 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Unfounded intelligence claims that paved the way for war in Iraq blew back like a ghost last week to haunt US charges that Iran is arming Iraqi extremists. President George W. Bush and his top aides had to admit by week's end that they did not know whether Iran's leaders knew that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was supplying Shiite militias with sophisticated bombs and training. And "for the umpteenth time," as US Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it, they denied that the United States was trying to prepare the ground for military action in Iraq. But the flap exposed how deep public suspicion of US intelligence claims runs nearly four years after the United States went to war with Iraq on the strength of erroneous intelligence that it had weapons of mass destruction. "I think this controversy is traceable to one big problem," said Loren Thompson, director of the Lexington Institute, a private Washington research group. "The US intelligence community does not have an adequate network of agents in Iraq or Iran. Because of that, everything is guesswork," he said. "We accumulate a lot of disconnected details, and we try to form a pattern out of those details, but we never have that final definitive piece of intelligence that proves the connection," he said. Officials said US intelligence spent weeks vetting the accuracy of the information before it was briefed to reporters in Baghdad on Sunday. Reporters were shown examples of weapons, including an armor-piercing bomb known as an "explosively formed penetrator" or EFP, that the US military said are being supplied to extremists by Iran. Briefing slides contained photographs of EFP caches, passive infrared triggers, blocks of TNT and a blasting cap, mortar rounds, a man-portable surface-to-air missile, and rocket-propelled grenades -- all allegedly made in Iran. It said Iranians arrested in a recent raid in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil were members of the Iranian Republican Guards, and that its paramilitary Qods Force was providing advice, training and weapons to extremist groups. The briefing slides cited markings on some of the weapons that indicated they were Iranian-made. Gates, a former CIA director, told reporters that he had insisted on factual statements with no adjectives or adverbs, only declarative sentences that "make it exactly clear what we know and what we don't know." The reason, he indicated, was because he expected there would be doubts about the intelligence. "I mean, we're sensitive to that skepticism," he said Thursday. "And it's one of the reasons why we were so concerned that the briefing on these materiels be factual and be able to be substantiated by evidence, so it wasn't hypothesis, it wasn't assumption, it wasn't assessment." But an unidentified briefer apparently went further and was reported to have said the support was sanctioned by the "highest levels" of the Iranian regime, sparking the intense round of speculation about US intentions. "I think there's no question that the skepticism has less to do about competing explanations than just generalized doubt about the administration's judgment," said Thompson. "You really can prove that the munitions in question came from Iran. But the question is what interpretation to make of that. And on that score the public really doesn't much trust the White House's interpretation of events," he said. The allegations themselves were not new, which suggested to some analysts that the briefing was timed to step up pressure on Iran at a time when a diplomatic confrontation over its nuclear program is reaching a critical stage. Bush had already ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf and stepped up raids in Iraq on networks supplying Iranian arms to Iraqi militias. "I think it has to do with a whole new policy toward Iran which is more confrontational," said Vali Nasr, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an interview carried on its website. "Putting Iran in the spotlight in Iraq is a part of a policy of escalating pressure on Tehran, as well as also potentially preparing the American population for more drastic action against Iran by trying to single out Iran as the problem in Iraq, whether or not that's actually true," he said. John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.Org, said the briefing aroused controversy because "it really looks like Mr. Bush is getting ready to bomb Iran." But there were other reasons as well. The evidence was unconvincing and "their credibility was shot after the intelligence failure around Iraq," he said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 20 New York Times: Deciding on the Enemy Worth Talking To - Nuclear Chat By DAVID E. SANGER Published: February 18, 2007 WASHINGTON Behrouz Mehri/Agence France-Presse Getty Images Speak Iran?s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be ready to negotiate. WHEN it comes to finding a way to disarm your enemies, here is a puzzle: How do you decide which dictatorial, nuke-building regimes to negotiate with, and which to freeze out, sanction or intimidate with a couple of aircraft carriers? That, in a nutshell, is a looming question raised by last week’s long-delayed deal with North Korea. Even while hardliners and conservatives were assailing the administration last week for “selling out” to Kim Jong Il, some in the administration were wondering whether there are lessons here for dealing with Iran. The deal Mr. Bush approved requires North Korea to stop producing plutonium, seal its giant nuclear facility at Yongbyon and — after a negotiation yet to happen — take apart the nuclear complex. Over the next 60 days, the North also has to invite back the inspectors it threw out of the country four years ago — and declare where it has hidden the rest of its nuclear materials and facilities. That would seem hard enough for the hermit nation, but the next part could be even harder: In return for concessions no one is yet talking about, the North would give up its nuclear arsenal. Many hardened North Korea watchers say it will never happen. After all, that arsenal, estimated by American intelligence agencies at six to a dozen weapons or the fuel for them, is the only source of power for the isolated, bankrupt Hermit Kingdom. But here’s the curious part: Mr. Bush’s aides worked out this “first step” in one-on-one talks in Berlin of the kind the White House refused to hold a few years back, while North Korea was still busily producing nuclear fuel to make its next generation of weapons. Those are exactly the steps Mr. Bush refuses to take with Tehran. On Wednesday, even while celebrating the North Korean deal, Mr. Bush repeated his bottom line on opening talks with Tehran: They must stop enriching uranium first. So what explains the difference? Why talk to one brutal regime that imprisons its dissidents in gulags, while refusing all kinds of advice — from Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, and others — to start talking to Iran? Inside the White House, the logic goes this way: North Korea’s nuclear program is already “mature,” a delicate way of saying that, thanks to years of failed efforts of administrations that go back three decades, the country has joined the eight other nations known to have nuclear weapons. Insisting on suspending fuel production, one senior administration official said recently, would not gain the United States any leverage. Iran, they argue, is different. It has no weapons — at least not yet. The Americans’ objective is to prevent the Iranians from following the North Korean model, and to avoid waking up some day to news of the Iranian equivalent of North Korea’s nuclear detonation, which took place last October. But President Bush worries, his aides say, that to negotiate with Iran while it is still enriching uranium would be to open up Washington to blackmail. “Think about it,” said one senior administration official. “While we’re talking, the clock ticks. The Iranians can drag this out for years. But while the talks are on, no one is willing to invoke real sanctions” — or threaten, even vaguely, that if the issue isn’t settled soon Mr. Bush or the Israelis might consider “disabling” Iran’s facilities from the air. This results in the American conundrum, made worse by Iran’s ability to cause trouble in Iraq, a problem the administration has been loudly declaring is getting worse. “When you can’t bomb, and you won’t negotiate, you end up in a third box — acquiescing to bad things happening,” said Robert Gallucci, the dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, who was the main American interlocutor with North Korea in the Clinton administration. “Many will say, ‘What about sanctions?’ ” Mr. Gallucci added. But that “often turns out to be acquiescing,” especially if countries like Russia, one of Iran’s biggest trading partners, decline to turn the screws. Of course, what Mr. Bush is facing now is the worst of all those bad choices. With no negotiations underway with Iran, the country has defied the United Nations and is continuing to enrich uranium (though it appears to have run into technical troubles that have slowed its progress). While the Security Council has imposed some mild sanctions, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concedes that trying to escalate those punishments by passing more Security Council resolutions is probably ineffective. The Russians and the Chinese have made clear they simply won’t go along much farther. That leaves Mr. Bush with the choice of hinting at military action — an option his new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has all but dismissed. “For the umpteenth time we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran,” he declared the other day, out of exasperation. So, instead, Mr. Bush has chosen to exert more financial pressure against European banks and others who do business with Iran, in hopes of squeezing the country so hard that it decides its leaders have to go. R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, argued in a speech in Washington on Wednesday that the squeeze is working — in ways it could not in North Korea — because Iran is “not a monolithic system, there are many voices, many different points of view.” Mr. Bush mused happily the other day about the troubles that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust-questioning president of Iran, is facing from elements of Iranian society that want jobs and visas. What may really be going on here, says Robert S. Litwak, the author of “Regime Change,” is that, “Iran is seen as the more dynamic threat” than North Korea. “That means the administration felt it could defer the core issue of disarmament” in the case of the North; it does not feel that it has that luxury with the Iranians, even if they are years from an actual weapon. But the ultimate lesson of the North Korea case may be that even after sanctions, even after mutual threats, at some point both sides have to take the leap toward negotiations. The Iranians keep sending hints they are ready to do so; on Friday evening, in response to questions, a senior administration official who is at the center of Iran policymaking (but would not agree to be quoted on the record) insisted that “it is not us refusing to talk to the Iranians, but they are refusing to come back” under the conditions the United States and Europe established. North Korea is also a reminder that those conditions can change. Just a year or two ago the deal reached last week would have been rejected by administration hardliners as rewarding bad behavior — and perpetuating one of the world’s most repressive governments. That is still the view of many of the advisers Mr. Bush once relied on. In the last two years of his administration, he has confronted reality in the coldest corner of East Asia. The question now is whether that foreshadows a similar shift as he confronts the dangers of the hottest corner of the Middle East. Next Article in Week in Review (2 of 10) » Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 21 [NYTr] Nukeyular North Korea Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:41:41 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Bill Koehnlein CounterPunch - October 10, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10102006.html ;5B Bush and North Korea: Bumbling Toward Disaster by Mike Whitney "We have reaffirmed our commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. The actions taken by North Korea are unacceptable and deserve an immediate response by the UN Security Council." President George Bush; following the detonation of North Korea's first nuclear weapon It took 6 years of relentless threats, sanctions and belligerence, but Bush finally succeeded in pushing Kim Jong-Il to build North Korea's first nuclear bomb. Now, Kim can just add a few finishing touches to his ballistic-missile delivery system, the Taepo-dong ICBM, and he'll be able to wipe out the 9 western states with a flip of the switch. In a matter of hours, the world has become a much more dangerous place, a fact that will have no effect of the blinkered ideologues at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They've probably already moved on to the next phase of their plan to expand the Middle East catastrophe; Armageddon in Iran. The crisis with North Korea was entirely avoidable for anyone with even minimal diplomatic skills and an elementary understanding of human psychology. Instead, the Bush troupe persisted for 6 years with the same inflexible policy nudging Kim ever-closer to producing his first nuclear weapon.Now, half the population of the United States is in the gun-sights of a madcap tyrant whose basic grasp of reality has always been seriously in doubt. At the same time, the White House has resumed issuing statements via its sardonic press secretary, Tony Snow, that Bush "is closely monitoring the situation and reaffirms his commitment to defend our allies in the region." "Monitoring the situation"? Bush has done everything in his power to facilitate the North Korean despot's quest for WMD except hand-deliver atom-bombs to the front porch of his imperial palace! Bush has put everyone in the region at greater risk and, without a doubt, triggered a nuclear-arms race in Japan, China and South Korea. It is the death-knell for non-proliferation and the threadbare NPT. The Bush administration has known what Kim wants for 6 years and has had ample opportunity to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff. North Korea's demands go back to the original 1994 "Framework Agreement" in which Bill Clinton promised to provide food, fuel and 2 light-water reactors in exchange for North Korea's abandoning its nuclear weapons programs. The North agreed to these terms, but the United States has never honored its obligations. When Bush took office, the agreement was jettisoned altogether and Bush pushed for sanctions. He placed North Korea on the "Axis of Evil" list, threatened regime change, and publicly announced that he "loathed" Kim Jung Il. All of this fueled the confrontation and thrust the wary Kim towards developing a viable nuclear deterrent to US aggression. Kim had no intention of being the next victim of Bush's preemptive policy. Bush's dim-witted bravado and saber-rattling has only made negotiations more difficult and aggravated an already tense situation. Even when it was announced that Kim would be testing a nuclear device sometime during this past weekend, the headstrong Bush still refused to enter "11th hour" negotiations. Instead, his Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill issued yet another ominous-sounding threat that "North Korea can either have a future or they can have those weapons. They can't have both." Kim, of course, brushed off the warning and detonated the bomb American Intelligence agencies now believe that North Korea has enough fissile material for between 2 to 8 nuclear warheads and they are speeding ahead with the development of the requisite delivery systems. What will Bush do now? Will he bomb the North and potentially open another front on the Korean Peninsula for our already over-extended military? Or will he simply continue with the fiery rhetoric and the chest-thumping bluster? His track-record is far from reassuring. The Bush team will probably follow their familiar pattern of ignoring the dilemma while creating a public relations smokescreen to conceal their incompetence. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice will undoubtedly make their appearances on the morning talk shows claiming that "we are all much safer" under the enlightened leadership of George Bush. Perhaps, they could synchronize their silly assertions to coincide with the explosion of Korea's next nuclear weapon. How could Bush let the situation get so out-of-hand? After all, the central tenet of the war on terror is: "We will not let the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the hands of the world's worst dictators"? Instead, they have elevated an unstable megalomaniac into a nuclear-armed menace. It could turn out to be the greatest foreign policy meltdown in American history. Bush needs to forgo the Texas bravado and make substantive changes to the present policy before North Korea becomes the world's largest WMD-production factory. First, he should agree to two-party talks with representatives from the North, which is what North Korea has demanded from the very beginning. Second, he should review all sanctions directed against North Korea and publicly state that he will reassess whether they are truly justified. Third, (and most important) Bush should offer firm assurances in the form of a treaty that North Korea WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE UNITED STATES IF IT ABANDONS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS. This has been the North's primary demand from the very onset of the crisis. (although it has been omitted from newspaper coverage to conceal the fact that the rest of the world is actually terrified of the America's erratic behavior) Fourth, the administration should reconsider providing the oil, food, and light-water reactors which were part of the original "Framework Agreement" as long as North Korea agrees to undergo intensive "go anywhere, see anything" inspections conducted by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. A larger tragedy can still be averted if cooler heads prevail. The time for bluster is past. The present policy is a dead-loss which has put everyone in greater peril. The North is currently working out the kinks in its Taepo-dong ICBM. If we are serious that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," (as Condi Rice opined) the administration must take positive steps to defuse the present crisis; its time to change directions, amend the policy, and negotiate a peaceful settlement. The alternatives are too horrific to consider. ** CounterPunch - October 17, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia10172006.html Nuclear Test, Political Flare: Intrepreting the Physics and Politics of North Korea's Nuclear Test by Manuel Garcia, Jr. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK = "North Korea") detonated a nuclear device (a.k.a. "bomb") on 9 October 2006, at 10:36 a.m. local time, at Hwaderi, near Kilju City in North Harnkyung province. What does this mean? Weapon (noun) 1: an instrument of offensive or defensive combat : something to fight with, 2 : a means of contending against another, 3 : an accumulation of economic activity stored up as potential force for coercion. Definitions 1 and 2 are from Webster. The DPRK Test & Nuclear Weapons Program We know three facts about this test: 1. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recorded an Earth tremor at 10:36 a.m. local time at the North Korean test site, with a Richter magnitude of 4.2. 2. This explosion had a "yield" -- the quantity of energy released -- equivalent to an explosion of 800 tons of TNT [0.8 kilotons (kT) = 3.4*10^12 joules = 3400 giga-joules (GJ)]. 3. There has been no measurable radioactivity released. We know one rumor about this test: a North Korean official told the Chinese that the planned yield was 4 kT, so the test result was "low." It is known that North Korea has separated Pu239 (plutonium, isotope 239) from nuclear reactor fuel rods. The DPRK test was of a plutonium fission assembly. Nuclear Fuel Nuclear fuel is enriched to have a higher percentage of unstable isotopes (fissile material) than occurs in natural ores (e.g., 0.7% U235 in nature). Uranium fuel rods for power reactors are a few percent U235, while being primarily the relatively stable U238. The processing of natural ores can be continued to produce highly enriched fuel -- "weapons grade" -- at 90% or more. Plutonium does not occur naturally, it is produced in uranium reactors when a U238 nuclei captures a low energy neutron (a U235 nuclei would fission). Uranium reactors "breed" plutonium; this effect can be exploited to produce feedstock to a "waste processing" or a "reprocessing" technology that produces weapons grade material, plutonium 239. Nuclear Weapons Design Basic facts about nuclear weapons design are in the public domain. The idea is to use chemical explosives to force a quantity of weapons grade fissile material into a minimal volume with maximal compression. The natural reactions of radioactive decay are vastly increased in number because a neutron released by the fissioning of one nucleus will almost certainly collide into a neighboring atom within the compressed mass, initiating the breakup of another unstable nucleus. This chaining of reactions creates a crescendo of energy release and an burst of high energy radiation (neutrons, gamma rays, x-rays, radioactive particles). To achieve "nuclear yield," a minimum mass of fissile material is needed to ensure the self-capture of neutrons emitted by fission reactions. This is the "critical mass." If the mass is below critical, it will still see an increase in fissioning beyond the natural rate, heat up by absorbing the energy released, and blow the assembly apart as a thermal explosion before the runaway acceleration of chain reactions can occur. An even smaller assembly might simply melt. The critical mass of a spherical shell of weapons grade material being imploded to a ball is listed for two materials and two cases (four separate examples): * Bare spheres: 56 kg U235, 11 kg Pu239; * Thick tamper: 15 kg U235, 5 kg Pu239. A tamper is a dense container to hold in the energy of the implosion as well as reflect neutrons back in. Plutonium assemblies can be smaller and lighter for the same explosive yield, a desirable attribute in the design of a ballistic missile warhead. "Simple" designs are most likely to produce about 10 kT, within a factor of 2; the Pu239 bomb dropped on Nagasaki was 21 kT. Designing a "low yield" device (e.g., a 0.5 kT to 2 kT "bunker buster") is a challenge, primarily because the warhead must fit within the small dimensions, and operate under the high acceleration forces of the intended gun and missile systems. Conventional Wisdom About the DPRK Test Published commentaries on the DPRK test arrive at three speculations: "dud," "spoof" and "hoax:" Dud: yield was low because the Pu239 bomb was a dud; an imperfectly symmetrical implosion by high explosives; or Spoof: the bomb was placed in a cavern to decouple the shock from solid ground, and thus send out a smaller seismic signal, disguising a larger magnitude of explosive force (it is noted that Russia claims the DPRK test yielded 5 kT to 15 kT); or Hoax: the test was a hoax, hundreds of tons of chemical explosives were used to simulate a low yield nuclear blast, presumably for some political purpose. Observations on the Value of Testing What I have observed from the U.S. Test Program is: Tests always yield instructive data about one or more of: * design performance, * material quality, * manufacture and testing procedures. There is never a failure to learn, only failures to achieve expectations. Even when you cannot pinpoint "what" failed or "why," you learn from the exercise of analyzing the data you do have. If all your sensors worked and recovered data as planned, and if calculations can be brought into accord with this data, then you validate your theoretical and calculation methods. You can never be sure of what you've got (in terms of capability) and how it will work (in terms of design) unless you test. This is why the non-proliferation treaties are "test bans" rather than "design work" bans. My Speculations on the DPRK Test 1. I don't think the "hoax" idea would be a benefit to the DPRK. Sure, maybe it would seem a way to bluff the U.S. into temporarily backing off for fear the DPRK really has a nuclear deterrent. But, as they wouldn't, it would mean that once the fraud was detected, the U.S. could attack with impunity, as with Iraq. 2. An unintentionally low yield for a Pu239 device would mean the test was a success; the DPRK nuclear weapons program demonstrating it could: * produce nuclear yield, * contain the radioactivity from an underground test -- so far, * collect data on their whole range of weapons production and testing procedures, * make improvements for the next test. 3. An intentionally low yield Pu239 device would mean: * proof of a sophisticated warhead design capability, or * proof of containment engineering sophistication (seismic spoofing). You will notice that speculations 1 & 3 involve conspiracy theories. So, without more data, I am inclined to believe speculation 2 -- like a kid learning to ride a bike, the DPRK nuclear weapons program has had its first long wobbly run, and we can see them getting the hang of it soon. The Political Significance of the DPRK Test What the DPRK leadership would probably want for a real nuclear deterrent would be warheads of 1 kT to 10 kT yield that would fit its missiles (a size and weight constraint) and survive the g-forces of flight (a strength and integrity of design constraint). A warhead only becomes a deterrent when you have demonstrated a credible delivery system. The DPRK's missile program may actually be more of a threat than its bomb program; if DPRK develops missiles that can hit India, Japan, China, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet near these last three, then a nuclear armed DPRK would have "deterrence." The size of the DPRK's nuclear arsenal will depend on the magnitude of plutonium production, and to a lesser extent the sophistication of their design and manufacturing. Better designs that produce higher yield with lower masses of plutonium would mean more warheads from a given stock of plutonium. The DPRK test is a huge failure of US policy. In brushing aside the Non-Proliferation Treaty as an obstacle to unilateralism, and by the example of the Iraq War, the U.S. has signaled to all that the only protection they can be assured of is having nuclear weapons. As in the U.S., the DPRK nuclear program may be an aspect of a wider elite subsidy program, where technocrats and econocrats channel national wealth into elite classes by an analogy to the "Pentagon system." Public resources are monopolized by a "national security" industrial complex, subsidizing its elite management class. Nuclear weapons enable the continuation of the simplified diplomacy practiced in the Bronze Age -- pure threat by superior force. We certainly cannot see the Bush-Cheney policy, as exhibited with Iraq and Iran, as having any advancement over that of Agamemnon at Troy. The restraint on aggression by industrial powers in post-colonial modern times has been their unwillingness to sustain continuing losses in colonial wars -- recall France in Algeria, the U.S. in Vietnam. This psychological restraint, purchased by formerly colonized nations at such terrible cost during the 19th and 20th centuries, has been their major deterrent force: "occupy us and you will sink into a quagmire." The industrialized nations use nuclear weapons to threaten each other with the destruction of their respective economic engines. This is relatively ineffective in the Third World since "there is nothing there to nuke." The Neoconic "mad dog" policy of persisting in the Iraq War aims to destroy the quagmire psychological shield -- the "Vietnam Syndrome" -- that small, less developed and militarily weak nations have relied on as their protection. The message from Armed Globalization is "to us the cost of crushing you is minor enough to sustain indefinitely -- submit." As Thucydides wrote 2500 years ago "The strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they must." Nations fearing that the Washington Empire is no longer restrained by the quagmire psychological shield have two options: submit or acquire nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have a deep psychological meaning to those who have them. They are a matter of "racial pride," and a way for nationalities that feel they have been treated disrespectfully by former (and continuing) colonial powers to "get back," to "show them" that they, too, can have power and be deserving of respect, and even awe and fear. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate race weapon, they would be the means to try to wipe out "another race" of people, where we make the Bronze Age assumption that each "population" or "race" occupies a unique territory. Their only use in war fits this model. The DPRK test may elicit quiet approval from people in many parts of the world, who feel they are hopelessly dominated by the Security Council Nuclear Powers. Nations like the DPRK, Cuba, Iran and increasingly Venezuela are the forward, activist agents of a much broader Third World sentiment of resistance to the capitalist integration of world economies. Others of these countries will look at the DPRK, compare it to Iraq, remember their own history, and contemplate starting their own nuclear weapons program. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate penis enlargement pills. The DPRK nuclear weapons program has got to be a very interesting card in the 2-hand poker game for power in East Asia, being played out between China and the U.S. The DPRK nuclear test was a signal -- a political flare -- to the U.S., saying "pay attention to us -- and, yes help -- but beware, don't try to harm us." The message to the rest of Asia is "if you help the U.S. attack us, you will pay dearly." The condemnation of the DPRK's nuclear test, from Asian nations including China and Iran, is a reaction to the local message only; it is easy to see that most of them agree with the DPRK's message to Washington. So yes, North Korea will be sanctioned and no, the sanctions will not be life-threatening. As long as the Bush-Cheney policy of stonewalling to save face continues, the DPRK nuclear weapons program will advance. When the United States agrees to talk again with North Korea, and in good faith, then the Bush-Cheney policy will have fallen and the DPRK's nuclear deterrence will have succeeded. This new equilibrium could be termed "nuclear armed quagmire," a "syndrome" for the U.S. and a "deterrent" to be contemplated by those being "globalized." Real nonproliferation is to be had with real -- and respectful -- help to the less developed nations in expanding sustainable (non-nuclear) energy technology and in rapidly achieving the Millennium Development Goals (see the United Nations Development Programme, MDG). What I find tragic is that if small countries did not have the fear that drives some, like the DPRK, to invest heavily in nuclear weapons development and weapons acquisition generally -- to deter being colonized, or "globalized" -- they would have many more resources to meet the needs of their people. It is this "waste investment" of nuclear weapons, wherever they are maintained, that I see as their most destructive effect. Every nuclear weapon is an actively exploding economic bomb, and only potentially a physical explosion. [Manuel Garcia, Jr. is a physicist.] *** CounterPunch - October 19, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia10192006.html North Korea's Nuclear Test: A Q & A by Manuel Garcia, Jr. Manuel, I just read your article in "Counterpunch", October 17, 2006 . As you know the US claims that it has detected radiation that "confirms" that North Korea actually did explode a nuclear device. I presume that detecting Pu239 wouldn't prove that a Plutonium fission reaction was achieved. Instead, you'd need to detect fission products that aren't present normally at the measured levels. What are these fission products, and what do you think the possibility is that these products could be detected in the air (probably a number of miles from the test site) after an underground test? Does a small underground nuclear explosion cause an EMP that could be detected by nearby aircraft at the time of the explosion? Thanks! Tony Heatwole Damascus, MD The US has claimed that airborne waste products from DPRK's recently detonated nuclear device has been detected. The only radioactive gas I know of is Radon. Would there be any others such as rare isotopes of naturally occurring non radioactive elements? -- J. Johnson Dear Tony Heatwole and John Johnson, Thank you for your letters. Air sampling for nuclear explosion traces focuses on the collection of xenon and helium. There are short-lived (radioactive) isotopes of these gases that occur as trace products from fission (e.g., alpha emission, a helium nucleus), and as activated species from the air around the explosion, which was irradiated. Also, if the bomb was "boosted," which is to say if there was a small quantity of tritium, or a mixture of tritium with helium or xenon gas, within the initially hollow plutonium shell, then there would be radioactive byproducts. Boosting is a method of increasing yield by putting a small fusion core within a much larger fissile mass. The U.S. spy planes would certainly be on the lookout for any evidence of boosting. This would say a great deal about the DPRK program's level of development. Trace quantities of noble gases are difficult to eliminate because they are so resistant to reaction (e.g., oxidation) and because they are so light, hence buoyant and quite penetrating through porous media. A buried nuclear explosion will create a hot high-pressure cavity, and of any of the species within it, the noble gases are the most likely to leak. Other species will "stick" to the earth because of their mass (slower, less energetic, less able to migrate through pores) and reactivity (chemically combine with static material). The pressure of a nuclear explosion cavity can strain the earth and open cracks, allowing gases to migrate from the explosion; the pressure dies down as the cavity cools, so after a few days the pressure to expel gas has gone. It should be noted that the emission of these noble trace gases is a normal effect of every underground nuclear test; these emissions are not considered a breaching of the containment. Sniffing for these gases was done on many U.S. tests, as a planned part of the measurements. Electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) would be "small" (above ground) for the NK test, and probably contained within the cavity and emplacement shaft. You may find other answers at the FAS (Federation of American Scientists web site. They are an excellent source for information on all aspects of nuclear energy and weapons. Manuel Garcia, Jr. * * * [threaded response follows] Dear MB: MB writes Dear MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. I refer to your article today... Is it possible that N.Korea acquired a nuclear bomb from the Black Market, and having done a routine time-overhaul on it, then detonated it last week? MG, Jr. replies I think this very unlikely. A working nuclear bomb is a very complicated thing, it requires controlled storage conditions, and any professionally made unit would have a very sophisticated electronic locking/disable harness, requiring a code to access to enable activating the unit. Any government in possession of such a unit would find it far more profitable to keep under its control than to sell on the black market; too much liability in that kind of sale in any case. How about everybody's favorite black market supplier, Khan (?) of Pakistan? As I recall, he sold equipment and know-how, but no "turn key" units. The industrial nations possessing nuclear weapons also have means to track them, not foolproof, but always being improved. Aside from tagging the units electronically (an assumption on my part), they are difficult to hide from radiation sensors, since they have kilograms of highly radioactive metal. Also, they heat up, requiring cooling, but visible to infrared detectors, which are now so common. Ah ha!, thick cases to shield it, but then it become a bulky thing to haul about. How about a "homebuilt" unit? The tough part is getting hold of the plutonium. The more amateur the design, the more plutonium you need to ensure some part of it forms a critical assembly. Can an amateur get hold of 12 kg of plutonium? And, could an amateur with so much plutonium put together his unit without being noticed? If you wanted to imagine a rogue organization putting together its own bomb, something with the flavor of a James Bond plot, then you would have to imagine a corporation with technical means, closed facilities, and a reliable group of committed people -- SPECTRE -- and you arrive at a remote physical possibility, though still (to me) a psychological impossibility. So, no, I don't see a black market bomb. I think North Korea did it all on its own. That is their message to everyone else nervous about having the U.S. come down on them: "we did it, you can too." It is known the North Koreans were harvesting plutonium from their reactors. This was confirmed by the IAEA, and precipitated the Clinton administration to make extraordinary conciliatory offers, leading to a breakthrough in relations with NK, including a cessation of their fuel enrichment activities. The Clintonians accomplished this in the 90's. Sadly, the U.S. did not follow through on the promises made, the deal was abandoned, and NK resumed its plutonium production. A week ago, we saw the result. Why should the North Koreans be unable to make their own bomb? Look at the South Koreans, they are very capable as regards modern technology. The same type of people, a few hundred kilometers north, and under a different political regime, should seem equally capable. We can assume that the technical experts involved, perhaps as little as a few thousand people, would be the intellectual cream of the crop in NK, and so regardless of how bizarre the public face of their ideology, they would have been afforded the necessary training and tools to be able to accomplish this, their life's work. I suppose in a "Manchurian Candidate" type of plot, the NK scientists and engineers would have been identified in 2nd grade as sharp minds, and carefully groomed up a very special educational ladder leading to their roles today. For those so privileged in an otherwise poor land, there would be little temptation to do otherwise. Pretty much everything you need to know to make a sophisticated nuclear weapon is out in the public domain, somewhere. The really hard part is in the actual doing. This takes time and money, which buys energy and equipment, which is used to produce material and a wide array of parts and sub-systems, all leading to integration in a unit. This is the DPRK's moonshot, they're very proud of themselves, they didn't fake it. I would guess they would be loathe to sell it because that would water down their investment of money and time (why give away exclusivity?). Missiles they might sell, but I'll bet they hold tight to their bombs and bomb designs. MB writes The Korea Times reported last week that N.Korea has an H-Bomb to detonate shortly. Surely such a high-tech device as this would be way beyond North Korea's manufacturing capability?? MG, Jr. replies Not after you've produced a fission bomb. One could "boost" a hollow-shell fission bomb, that is fill the interior with tritium gas, which gets compressed by the implosion, ignites fusion reaction in the gas, which emit a flood of high energy neutrons and as these stream through the fission shell, multiply the number of fission reactions by orders of magnitude -- vavoom, big yield. Also, a "hydrogen bomb" is simply a supply of tritium gas (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) in close proximity to a fission bomb, which is compressed and ignited by the energy of the fission bomb. This is accomplished in a heavy case, which reflects the energy radiated by the fission back in, so the hydrogen volume is compressed and heated to thermonuclear temperatures. A "hydrogen bomb" is like "turbo-charging," in a manner of speaking; the fission bomb is the essential engine. Tritium is produced from water circulating through nuclear reactors. If NK set off a plutonium fission bomb, then they have produced an implosion system, and reactor-based production of nuclear fuel. They have everything needed for tritium production -- so we must assume they have tritium -- and they have everything needed to produce a "hydrogen" bomb -- a fusion bomb. Just as with the U.S.S.R. in 1951 (2?), we can expect another test soon, and probably that of a fusion device. MB writes In 1991 others found, and therefore the USAF certainly had lost some type W-69M H-Bomb warheads as attached to SRAMS, and carried on a B-52g plane......I am told that the Initiators on them have a half-life of only 12-years? MG, Jr. replies I have no idea about this. Are there published accounts? I would have thought this would be a big news story. I have no idea about component lifetimes. As I recall, most everything in professionally made bombs have quite long lifetimes, though the metal does oxidize. Also, tritium decays fairly quickly, in fact this is never sealed in the units, but injected just before use from an external supply. Maintenance includes replacing tritium supplies periodically, as they go flat (I guess like club soda) MB writes We will have to wait and see what happens in North Korea. Maybe they bluff?? MG, Jr. replies I think not. MB writes The logical time for N.Korea to detonate such a devices would be before the US mid-term elections. MG, Jr. replies They may, or may punctuate one of their own anniversaries. They first have to do their data analysis from the first test, make any corrections to units being planned now, and then initiate an actual test schedule once they feel confident of their state of knowledge again. At that point, they'll look at the calendar, and pick out a desirable coincidence. MB writes This is the only record that we can find of a B-52 type G that fits everything else with regard to the nukes found in May 1991 off the coast of Somalia. B-52G (59-2593). No B-52Gs were lost as a result of enemy action. However, several were damaged. One B-52G (59-2593) was lost on February 3 (1991) when it experienced a catastrophic electrical system failure while returning to its base at Diego Garcia. While responding to the failure, improper fuel management on the part of the crew caused five engines to flame out, and the aircraft began to descend. Three of the crew members ejected safely before the aircraft crashed into the Indian Ocean, but three others ejected too late and were killed. These planes carried Short Range Attack Missiles (SRAMS) that have a range of about 115 miles. A forensic expert who did investigations on a consultancy basis for the FBI and CIA told me last year that the nuclear warheads on the SRAMS would have been type W-69M? MG, Jr. replies On your questions about "W-69," I do not know. Certified U.S. warheads carry shorthand labels "W-2-digit-year." Since no warhead has been certified since the 20th century, there is as yet no confusion with this system. There are web-sites of nuclear weapons watchers with a great deal of information as to the labeling and deployment of warheads and bombs (labeled "B-yy"). Also, one can look into congressional records and information about the NNSA part of the DOE, and probably find out what warhead goes to what missile. There are a few authors who specialize in these matters, and they have large books and web-sites. A little time with "Google" will easily yield many leads in this regard. U.S. warheads dropped into the sea (especially deep water) would probably be unusable. At best one could salvage the fissile material (if not overly oxidized/corroded by sea water). The state of the HE (high explosive) and electricals might not be reliable again. Also, it is possible the PAL (enable/disable locking system) could have automatically ruptured key components as a "safing" procedure during the unplanned departure from storage and/or a planned sortie. My knowledge is more about the physics, and much less so about the military application, and the many systems external to the actual nuclear core. * * * Andy Pyle wrote: Could they have deliberately moderated the force of the bomb with Lithium or something to create ambiguity? MG, Jr. replies: Speculation # 2, "spoof." Covered in the article. What's the point of spoofing? * * * Ian Kaplan wrote: I hope that the article is not a "career limiting move". Not only is it a comment in the press or North Korea, but it's in Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch. Someone commented once that you don't get into as much trouble for publishing in, say, a fascist publication as you do in a leftist one. Sort of an interesting commentary on values. Finally, I'll note that, for reasons that escape me, the United States has never been terribly committed to nuclear non-proliferation. Ian [Ian is a colleague of MG, Jr. at work, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; we are both members of SPSE/UPTE, the union group] MG, Jr. replies: It depends on what kind of career you wish to have. On looking back, I see that "career" was the limit. [Note to the reader: if we don't practice our 1st Amendment rights to free speech, then we don't have them, regardless of what it says on a piece of paper under glass in a mausoleum of history -- "use it or lose it." Also, stop being afraid, that is how you are enslaved. MG, Jr.] ** The Independent (UK) - February 14, 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2268076.ece North Korea Agrees to Nuclear Freeze in Return for Foreign Aid by Anne Penketh North Korea and the United States have taken a step back from nuclear confrontation after the reclusive Communist state agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons programme in return for foreign fuel aid. The deal, reached at six-party talks in Beijing, was hailed by the US President George Bush as "the best opportunity to use diplomacy to address North Korea's nuclear programme". His spokesman described it as a "very important first step" towards the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. But amid bitter memories of similar agreements that later fell apart, there were suspicions that North Korea had successfully blackmailed the world without totally renouncing its nuclear weapons programme. Announcing the agreement yesterday, the official Korean Central News Agency said Pyongyang had only agreed to a "temporary suspension" of its nuclear facilities. Under the pact, reached after week-long negotiations involving the US, North and South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, Pyongyang agreed to mothball its Yongbyon reactor complex in return for $300m (#154m) worth of aid. South Korea, China, the US and Russia - but not Japan - will provide 100,000 tonnes of fuel oil or an equivalent value of economic or humanitarian aid. Japan, which has taken a tough line towards North Korea since the election of the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last year, said it would not provide heavy fuel oil until the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea since the 1970s was resolved. One Bush administration hawk, the former UN ambassador John Bolton, criticised the decision to "reward" North Korea. "It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world," he told CNN yesterday. Mr Bush has in the past singled out North Korea - along with Iraq and Iran - as part of an "axis of evil." But Mr Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, yesterday denied North Korea was being rewarded and said the current deal, which could face hurdles before it is ratified, is stronger than earlier agreements as it committed six parties to the terms. North Korea has been under UN sanctions since it conducted its first known nuclear test on 9 October last year. But the key issue for Pyongyang had been the blacklisting of a Macau bank by the US treasury for alleged counterfeiting and money-laundering by North Korea. In the Beijing agreement, the US agreed to deal with that issue within 30 days. If all goes according to a timetable in the agreement, the pact provides for talks on normalising relations with the US and Japan, delisting North Korea as a sponsor of state terror and ending US trade sanctions. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said North Korea could have enough plutonium from the Yongbyon plant to make "five or six" nuclear bombs. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which was expelled from North Korea in December 2002, will now be allowed back. But the deal does not specifically provide for investigating whether North Korea has a uranium enrichment programme. Mr Snow warned that if North Korea did not live up to its commitments in the deal, it faces the continuing threat of international sanctions. The chief American negotiator, Christopher Hill, warned that "any action to restart the [Yongbyon] reactors would be a violation of the agreement." * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 22 USNews.com: North Korea Deal Is a Breakthrough of sorts, but It Leaves Tough Issues to Be Resolved Later from top: ANDREW WONG-AFP/GETTY IMAGES/POOL;GLOBALSECURITY.ORG/DIGITAL GLOBE DEAL. North Korean negotiators applaud the successful conclusion of talks in Beijing. The accord sets a timetable for shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor complex. By Thomas Omestad Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007 Last week's nuclear deal with North Korea, said a smiling Condoleezza Rice, took "patient, creative, and tough diplomacy." All true, but the secretary of state's upbeat summary masked an array of obstacles that had to be overcome merely to start down the long road toward stripping North Korea of any nuclear weapons and facilities. The obstacles included not only the North's legendary obstinance but also bitter disputes within the Bush administration. President Bush now appears to have sided with those who favor engaging Pyongyang over those who want to squeeze it in hopes of hastening the "evil" regime's collapse. "Rice was convinced, and that convinced the president," said Michael Green, Bush's former top Asia hand at the National Security Council. And yet for all the relief by fatigued negotiators from the United States and five other countries, the hardest tasks have been left for the future. In its first phase, the accord will not eliminate any of North Korea's nuclear weapons. Experts estimate the North now has between four and 13 bombs' worth of plutonium. Administration officials have insisted they would not reward the North's nuclear "bad behavior." But that, hard-line critics complain, is just what the deal does. Paradoxically, their assertion that North Korea had bested the United States is shared by some deal backers. Their complaint: The years of delay allowed Pyongyang to multiply its plutonium stockpile since the crisis erupted in October 2002. Says a former U.S. official, "We could have done this four years ago and gotten a better deal." The "ABC" policy. The new accord brought immediate comparisons with the Clinton administration's 1994 bilateral pact that until 2002 delivered fuel aid, among other benefits, for a reactor freeze. The Clinton approach was the foil against which hawks rallied, dubbing the Bush policy "ABC"-Anything but Clinton. The idea was to do nothing to abet the survival of Kim Jong Il's repressive regime. Last week, Rice argued that the new pact should be more durable because it is multilateral, backed up by power players like Russia, South Korea, Japan, and, especially, China. U.S. News has learned that China, host of the talks, pushed back on Pyongyang for nearly scuttling the accord by demanding even more energy aid. The agreement builds on the September 2005 joint principles for denuclearizing the North in exchange for security guarantees and economic and political benefits. Pyongyang is now obligated to halt and seal its Yongbyon reactor within 60 days, verified by U.N. inspectors. It will receive initial aid of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. As it disables nuclear facilities in a second phase, it gets 950,000 tons of fuel oil-all told worth $250 million to $300 million. Key move. U.S. officials also will try to rapidly resolve a dispute with North Korea over money-laundering sanctions that nearly derailed progress in the nuclear talks. Five working groups will meet on security, political, and economic issues. One will focus on normalizing U.S.-North Korea ties. Washington agreed to "begin the process" of removing the North from the U.S. terrorism list and from countries sanctioned under the Trading with the Enemy Act. That could be key for Pyongyang. "They want a normal, long-term relationship with the United States," says Stanford University scholar John Lewis, who has visited North Korea 15 times. The strategy developed by U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill reflects considerably more flexibility than granted earlier envoys. At unprecedented bilateral meetings in Berlin last month, U.S. News has learned, Hill and National Security Council official Victor Cha proposed that "disablement" of nuclear facilities should be the aim of a second phase of disarmament. That concept shaped the Chinese draft agreement ultimately adopted. But disablement falls short of actual dismantlement and removal of nuclear materials. The United States, in effect, added one more phase to the lengthy scenario leading to "irreversible" dismantlement. Hawks want the North to fully disarm before it is rewarded. But others endorse this step-by-step approach. "Before you can end the project, you've got to stop it," reasons Mitchell Reiss, former policy planning chief at the State Department. The agreement defers the North's formal declaration of nuclear assets into the second phase. The United States suspects the North has a secret uranium-enrichment program-and that could be a showstopper. Hard-liners in office-though dwindling in number-could play "gotcha" with an incomplete North Korean declaration. As the Beijing talks adjourned, Pyongyang's media called the suspension of its nuclear reactor "temporary"-a sign of future troubles. "This is still the first quarter," said Rice, a football fan. But it's not clear the game will even reach half time. Copyright © 2007 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 Japan Times: Nuclear uncertainties linger Web japantimes.co.jp Monday, Feb. 19, 2007 By KEIZO NABESHIMA For the people of Japan, the world's only country to suffer atomic-bomb attacks, the existence of nuclear weapons in any form is unacceptable. Regrettably, however, nuclear proliferation is continuing outside the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear arms of North Korea, which has deployed 200 Rodong missiles capable of hitting Japan, pose an immediate security threat to the country. The latest session of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear-arms development ended Feb. 13 with Pyongyang agreeing to shut down and seal its nuclear reactor and accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for energy supplies in two phases. The question is: Will North Korea abandon all its nuclear arms and programs? Past experience suggests the answer is probably no. A joint statement issued at the end of the six-nation talks made no reference to nuclear arms and highly enriched uranium, leaving open the possibility that North Korea will continue to possess and develop such weapons. In the medium to long term, security uncertainties in Northeast Asia are likely to increase. Japan and the rest of the world must renew efforts to have North Korea abandon all its nuclear arms and ambitions. North Korea has developed a certain strategy in negotiations: It creates a security crisis, reaches agreement on resolving the nuclear issue in return for compensation, then reneges on its promise before creating a new crisis. It accepts a new agreement, forcing the other parties pay a higher price. Meanwhile, Pyongyang gains time for nuclear-arms development. The first crisis on the Korean Peninsula started in March 1993, when North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT. In October 1994, the Clinton administration in the United States and North Korea announced conclusion of the Agreed Framework. Under the deal, Washington promised to build two light-water reactors for Pyongyang, with output of 2 million kilowatts, and supply 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year until the reactors were completed. In return, Pyongyang promised to freeze its graphite-moderated reactor. To implement the agreement, Japan, the U.S. and South Korea established the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. In October 2002, however, a new crisis erupted over North Korea's uranium-enrichment program. The Bush administration criticized the Clinton administration's policies toward North Korea, and suspended KEDO activities. To denuclearize the Peninsula, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, North Korea and China launched the six-nation talks, with Beijing serving as chair. In September 2005, the six nations announced their first joint statement, which included a promise that North Korea would abandon all its nuclear weapons and programs and return at an early date to the NPT and the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Japanese Foreign Ministry at that time praised North Korea's promise to abandon its nuclear arms and programs in a verifiable way, saying it was an important basis for peaceful resolution of its nuclear problem. Last October, however, North Korea announced a plan to conduct a nuclear test and went ahead with it despite international protests. Touting itself as a new nuclear power, North Korea demanded excessive energy aid in the latest talks as the initial step toward abandoning its nuclear arms and programs, resorting to its usual negotiating pattern. John Chipman, director general and chief executive of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said in publishing the "2007 Military Balance" at the end of January that North Korea had enough plutonium to build five to 10 nuclear bombs. He also said "there is little prospect" that North Korea will give up the weapons." North Korea could use its nuclear arms as a deterrent against the U.S. and as a trump card to ensure the survival of the Kim Jong Il regime. Kim himself is no doubt keenly aware of that. East Asia's strategic environment has dramatically changed since North Korea's missile and nuclear tests. To deal with the new situation, Japan needs to overhaul its diplomatic and security strategies. First, Japan must strengthen its security alliance with the U.S. and expedite joint development and deployment of a missile defense system. Efforts must be stepped up to expand Japan-U.S. security cooperation by reorganizing U.S. forces in Japan and increasing the interoperability between U.S. forces and Japan's Self-Defense Forces. Second, Japan must step up multilateral diplomacy in the region. As the peacekeeping mechanism on the Korean Peninsula, the six-nation talks are highly important. The group -- including China and Russia, which have been historically involved with Peninsula affairs -- serves as a barrier that contains North Korea's adventurism. Despite its limits, the group is an important forerunner of a future regional security organization. Third, Japan should take active steps toward international cooperation. It should play a major role in international crisis management by, for example, urging all member nations of the United Nations to make sanctions against North Korea more effective. Keizo Nabeshima, former chief editorial writer for Kyodo News, writes on political and international affairs. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 24 AFP: NKorea will have to perform over nuclear deal - White House Sun Feb 18, 2:30 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House defended a ground-breaking nuclear deal with North Korea from criticism that it failed to go far enough, saying the onus was on Pyongyang to perform. It is "the first step in a long series that includes the complete renunciation of nuclear weaponry and facilities within North Korea," White House spokesman Tony Snow told NBC television's "Meet the Press." "If they are going to get the benefits down the road including ultimately as much as a million tons of heavy oil, they've got to perform." Under the deal reached Tuesday at the six-party multilateral talks in Beijing, Pyongyang has 60 days to shut down its main Yongbyon nuclear reactor and allow United Nations nuclear inspectors back into the country. The energy-starved regime would in turn receive a first tranche of 50,000 tons of fuel oil -- part of an eventual one million tons and additional diplomatic, security and other guarantees if it permanently disables its key nuclear facilities. "We're not giving oil to them. They have to perform for the South Koreans, they have to perform with the Chinese, they have to deal with the Russians," Snow added. "All of a sudden they have multiple layers of accountability ... and they don't get the benefits until they have taken the steps." US Senator Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the deal meant Washington was back on track in US policy on Pyongyang, accusing President George W. Bush of taking "two steps backward" when he came to office. "We're about back where we started, but there's a long way to go," Levin said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: Japan, China Agree to Cooperate on Korea From the Associated Press Saturday February 17, 2007 12:46 AM By CHISAKI WATANABE Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) - Japan and China will cooperate closely to ensure that North Korea follows through on its agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs, Japan's prime minister said Friday. In a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe commended China's efforts in the six-nation North Korea nuclear talks, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said. ``Japan will continue cooperation with China and work hard to ensure North Korea keeps its pledge it made at the six-way talks,'' Abe told reporters after meeting with Li. North Korea agreed earlier this week to closer its main nuclear complex within 60 days and then disable all its nuclear facilities in exchange for the equivalent of up to 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil and political incentives from the United States and other regional powers. It was the first time North Korea agreed to take specific disarmament steps since talks began in 2003 between China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States. Also Friday, China strengthened its export controls on nuclear technology in a bid to prevent terrorists from getting hold of nuclear weapons or dangerous radioactive material, the official Xinhua News Agency said. The one-paragraph report gave no additional details. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 26 Newsweek: Now Comes the Hard Part - MSNBC.com It bodes ill that North Korean media now speak of 'arms control' talks among nuclear states. By By Michael J. Green Feb. 26, 2007 issue - The ink was barely dry on the nuclear deal signed February 13 by North Korea and the other members of the Six Party Talks before pundits began to blast the agreement. The arrangement-under which North Korea promised to seal and then disable core parts of its nuclear-weapons programs in exchange for energy aid and gradual relief from international sanctions-has been attacked by hawks, including former Bush staffers, as a reward for bad behavior. Former Clinton aides, meanwhile, say it's nothing more than what they negotiated in the 1994 Agreed Framework-which would still be in effect had Bush stuck with the plan. As happens so often these days, the left and the right are converging to attack the president. But while the deal may not be perfect, both sides have got it wrong. To start, the new accord goes way beyond the 1994 agreement, which promised North Korea two light-water nuclear reactors worth more than $5 billion and hundreds of millions of dollars of heavy fuel oil in exchange for its freezing and eventually dismantling its nuclear programs. There was no deadline built into the deal, and enforcement fell to Washington alone. This time, North Korea is being offered no light-water reactors and is being given a very strict deadline-60 days-within which it must begin sealing its nuclear facility at Yongbyon and detail all its nuclear-weapons programs. After that Pyongyang must start identifying and dismantling its nuclear programs. China and North Korea's other neighbors are now parties to the arrangement and have agreed to strict benchmarks. The involvement of these outside parties helps explain why the deal finally came together now. China was far less cooperative in 2002, when the United States caught North Korea cheating on the Agreed Framework by running a highly enriched uranium (HEU) weapons program; Beijing refused to get involved. The Bush administration eventually managed to convince the Chinese to host the Six Party Talks, however. Beijing continued to support Pyongyang's demands for light-water reactors and avoided putting pressure on Kim Jong Il. But China now had its own reputation on the line. When North Korea defiantly tested a nuclear device last year against Beijing's wishes, China's President Hu Jintao was reportedly furious at the loss of face. He began squeezing North Korea in ways once unimaginable, supporting U.N. sanctions and helping freeze North Korean bank accounts. It was this Chinese pressure that proved decisive this year, forcing the North Koreans to return to the table and accept a deal that fell well short of their initial demands. All this goes to prove the critics wrong. It does not, however, mean that the deal is guaranteed to work. There are worrisome signs that North Korea is still not serious about fulfilling its obligations. The nukes are Kim Jong Il's only trump card; his decrepit nation is forced to depend on China for half its food and most of its oil supplies. In Kim's paranoid worldview, a few nuclear bombs are the only thing that preserves his rule and prevents his country's absorption by his neighbors. It bodes ill that the North Korean media has already started describing the Six Party Talks as "arms control" negotiations among fellow nuclear-weapons states. Pyongyang has still refused to acknowledge the existence of its HEU program, which violates all previous commitments and could produce dozens of bombs once operational. If North Korea does not include the program on its list of nuclear facilities to be dismantled, the deal cannot move forward. Pyongyang could also reintroduce old demands for light-water reactors or the unconditional lifting of sanctions in order to stall the process and avoid implementing the agreement. If it does, there is a real risk Seoul and Beijing will be tempted to tolerate the delay; even Washington, preoccupied with Iraq, might go along. If they do, North Korea will continue working on its weapons programs, and possibly even stage another test to eke out still more concessions. Fortunately, because of its built-in deadlines, the new deal makes it easy to tell if North Korea is faking it-much easier than the Agreed Framework did. The real challenge for Washington now is to avoid declaring victory and turning its attention elsewhere. Instead, it must work to keep its partners onboard and to muster the will to punish Pyongyang (by cutting energy assistance and imposing financial sanctions) if North Korea proves intransigent. The United States has never had more leverage on North Korea than it does at the moment. If it allows the international coalition to dissolve and its determination to dissipate before North Korea shows any results, Washington will then truly risk repeating history in a dangerous way. Green was special assistant to President George W. Bush for Asian affairs from 2004 to 2005. He now teaches at Georgetown University and is the Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. c 2007 Newsweek, Inc. © 2007 MSNBC.com ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Report: IAEA Official to Visit N.Korea From the Associated Press Saturday February 17, 2007 10:01 AM TOKYO (AP) - A top official at the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to visit North Korea within two weeks to discuss details of nuclear reactor inspection that Pyongyang agreed to during the recent international disarmament talks, a Japanese newspaper reported Saturday. In a breakthrough deal reached in Beijing on Tuesday, North Korea agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor and allow U.N. inspectors back into the country within 60 days in return for energy and other support from the other nations participating in the six-party talks - the U.S., South Korea, Russia, China and Japan. A delegation headed by IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen, also head of the safeguards department, will hold talks within 14 days with North Korean officials to decide details including inspection procedures and a schedule to nuclear dismantlement, the Asahi newspaper reported, citing unidentified IAEA sources. A 35-nation IAEA meeting in early March will discuss results of Heinonen's planned visit in Pyongyang, Asahi reported. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 ContraCostaTimes.com: North Korea deal no slam-dunk for Bush 02/18/2007 | Opinion By Cragg Hines COMMENTARY KIM JUNG IL must love it. A new U.S. president to toy with and attempt to dupe every decade or so. All the best of luck to President Bush and his administration in its continued dealings with representatives of the Dear Leader, but the record is not encouraging -- on either side. Kim conned the Clinton administration good, and President Clinton was hot to hit Pyongyang and collect another esoteric international capital before his time ran out. Thankfully, that didn't occur. Then Bush arrived at the White House, determined to use a frostier hand with North Korea. Fair enough. But the new Republican administration, under the spell of the neocons, let the account go stone cold dead. Looking back at a 2001 column from less than two months into the Bush-43 era, I see a senior White House official saying the new administration had no plans about "when, where or how" to be in contact with North Korea. The Republicans were way too faithful to their word. The steely tactic became a policy, and all of a sudden, Kim was the silly grin in the "axis of evil." A Bush envoy didn't make it to Pyongyang until October 2002. More time passed, even as the nuclear threat of North Korea grew. Last October, North Korea carried out a small nuclear test, which seemed to be equal parts saber rattling and cry of desperation. And this week, six-party (United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia) talks resulted in a new deal that once again will attempt to walk Pyongyang slowly, incrementally and, as things stand now, inconclusively back from the nuclear brink. So far, so good if you believe Kim can be even marginally trusted, has fundamentally changed the way he does business and will plow on in good faith through all manner of negotiation thickets ahead. The cause of the doubts from even the heartiest supporters of nuclear nonproliferation, as well as the instant, outright opposition from critics on the American right, are not hard to fathom. Perhaps it's also understandable that the White House was ranking the development up there with sliced bread. Bush is now far needier of even an illusory uptick in foreign policy than Clinton in 1994 when his administration struck its ill-fated deal with North Korea. Clinton's Democrats hadn't even yet lost control of Congress. Bush on Tuesday called the deal "the best opportunity" for a diplomatic settlement of one of the world's thorniest geopolitical quandaries. He left out the part about a similar outcome probably having been available at almost any other point in his six years in office. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took pains to draw a bright line of difference between the 1994 Clinton framework and the effort she has directed as the top U.S. diplomat. Rice admitted that the deal is only "an implementing agreement of a larger agreement" and stressed that it was "multilateral." Here's the translation: We have no idea how this plays out, but we're confident Kim doesn't want to get up Beijing's nose too far. What will be interesting to watch is how many congressional Republicans, who were so derisive of Clinton's bilateral deal with North Korea, will roll over for Bush. There's a fair chance that at least the farther reaches of the congressional right will decide that the North Korean deal -- as opposed to the Iraq war -- is where they draw the line with their happy-talk backing of Bush. Democrats will certainly have a lot of questions of their own about the deal, as they should. Hines is a Houston Chronicle columnist based in Washington, D.C. E-mail him at cragg.hines@chron.com ***************************************************************** 29 Korea Herald: Roh eyes massive N.K. aid; Mnister Song to visit U.S. ROME - President Roh Moo-hyun said offering incentives to Pyongyang in return for nuclear dismantlement was crucial to resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis. "It will be a profitable business," Roh said on Thursday at a meeting with South Korean residents in Rome. The president added that he personally believed South Korea could go as far as to take full responsibility for providing energy and other aid to the North in order to reach the ultimate goal of nuclear abandonment although it was not a viable or necessary move. "I look at this with an optimistic view. If we (South Korea) don't (have a positive attitude) we won't be able to get things done. As the North's nuclear problem begins to untangle and reach a certain level, we will be working on settling peace between the two Koreas," Roh said. He said the six parties will fundamentally be discussing how to form a peace regime, not only for the Korean Peninsula, but for Northeast Asia as a whole through its multilateral framework. Earlier this week in Beijing, the six party negotiators agreed that North Korea will shut down its nuclear activities in Yongbyon within 60 days in return for some 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. The members, except for Japan, agreed the cost of the energy aid will be divided up equally among each other. They include South Korea, the United States, Russia and China. South Korean envoy Song Min-soon is scheduled to visit the United States next month to discuss follow-up steps. "Some have criticized the deal, saying that we keep giving to North Korea. But as the example of the United States' extensive aid to Europe shows, it was the United States that eventually profited from the aid the most," Roh said. Roh capped off his seven-day southern European tour by holding summit talks with Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi on Friday. The two leaders discussed bilateral relations and cooperation in the international arena. They agreed to enhance cooperation in various fields ranging from the economy, trade, small- and medium-sized businesses, IT, science technology, shipping, culture and academia, Cheong Wa Dae said. Roh also asked Prodi for Italy's continued support in peacefully resolving the North Korean nuclear problem and the introduction of a peace regime on the peninsula. Italy is a member of the G8 nations and the world's seventh-largest economy. Italy is South Korea's 15th-largest trade partner and the third-largest EU export destination after Germany and Britain. Trade volume between the two countries has been rapidly increasing since 2000. In 2005, two-way trade amounted to $7.06 billion. Roh, accompanied by first lady Kwon Yang-suk, headed home on Friday afternoon after visiting an industrial complex of Italian small- and medium-sized businesses. Roh visited Spain, Vatican City and Rome from Sunday through Friday as part of the government's expanded diplomacy policy. Roh is set to arrive in Seoul on Saturday afternoon. Roh's trip was buoyed by the six-party deal on North Korea's nuclear program. The president, who was in Madrid at the time, welcomed the news with U.S. President George W. Bush via telephone and reaffirmed their pledge to tackle the North Korean nuclear problem flexibly and assertively. During dinner with South Korean residents in Spain, Roh congratulated Foreign Minister Song Min-soon for the accomplishment. "I have done little (for the success). It is Foreign Minister Song Min-soon who succeeded in including in the Joint Statement a peaceful inter-Korean regime and a multilateral security framework," Roh said in his speech, drawing loud applause. "He isn't eloquent or very handsome but it is due to such ability that I appointed him foreign minister," the smiling president said jokingly. Indeed, the president had embarked on the tour to Spain, the Vatican City and Italy with a heavy heart due to tumultuous domestic politics but ended it in a festive mood. Roh's popularity ratings, which have gone up more than 20 percent in four weeks, shot to 20.9 percent from 16.9 percent last week after the six-party breakthrough, according to a poll conducted by local news network CBS. Spain welcomed President Roh, the first South Korean president to visit the country, with the highest level of courtesy. Spain reportedly accepts only a couple of state visits a year. During his four-day stay, Roh met King Juan Carlos a total of six times including at a formal welcoming ceremony, dinner, a Korea-Spain business forum and the opening ceremony of the International Contemporary Art Fair of Madrid (ARCO). Spanish government officials were disappointed on Monday when rain forced the welcoming ceremony to be moved indoors, Cheong Wa Dae officials said. Tens of guardsmen guided President Roh's delegation in his visit to City Hall on Tuesday, creating an extravagant sight for both locals and tourists, it said. Toward the end of the visit, King Carlos called President Roh his "good friend." President Roh Moo-hyun and Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero agreed on a 20-point joint statement pledging fortified strategic relations in the fields of economic and trade, science technology cooperation and culture and arts exchanges. Their discussion ranged from security issues on the Korean Peninsula and the pending free trade agreement negotiations between South Korea and the European Union. On the last day in Spain, Roh attended the Korea-Spain business forum with King Carlos and asked the businesspeople of the two countries to cooperate in advancing into third-world countries including those in Central and South America. Roh arrived in Rome, Italy, on Wednesday evening. His itinerary began with a visit to the Vatican City and a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. The two shared views on the North Korean nuclear problem and how to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. During the 25-minute talks, Roh thanked the pope for supporting peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula and requested continued encouragement. In return, Benedict XVI praised the South Korean government's efforts to bring peace to the region and urged the South to continue to pay close attention to North Korea, especially the young and the weak in the impoverished state. To President Roh's invitation to visit to South Korea, the pope said he would visit if his health permitted. After visiting the pope, Roh attended a luncheon hosted by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state. Cardinal Bertone welcomed the latest agreement reached at the six-party talks and said he hoped mutual understanding and exchange through dialogue would prosper between the two Koreas. Roh's afternoon schedule included touring main cultural sites, including Piazza del Campidoglio, the Porto Romano, the Colosseum and St. Peter's Basilica. In the evening, the president hosted a dinner for South Korean residents in the area. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee Korea Herald correspondent 2007.02.17 ***************************************************************** 30 [NYTr] Russia May Unilaterally Quit INF Treaty Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:34:47 -0500 (EST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by tim Murphy (activ-l) RIA-Novosti via SpaceWar - Feb 16, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_May_Unilaterally_Quit_INF_Treaty_999.html Russia May Unilaterally Quit INF Treaty by Staff Writers Moscow (RIA Novosti) Feb 16, 2007 Moscow may unilaterally abandon the agreement between Russia and the United States on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, the chief of the General Staff said Thursday. The former Soviet Union and the U.S. signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1988 and does not have a specific duration. "It is possible for a party to abandon the treaty [unilaterally] if it provides convincing evidence that it is necessary to do so," said Army General Yury Baluyevsky. "We have such evidence at present." The INF treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union. "Unfortunately, by adhering to the INF treaty, Russia lost many unique missile systems," the general said, adding that many countries are currently developing and modernizing medium-range missiles. Demand for the INF treaty arose in the 1970s when the Soviet Union began to deploy what the West called SS-20 missiles. These were two-stage, medium-range missiles, many of them mobile and hard for the United States to track or destroy. Since most SS-20s targeted Europe, they allegedly threatened America's NATO partners. The U.S. administration under Ronald Reagan proposed the so-called "zero option," stipulating that if the Soviet Union scrapped all its ground-launched medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, the United States would do the same and abandon its plans to deploy anti-missile defenses in Europe. Seeking better relations with the West, ex-Soviet leader Gorbachev agreed to remove more than three times as many warheads and destroy more than twice as many missiles as Washington by 1991. Baluyevsky's remarks could be interpreted as a strong warning to the U.S. regarding its plans to deploy elements of its anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and as a follow up to recent statements made by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Putin said on February 10 that deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in Central Europe could trigger a new arms race. The Russian leader told the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy that the reasons the U.S. cited in favor of deploying a missile defense system in Europe are not convincing enough, as launching North Korean ballistic missiles against the U.S. across Western Europe would be impossible, given the required trajectories. "This clearly contradicts the principles of ballistics. Or, as we say in Russia, it's like trying to reach your left ear with your right hand," he said. Moscow strongly opposes the deployment of a missile shield in its former backyard in Central Europe, describing the plans as a threat to Russian national security. Speaking at an annual televised news conference February 1, President Putin pledged to amend the country's military strategy in view of the new developments. "We must think - we are thinking - of ways to ensure our national security. All our responses will be asymmetrical but highly effective," he said. The Russian military chief said Thursday that Russia's participation in the INF treaty will depend on future U.S. moves on missile defenses. "What they [the Americans] are doing at present, building a third missile defense ring in Europe, is impossible to justify," Baluyevsky said. Washington has also recently moved its largest sea-based missile defense radar in the Pacific from Hawaii to the Aleutian Islands, not far from Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula. *** Earlier related report: AFP - Feb 15 2007 Russian army chief threatens withdrawal from missile treaty AFP (Moscow) Russia could withdraw from a Cold War-era treaty limiting short and medium-range missiles if the United States places a missile defence system in the Czech Republic and Poland, the head of the armed forces said on Thursday. General Yury Baluyevsky told Russian news agencies that Moscow or Washington were entitled to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, commonly known as INF, if there was "convincing proof" of the need to do so. With several countries currently developing medium-range missiles, "such proof exists," he told Interfax. He said Russia's decision could hinge on US plans to build a missile defence shield in central Europe -- plans that Moscow strongly opposes. "We will see how our American partners act in future. What they're doing today, creating an... anti-missile defence region in Europe, is inexplicable," said Baluyevsky. At an international security conference on Sunday, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov called the INF treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987, a "relic" of the Cold War, saying that other countries were developing such weapons while Washington and Moscow's hands were tied. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the US had received no formal notice from Moscow about withdrawing from the INF but was "still looking into the specific provisions" of the treaty concerning an eventual pullout. "I just would make the basic point that our effort to deploy an antimissile system around the world ... is in no way directed at Russia's strategic forces," McCormack said. "They are instead designed to help protect the United States, its friends and allies from the possible launch of missiles from rogue states such as Iran," he said. McCormack reiterated that Washington had asked Russia to cooperate with it on the missile defense issues and that the offer still stands. "I know the Russians have had a reaction to this, I can't tell you exactly why, but it's not for lack of explanations and assurances and a number of levels that this is not directed at them," he said. Moscow has said it does not accept Washington's assurances that its plans for the defence shield are not aimed against Russia but against "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. President Vladimir Putin has promised a "highly effective" response if the United States deploys the defence shield. Neither the Czech Republic nor Poland have yet approved the US plans, but officials from both countries have spoken in favour. Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that the shield would protect "the free world." Poland's Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said Thursday he was in favour, under certain conditions, of Poland housing missiles for a defence shield. RIA Novosti Source: Agence France-Presse * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: China strengthens controls on nuclear exports Sat Feb 17, 2:29 AM ET BEIJING, (AFP) - China has said it plans to strengthen controls on the export of nuclear equipment, days after an international agreement was reached on phasing out North Korea's nuclear programme. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao signed a decree banning the use of Chinese nuclear goods and technology to carry out atomic explosions without prior agreement, state press reported. Importers of Chinese goods will also be barred from using them for nuclear proliferation, except under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Although the decree does not specifically mention North Korea, it comes hot on the heels of an agreement secured on Tuesday in the Chinese capital in which Pyongyang agreed to close its nuclear facility in Yongbyon and allow the return of IAEA inspectors, expelled in December 2002. Xinhua said existing Chinese regulations on the control of exports had not been tough enough to prevent nuclear proliferation. US President George W. Bush urged his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao Thursday to keep enforcing UN-imposed sanctions on North Korea. The United Nations adopted a resolution following North Korea's October 9 test imposing a raft of sanctions, including a ban on selling goods and technologies that could be used for nuclear programmes to Pyongyang. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Newsweek: Putin and the New Cold War MSNBC.com The Dawn of the Next Cold War In Munich, Putin sent a clear message: the new Russia hopes for friendship with America, but it has also learned to say no. By By Ian Bremmer Feb. 26, 2007 issue - The 32-minute blast Vladimir Putin delivered at a recent security conference in Munich will go down as a classic. America's "uncontained" militarism, the Russian president declared, has created a world where "no one feels safe anymore," and where other nations feel almost forced to develop nuclear weapons in their own defense. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to laugh it off, joking that "as an old cold warrior" the speech had "almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time"-and went on to tout Washington's preference for partnership and good relations. Make no mistake, though. Putin delivered a message, and the White House heard it loud and clear. It goes something like this: in the 1990s, America pushed us around. On NATO expansion, we asked you to consider our national interests. You answered with an advance into former Soviet territory in Eastern Europe. You spoke of energy partnership yet built new pipelines to bypass our territory. Western companies took advantage of our economic troubles to buy access to our natural resources at cut-rate prices. We asked you to respect the antiballistic-missile treaty; you destroyed it. You expect us to sit quietly while you make trouble in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Central Asia-lands that existed within the Russian sphere before America was a nation. You ask our help in the war on terror but condemn our fight against the Chechen terrorists. Now you want to deploy missile-defense systems in Central Europe. Yes, we hope for friendship with America. But ours is a new Russia. If you treat us without respect, you will discover that we can say no. All this built-up resentment was clear in Putin's speech. A decade or so ago, the United States didn't really have to take Russia into account. The cash-strapped Kremlin was preoccupied with rebellious provincial governors, grasping oligarchs, embittered communists and Chechen separatists. The erratic and alcoholic Boris Yeltsin inspired little confidence, the Russian economy even less so. Today, all that has changed. Putin has cowed the oligarchs and tamed all political rivals, including the once independent Duma. Oil prices tripled between 2002 and 2006, filling Russia's coffers with cash and powering growth of 7 percent annually. Putin's approval ratings hover around 75 percent. Russia's willingness to demonstrate its newfound strength has prompted some to speculate that we're looking at a new cold war. Certainly, U.S.-Russian relations have deteriorated. But a new cold war? The picture is more complicated. Yes, the Soviet Union and its nuclear arsenal occupy a special place in the dark corners of the American imagination. But this time around, Russia enjoys competitive advantages the Soviet Union lacked. It has shed its sclerotic Soviet political and economic system. It has no burdensome empire to manage. And Putin, unlike Soviet leaders, has a popular mandate, not just at home but, increasingly, abroad. The Russian leader is now welcomed warmly in many places where public attitudes toward America have soured, if not turned hostile. Story continues below  advertisement <A TARGET="_new" HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/34fd/3/0/%2a/y%3B52034862%3B0-0%3B0%3B8600532%3B4307-300/250%3B19617136/19635030/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/1500a2/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp%3a%2f%2fclk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/wpnxxaub0220000250mrt/direct/01/"><IMG SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/innovator/Microsoft_300x250.jpg" BORDER=0></A> During his speech in Germany, Putin offered this on the cold war: "It was a fragile peace, a scary peace, but it was fairly reliable. Today, it is less reliable." In a growing number of ways, he's right-and increasingly widely recognized as right. Putin didn't bang his shoe on the podium; he didn't seek to counter America's move to set up anti-missile defenses in Eastern Europe with empty threats to install missiles in Cuba. But if the Bush administration hopes, for example, to successfully pressure Iran to renounce its nuclear ambitions, it will need Russian help. And in this, Putin signaled, the Kremlin has probably gone as far as it's going to. In Munich, Putin alluded to an "asymmetric" response to American hyperpower. Iran offers one clue to what that means. The logic is no longer chiefly commercial, as it once might have been. Nowadays, the Kremlin wants to carve off some of America's regional influence. It's also telling that Putin went from Munich to the gulf. To Saudi Arabia, he offered help with development of a civilian nuclear program; in Qatar he spoke about the formation of a natural-gas cartel. In Jordan he pressed for development of new political and economic ties. Days later, he dispatched Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to meet his Indian and Chinese counterparts to discuss ways of counterbalancing U.S. power in, as Putin sees it, a newly multipolar world. Russia is entering an election cycle, and it's unclear who will replace Putin at the end of next year. But note: within the Kremlin, Putin counts among the most pro-Western Russian leaders. Others around him are viscerally anti-American. No, this isn't a new cold war. It's far more complex-and that might be worse. Bremmer is president of EurAsia Group and author of "The J-Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall." c 2007 Newsweek, Inc 2007 MSNBC.com ***************************************************************** 33 UPI: China takes firmer stance on WMDs United Press International - Updated: 02/17/2007 11:14:43 PM -0500 UTC BEIJING, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- The Chinese government has altered its nuclear exports control regulations in order to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a report says. China's news agency Xinhua reported that the latest revision of the Chinese export regulations is part of an attempt by the government to head off nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of such weapons. Friday's revision will increase security surrounding any deliveries of nuclear goods and technology and force any recipients to fulfill added obligations to ensure the delivery's proper use and safety. As part of this new effort, China's Ministry of Commerce may now detain and inspect any suspicious cargo being shipped through customs and may call for further investigations if necessary. Xinhua said the ministry will also be allowed to adjust the nuclear export control list in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other Nuclear Suppliers Group members. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Nuke Power Plants To Stay Open In Case Of Flu Pandemic Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:11:08 -0500 Please note the change in my e-mail address [ it's now smirnowb@verizon.net ] -Bill Smirnow This may present some very "interesting" scenarios. Such as, what about one or more persons that pass out, become delusional or have some other inability to function on the job. What happens then? Chernobyl[s]? Easier access for terrorists? For those reading this outside the USA it might be intersting to dig into what plans your government has in store for a pandemic and nuclear power and nuclear weapons systems [chemical plants, too]. I'd be interested in any feedback on this one. They really have our well being in mind, now don't they? -Bill Smirnow http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Bird-Flu-Groceries-Critical-Sectors.html?_r=1&oref=login Sectors to Stay Open in Pandemic a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Save By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: February 18, 2007 Filed at 2:17 p.m. ET The U.S. government has identified 13 sectors and four resources that must remain operational during a bird flu pandemic. They are: Critical infrastructure -- food and agriculture -- national monuments and icons -- banking and finance -- chemical and hazardous materials -- defense industrial base -- water -- public health and health care -- energy -- emergency services -- information technology -- telecommunications -- postal and shipping -- transportation Key resources -- government facilities -- dams -- commercial facilities -- nuclear power plants Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security [Hyperlink Via URL At Top] ***************************************************************** 35 YONHAP NEWS: Malfunction causes shutdown of nuclear power reactor in Yeongggwang 2007/02/18 21:00 KST YEONGGWANG, South Korea, Feb. 18 (Yonhap) -- A malfunction caused a shutdown of a nuclear power reactor at one of South Korea's atomic power plants, authorities said Sunday. Operators at the Younggwang Nuclear Power Plant in South Jeolla Province said operations of Unit No. 1 were suspended a little past 6 p.m., after a malfunction was detected. "There was no radiation leakage, and once experts determine the exact cause of the malfunction, operations will begin again," said a spokesman for the plant, located 322 kilometers south of Seoul. Minor malfunctions that could lead to a shutdown are not reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The generator is one of six units in the power plant. It went into commercial operation in August 1986 and has generates 950 megawatt of electricity. In addition to the Younggwang plant, South Korea operates 20 nuclear reactors throughout the country that fuel 40 percent of the country's electricity needs. (END) ***************************************************************** 36 Star-Banner : Could Levy reactor repeat Crystal River's success? Ocala.com | Ocala, Fla. Feb. 18, 2007, Today's Events. BY RICHARD CONN STAR-BANNER CRYSTAL RIVER - When he moved from big-city Tampa to small-town Crystal River in 1971, Phillip Price still found a metropolitan-style hustle and bustle. That's because construction workers, commissioned to build a nuclear power plant for Florida Power - predecessor to Progress Energy - had descended on the town in droves and seemingly scooped up all the available rental property. "The big impact was there was nothing to rent," said Price, an accountant who now sits on the Crystal River City Council. "There was lots of money changing hands. It was like a boomtown." The bulk of those workers would stay in Crystal River during the week and then make a mass exodus out of town on the weekends, leaving the city ripe for tourists, Price remembered. "The saying at the time was 'Will the last person in Crystal River turn the lights off?'Ê" Price said. Construction would last six more years until the plant would eventually become operational on March 13, 1977. Situated on some 4,700 acres near the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the nuclear reactor is part of a 3,410 megawatt-generating power plant complex - which includes four coal-fired power plants - that has for 30 years been Citrus County's largest private sector employer and taxpayer. More than that, the plant largely reshaped Citrus County, because the plant's employees created the need for a spate of new homes, paved roads, schools and commercial developments. "It brought kind of a new cultural twist," said Gary Maidhof, Citrus County's Development Services Director. "It brought in folks that were looking for more cultural amenities." The county's population has tripled since the power plant's construction. In the 1960s, Dixie Hollins' father and grandfather sold their land to Florida Power to build the power plant. Hollins said the plant has spawned the types of jobs and development that wouldn't have been possible without its arrival. "That whole power complex has been a tremendous opportunity for the citizens of Citrus County," Hollins said. Now residents in neighboring Levy County could experience a similar change in culture and boost to the local economy. Progress Energy has proposed building up to two nuclear power plants on a 3,000-acre parcel about eight miles north of the Crystal River energy complex. The plant would create some 500 full-time jobs and generate some 2,000 construction jobs, utility officials said. However, Progress hasn't submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and company officials say they haven't made a firm decision on whether to actually build a reactor. Of course, for county and city officials, one of the primary lures of having a nuclear power plant is the tax dollars a reactor can generate. The Crystal River plant routinely pumps close to $30 million annually into Citrus County's coffers. Price remembered seeing a chart in the county tax assessor's office, which detailed the plant's staggering financial impact following its arrival. "Everybody's taxes went down from Florida Power," Price said. If a new reactor is built in Levy County, it could generate up to $199 million in tax money during its first 12 years in operation, according to Enterprise Florida, the state's economic development arm. The plant would essentially double the county's tax base. But in the early 1970s, the promise of lower taxes wasn't enough to make everyone happy about the power plant's arrival in Crystal River. Helen Spivey said when she and her husband purchased a slice of land in the city to build a home in 1971, they weren't aware that a nuclear power plant was in the works just about six miles from their home. "It wasn't a thing at that point that Realtors revealed to you," Spivey said. When she found out, Spivey made a beeline to a city council meeting bound and determined to convince officials that Crystal River wasn't suited for a power plant. "My eyes lit up, my veins were on fire and away I went," Spivey said. "I told them I had no desire to glow green." But Spivey was apparently a voice in the wilderness. Asked if she or anyone else showed up to fight the plant's construction, Spivey replied "not really." Despite the power plant's impending arrival, the Spiveys went ahead and built their house. Helen became a fixture in the community, and was elected to the Crystal River City Council, and later, the state House of Representatives. Spivey recently moved to Homosassa, but said she still has plenty of safety concerns about the plant, primarily the spent radioactive fuel cells that are stored on-site. Spivey said she's amazed more people aren't concerned that the plant is "sitting in its own bath water." Before he moved to Crystal River from northern Virginia about 20 years ago, Ron Kitchen said his friends cracked a few jokes at his expense about moving close to a nuclear reactor. But Kitchen, now Crystal River's mayor, said he's learned over the years that Progress has jumped through all the numerous regulatory hoops and believes the spent fuel cells pose no risk. "It's got to be the most regulated thing there is in the world," Kitchen said. While the plant itself is certainly not hidden, it's also not visible from the main drag through town, U.S. Highway 19. Sometimes, Kitchen said it's easy for residents to forget about the power plant's existence until its emergency sirens go off every Friday at noon. "If they didn't test the sirens, you wouldn't know they were there," Kitchen said. But Kitchen said the power plant's employees are indelibly woven into the fabric of the community. They are church choir members, Little League coaches and Boy Scout troop leaders. "It is difficult to visit any particular street and not see someone who doesn't work for Progress Energy," he said. And undeniably, the power plant has provided high-paying, long-term jobs. The plant's some 800 employees are among the most well-paid in the county, averaging between $60,000 to $70,000 a year in annual salary, Progress spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said. Spivey said that when the plant arrived, many high school students refocused their education in hopes of getting a job there. "A lot of people who were graduating high school started going to tech school so they could get jobs," Spivey said. And Crystal River's nuclear power plant is there to stay. Progress Energy plans to increase the plant's output from 900 to 1,080 megawatts, or enough to serve an additional 110,700 homes - a project that is expected to cost $382 million. The utility also plans to submit an application in early 2009 to renew its license for the Crystal River Plant for an additional 20 years, Progress spokesman Buddy Eller said. That's good news for the county because the absence of the power plant would leave a gaping hole in the county's economy, said Brett Wattles, president of the Citrus County Economic Development Corporation. "It would be a big dent, and they would have to find a way to replace that money at the county level," Wattles said. "It would certainly take the community a while to recover." Wattles said that at one time the power plant accounted for almost half of the county's tax base, but that it now shoulders about 15 percent of the county's tax burden. Officials in Crystal River and Citrus County were clamoring for Progress to select the Crystal River site to build its next reactor. Both Kitchen and Price said it's difficult to find such a unique type of development that so greatly increases the tax base, yet requires so few services. If Progress does decide to build in Levy County, a lengthy permitting process is ahead and a new power plant wouldn't become operational until 2016. Kitchen said he's still holding out hope that Progress officials will change their minds and that Crystal River would be able to snare a new nuclear reactor. "As far as I'm concerned, until they start building the plant, it's not a done deal yet," Kitchen said. Richard Conn may be reached at richard.conn@starbanner.com or 867-4045. The Progress Energy nuclear power facility in Crystal River is seen from West Fort Island Trail. PHOTOGRAPHS BY JANNET WALSH/STAR-BANNER © Copyright 2007, The Ocala Star-Banner ***************************************************************** 37 APP.COM: NRC disregarding signs of trouble at Oyster Creek | Asbury Park Press Online Sunday, February 18, 2007 Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/18/07 BY JANET TAURO Post Comment Let's do some role-playing. You are a federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission member. You are charged with overseeing safety at the country's nuclear reactors — the most costly, dirtiest and "most dangerous technology available for boiling water." You must decide whether the nation's oldest reactor situated in the middle of a densely populated region can chug along until its 60th birthday without jeopardizing the lives of 630,000 people living nearby. You have a list of problems that don't bode well for the plant, which is owned by a powerful company, Exelon: A document written by an Exelon engineer surfaces cautioning that the support floor to the elevated pool, already packed with 450 tons of nuclear waste, was not built to design and not adequately attached to the walls. State officials legally challenge your agency to assess the plant's vulnerability to terrorist attack — specifically that the radioactive waste is sitting in pools 70 feet above ground and protected only by a metal roof. That challenge is supported when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to interfere with an appeals ruling mandating evaluation of terrorist risk before license renewal. The commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection states her preference for installation of cooling towers to stop the killing of billions of marine life, including endangered species. Soon after, the federal Environmental Protection Agency rules that nuclear plants install cooling towers to limit environmental damage. The drywell, the steel liner shielding the public from radiation, which even Exelon estimated to be just .06 inches away from failing safety code, has now rusted at least another .02 inches. A national laboratory study shows there is a significant chance the drywell is already below safety code. An internal memorandum from a plant employee shows that Exelon knows the way it analyzes the drywell's structural strength is fundamentally flawed. A glass soda bottle is found embedded in the drywell floor, and a DEP official wonders what other "voids" might be exasperating corrosion in a letter posted on an NRC Web site. An e-mail exchange between Exelon executives stating that the equipment used to take measurements of the drywell didn't perform worth "———" becomes public. Now what do you do with this list? Cease operations until a plan of action can be drawn for safety and security? Order Exelon to empty the fuel pool and secure contents in concrete cask storage? Assess the effects of an aircraft attack? Enforce the EPA order to install cooling towers? Demand immediate state-of-the-art modeling to determine the actual thickness of the drywell? Find out what other garbage is embedded in the drywell floor? Find out more about the disturbing e-mail exchange? If you chose any of the above answers, you're wrong. In this very real scenario, the NRC has instead apparently put Exelon on the fast track to the relicensing finish line and given preliminary approval to the safety review for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey. Don't be surprised. A few months ago, the NRC disregarded the fact that Exelon had used 35-year-old data to assess the plant's environmental impact on Barnegat Bay. If the license is renewed, Ocean County will have the dubious distinction of being the nation's test case for whether a nuclear plant with an obsolete design can operate safely many years beyond its retirement date without hurting anyone. That's a Guinness record we could live without. And that is why our coalition, Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, with expert representation by our attorney, Richard Webster of the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, is by no means finished with our fight. Our legal proceedings, which are ongoing, already have forced a more careful monitoring and analysis of the structural integrity of the drywell. The DEP, with approval from Gov. Corzine, will reportedly hire an independent expert to analyze the drywell's structural integrity. That expert should also take a close look at the spent fuel pool and its floor support, of which Exelon's own engineer wrote, "If the rebar (a metal fastener) is really corroding as projected, I suspect our design analysis of the floor support is not valid today, let alone for a 20-year life extension." The governor has stated that if the plant is not safe to operate, it shouldn't operate. We respectfully draw the governor's attention to the list provided here. If the roles were reversed and he were an NRC commissioner charged with safeguarding the lives of hundreds of thousands, what would he do? Janet Tauro, Brick, is a member of Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, a coalition of six citizen and environmental groups. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 Detroit Free Press: Power up new nuclear energy plants * Freep.com February 18, 2007 BY DON WILLIAMS The citizens of Michigan are being told that we need new baseline electrical power plants, the kind that run night and day, wind or no wind, bumper corn crops or not. I agree. But I also read and hear remarks spreading the impression that nuclear power plants are unsafe, especially from those opposed to nuclear power in testimony before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Given that and DTE Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Anthony Earley's announcement Monday that the company will prepare a license application for a new nuclear power plant in Newport, I write to set the record straight by sharing some facts. I worked in our nation's first commercial nuclear power plant 50 years ago. Since then, there have been four decades of steady improvement in nuclear plant safety and reliability. The NRC has reviewed and then renewed the operating licenses of 48 nuclear power plants for another 20 years. Other renewals are in the works. And safety reviews for new-plant construction permits have also begun. Plants that have had their licenses extended include three reactors here in Michigan -- both units of the Donald C. Cook plant near St. Joseph and the Palisades plant outside of South Haven. The Fermi 2 plant on the western shore of Lake Erie near Monroe is expected to apply for license renewal. The excellent operating history of these plants is typical of the record that has been achieved by more than 100 nuclear plants across the United States and more than 400 worldwide. By providing 27% of Michigan's electricity year in and year out, around the clock, they have proved that the technology and operating procedures are fundamentally safe -- and have been getting measurably safer over the years. Plant efficiencies have improved dramatically. Shutdowns for refueling that once took months are now done in weeks. This can be attributed in part to general experience, but mostly it is due to the systematic exchange of maintenance practices and procedures. Some of this stems from common ownership of plants, but it is also an industry-wide practice of shared knowledge. As a result, plants typically are able to run nearly two years without shutdowns for refueling. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, the average capacity factor -- the fraction of a power plant's maximum potential capacity that it actually generates -- for all U.S. nuclear plants was 57% in 1980. By 1990, it rose to 65%. But in the three-year period between 2003-05, it reached 89.1%. The average at Michigan's nuclear plants was 87.6%. This high capacity factor shows that there are not many operational problems at nuclear plants that require them to go off-line. It also has made nuclear power increasingly more economical as a source of electricity. The cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is marginally less than electricity from coal plants and significantly less than electricity from gas-fired plants. This does not include the unspecified but sizable environmental costs of burning coal -- acid rain, greenhouse gases and fine particulate matter. As demand for energy climbs, and as the use of fossil fuels is limited by environmental problems, we will be making greater use of nuclear power. Today, nuclear power is second to coal in the generation of Michigan's electricity and supplies more power than oil, natural gas, hydro and renewable energy sources combined. It is time to start calling nuclear power what it is: safe, clean and efficient. To keep Michigan's economy growing without polluting the air, electric utilities should consider nuclear power plants. They generate no air pollution or global warming emissions. That's important, since smog is a public-health problem in Michigan, particularly in areas surrounding Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit. Smog can lead to asthma attacks and respiratory impairment in young children and the elderly. In 2005, nuclear plants in Michigan avoided the release of 56,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, a key contributor to both ground-level ozone and smog. That's equal to the amount of nitrogen oxides released in a year by almost 3 million automobiles. The nuclear plants also avoided the emission of 212,500 tons of sulfur dioxide, which forms acid rain, and 30.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which almost every scientist links to global climate change. Yes, these plants produce spent nuclear fuel, but from each plant it can be measured in a few cubic yards annually. Plans are nearing completion for the safe isolation of this material in a geologic repository, while other plans are being formulated for its possible recycling, which would reduce the volume further. Rather than question the need for nuclear power, environmental groups and other critics should commend it. Nuclear power must play a greater role, but this requires government policies that encourage new investment and a nuclear industry that continues to perform at the highest standards of excellence. I hope that these facts, gathered mostly from the Nuclear Energy Institute, help to set the record straight. Check out its Web site for yourself, www.nei.org. DON WILLIAMS, of Holland, Mich., is a retired chemist and professor emeritus of chemistry at Hope College. Contact him at Williams@hope.edu. hautamja We should risk the world largest source of fresh water with atechnology that has proven itself time and agin to be unreliable, polluting, and dangerous to human health? Pretty much a no brainer for me. NO NEW NUKES. Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:43 pm Freep.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 39 Turkish Weekly Comment: Energy strategy and nuclear energy in Turkey’s resource portfolio WWW Turkishweekly Sebnem Udum Sunday , 18 February 2007 This commentary is from USAK's Energy Review Newsletter To subscribe email to energyreview@turkishweekly.net The Industrial Revolution established an inextricable link between energy and power: For the continued development of national power, a state needs to have the ability to access energy resources, and builds its strategy on affordable, reliable, diverse, ample and continuous supplies of these resources . Energy policymaking goes beyond technical analyses to make up the gap between the endowments and needs of a country: It is about developing a strategy, because it involves relations and positions of power, hence involves key energy resources, like oil. States want either to increase their power or avoid asymmetric dependencies. They base their strategy on not only maximizing military, political and economic power, but also minimizing vulnerabilities. Thus, energy policies are devised on the basis of not only technical and economic criteria, but also political criteria. The oil shocks of 1970s demonstrated the need for diverse sources of energy, and nuclear energy became relevant in the energy portfolio to decrease dependency on oil and to generate electricity from a national source. Turkey's attempts to transfer nuclear technology for producing nuclear energy date back to 1960s. Since then, Turkey attempted several times to transfer nuclear technology for energy-generating purposes, but they were halted due to economic and political reasons or proliferation concerns. The nuclear reactor accident in Chernobyl in 1986 created worry among the public about the risks of nuclear reactors, including accidents, leakages and nuclear waste issues. Since 2003, the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi-AKP) government stated its determination to make the nuclear technology transfer to meet Turkey’s energy needs for the future. The Minister of Energy, Mr. Hilmi Güler, declared that they would build three or five nuclear reactors by the year 2012, totaling 5000 MWe. The Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEA) proposed some eight locations, and in April 2006, Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan announced that the government chose Sinop, Inceburun at Turkey’s Black Sea Coast, for the construction of these power plants. The outstanding issue for the government is financing, since nuclear power plant projects are costly, and the private firms are reluctant to take steps without state guarantees. For others, it is the necessity question, i.e. whether nuclear energy would be the solution to Turkey’s energy problem, the risks and the benefits of these plants/technology for the economy, industrial and scientific development. The Turkish government’s energy strategy is not based just on technical criteria, i.e. the question is not just about filling in the gap between supply and demand. The official statement of the Energy Ministry has three arguments in favor of nuclear energy: First, is that nuclear energy is economic, and second, it is environment-friendly. In addition, nuclear technology is an asset because it is a high-tech product, and would introduce the culture of quality and reliability to the country in possession. The public debates in Turkey regarding nuclear energy is basically made within the energy and economy sectors, and by those who oppose nuclear energy/technology for environmental reasons and concerns for adverse effects on human health. Each side has convincing arguments in terms of the levels of analysis they take. The political and business elites are concerned about a viable strategy for development and economy, whereas those who argue against this transfer take the environment and human health as the starting point, and question the viability of this decision. The psychological effect of Chernobyl is still fresh in the Black Sea region of Turkey, where the planned nuclear power plant will be built. Although it is not much focused in the energy field, dependency criterion is vital for strategy. Currently, Turkey is considerably dependent on natural gas for electricity generation, and would like to diversify resources and suppliers. In addition to water, coal and natural gas, policymakers seem to be convinced that nuclear energy would be a viable alternative for diversity and technical characteristics that decrease dependency. Regarding human capital, the Chairman of the TAEA, Dr. Okay Çakiroglu, states that Turkey has sufficient skilled nuclear engineers to work in more than one reactor. Nuclear technology transfer is a delicate and sensitive issue because of its various aspects ranging from the level of technology, international regulations, fuel supply, waste management, public opposition, environmental concerns, safety regulations, legal issues, and proliferation risks, …etc. So far, debates revolved around the necessity question, which is only part of the picture. The entire explanation lies in how energy strategy is made in relation to national interests. usebnem@bilkent.edu.tr Sebnem Udum, PhD Candidate in Bilkent University-International Relations Department. Her PhD dissertation topic is "The Assessment of the Debates on Turkey's Civilian Nuclear Technology Transfer" Footnotes: Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Goldwyn, Energy and Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Strategy, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2005, p.9. The term basically covers the commodities that are used to generate electricity or those that are used in internal combustion engines, which are integral for transportation, agriculture, economy, industry, military, communications and household use. These may include, inter alia, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, renewables (hydro, wind, solar), and biomass. The use of nuclear technology for electricity generation is only one of its peaceful applications. The need to add “peaceful” (or civilian) stems from the fact that the initial application of nuclear technology was for military purposes, and that not until 1953, peaceful use was proposed. Nuclear technology is used in various fields including agriculture, medicine and electricity generation. In fact, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 (EIF: 1970) promoted nuclear technology for peaceful purposes in return for the commitment not to produce, manufacture or transfer nuclear weapons or related material. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was assigned to verify states’ compliance with the Treaty, that is, under the safeguards agreement with states having nuclear reactors, the IAEA would verify that the technology is not diverted to misuse. See Mustafa Kibaroglu, “Turkey’s Quest for Peaceful Nuclear Power,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 43, No.4, Spring-Summer 1997, pp. 33-44. “Güler: We Project a Nuclear Energy Investment of 5,000 Megawatt”, Turkish Press, February 9, 2006, “The Address of the Nuclear Plant is Sinop,” NTVMSNBC, 13 April, 2006, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Nuclear Energy: Ates Yalazan, “Nükleerde Iran’dan Iyiyiz (We Are Better in Nuclear Than Iran)” Hürriyet, This commentary is from USAK's Energy Review Newsletter http://www.turkishweekly.net/energyreview/TurkishWeekly-EnergyReview7. "Statements of facts or opinions appearing in the pages of Journal of Turkish Weekly (JTW) are not necessarily by the editors of JTW nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of JTW or ISRO. The opinions published here are held by the authors themselves and not necessarily those of JTW or ISRO. Materials may not be copied, reproduced, republished, posted without mentioning the mark of JTW or ISRO in any way except for your own personal non-commercial home use. For the news and other materials republished by the JTW you must apply the original publishers. JTW cannot give permission to republish this kind of materials." JTW Editorial by Sedat Laciner ***************************************************************** 40 Thomasville Times Enterprise: Council discussing piece of nuclear pie Published February 17, 2007 11:41 pm - By Teresa Williams CAIRO The City of Cairo is looking into receiving its share of the nuclear power pie. The Cairo City Council recently began gathering information on an opportunity for the city to acquire a share of capacity and electric output of a planned nuclear generation addition at Plant Vogtle. “This is a non-binding statement to assess how many megawatts the city would like to have in the new expansion,” explained Mayor Richard VanLandingham at the council’s Tuesday workshop. “The finance committee has discussed this and agreed to a preliminary interest in having 10 additional megawatts for the city.” Vogtle, located in Waynesboro, is co-owned by Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe, Dalton and Municipal Energy Association of Georgia (MEAG). The site was planned for four units, but only two were built. They opened in 1987 and 1989. MEAG, Cairo’s main power source, owns 22.7 percent of Plant Vogtle, meaning it can purchase that percentage or approximately 500MW of the new units and distribute that among its customers (49 cities). “It’s a key time for MEAG to get this type of resource,” said Steve Jackson, vice president of power supply. “This is the time for us to work it out.” The owners are planning two nuclear generation units at the plant and have agreed to a binding interest election on April 15, 2008. The units are expected to last 40-60 years and the entitlement share calculation is expected in March. MEAG’s forecast of Cairo’s electric need indicates that the city would not need the Vogtle output in 2015 — when the generation units are expected to be ready — but its need will grow to three megawatts by 2036, meaning the city will need additional power in the foreseeable future. Whitson said Cairo’s peak demand is currently 34-35MW. In information supplied by MEAG representatives at the workshop, Cairo’s peak demand is projected to grow by approximately 1.4 percent each year. This preliminary estimated cost of the nuclear power is $2,100 per kilowatt or $2.1 million per megawatt. “The first thing we have to do is determine if we can purchase that many megawatts,” said City Manager William Whitson in a phone interview on Saturday. “Secondly, we don’t know what the actual cost per megawatt is yet. All we have to work off right now are estimates.” Jim Fuller, chief financial officer for MEAG, suggested paying debt service on bonds issued. He also cautioned the council that the figures discussed at the workshop were preliminary figures and that costs could go up once actual construction began on the units. “MEAG wants to do as much as it can to help Cairo set up its fair share of the generation,” said Fuller. Copyright © 2005 South Georgia Media Group. All Rights Reserved. 106 South Street, Thomasville, GA 31792 - phone: 229-226-2400 Associated Press content © 2007. All rights reserved. AP content may ***************************************************************** 41 Japan Times: Reactor stops after detecting radioactivity Monday, Feb. 19, 2007 FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) A nuclear reactor in Fukushima Prefecture automatically shut down Sunday morning after detecting excess radioactivity, but there was no impact on the surrounding environment, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. The halt came while Tepco was starting up the No. 4 reactor at its Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power station in Tomioka after completing a regular inspection. The utility suspects there was a glitch in the reactor's alarm system as its radioactivity monitoring devices in and outside the facility detected no abnormalities. It opened an investigation into the cause of the incident. Tepco also said a turbine in the reactor's emergency cooling system automatically shut down Saturday evening during a test operation. A worker accidentally touched the switch that cuts off the steam for turning the turbine, it said. The restart of the reactor began at 10 p.m. Friday and was expected to reach its rated output of 1.1 million kilowatts around next Friday, but this is likely to be delayed due to the incidents, Tepco said. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 42 London Times: Go nuclear, save the planet From The Sunday Times February 18, 2007 James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, says green opposition to atomic power, as seen in the High Court last week, is crazy What an incredible mistake Greenpeace made when it took the government to court in an attempt to delay the building of new nuclear power stations. By so doing it increases the burden of carbon dioxide (C02) the Earth has to bear; nuclear is the only large-scale energy source that is emissions free. Why don’t we wake up and emulate the French, who make almost all their electricity from nuclear energy? French trains are legendary, especially the TGV. One of these bound for Marseilles was standing at the Gare de Lyon; it seemed like any other train except that it was double decked. We climbed aboard and took our seats on the upper tier and sat back as it travelled from Paris to Marseilles at 200mph. No wonder the French are building an even faster train track from Paris to Germany. Best of all, this form of intercity travel is the world’s only wholly carbon-free nonpolluting way of travelling, because the trains are powered by nuclear electricity. Soon our cars and trucks will be powered by batteries charged from the electricity supply. What a wonderful way to avoid C02 emissions, but only if we make nuclear our source of electricity. Doing this has driven the Earth to a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to our civilisation. I am deeply concerned that public opinion and consequently the government listen less to scientists than they do to the green lobbies. I know that these lobbies mean well, but this time their good intentions are truly the road to a hell of a climate. They understand people better than they do their world and recommend inappropriate remedies and action. The outcome is as if the medieval plague had returned in deadly form and we were earnestly advised to stop it with alternative not scientific medicine. Now that we have made the planet sick, it will not be cured by green remedies such as wind turbines and biofuels. This is why I recommend instead the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy. After all, the whole universe runs on nuclear energy, so why not us? Today humanity faces its greatest trial. The acceleration of the climate change now under way will sweep aside the comfortable environment to which we have adapted. Change is a normal part of geological history. The most recent was the move from the long period of glaciation to the warmish interglacial period we presently enjoy. What is unusual about the coming crisis is that we are the cause of it and nothing so severe has happened since the long hot period at the start of the Eocene epoch 55m years ago. The planet, when in an interglacial period as it is now, is trapped in a vicious cycle of positive feedback, and this is what makes global heating so serious and so urgent. Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic ice and the changing structure of the ocean, or the destruction of tropical forests, is amplified. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens there is little time left to put out the fire before it consumes the house itself. Global heating, like a fire, is accelerating and there is almost no time left to act. This year, perhaps more thanany other in the two decades since the first alarms were sounded, marks a shock of recognition: global warming isn’t conjecture, alarmism or partisan overstatement, but rather a clear and very present danger. I am old enough to notice a marked similarity between attitudes more than 60 years ago towards the threat of war and those now towards the threat of global heating. Most of us think that something unpleasant may soon happen, but we are as confused now as we were in 1938 as to what form it will take and what to do about it. The Kyoto agreement was uncannily like the Munich pact, with politicians out to show their eagerness to respond while in reality merely playing for time. Because we are tribal animals the tribe does not act in unison until a danger is perceived. This has not yet happened. Consequently we individuals go our separate wayswhile the ineluctable forces of the Earth marshal against us. The prospects are grim and even if we act successfully in amelioration there will still be hard times that will stretch us to the limit. We are tough and it would take more than climatic catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans. What is at risk is civilisation. There is a small chance that the sceptics are right, or that we might be saved by an unexpected event such as a series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so cool the planet. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds. Whatever doubts there may be about future climates, there is no doubt that both greenhouse gases and temperatures are rising. Predictions of climate change do not depend only on theoretical models in the form of computer simulations. There is now a vast array of monitoring activitiessustained globally. Air and sea temperatures are continuously measured, as are the gases of the atmosphere, the cloud cover, the floating ice, glaciers and the health of the ecosystems in the ocean and on the land. Satellites monitor the Earth’s ever changing scene. The more subtle instruments aboard these spacecraft record temperatures at different levels in the atmosphere and the concentrations of many different gases. Another important source of information about the cause of climate change is the long-term geological record. We have learnt an immense amount about the history of the climate and the composition of the atmosphere from the analysis of ice taken from the depths of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. In 2004 Jonathan Gregory and his colleagues at Reading University reported that if global temperatures rise by more than 2.7C the Greenland glacier will no longer be stable. It will melt and will continue melting until most of it has gone, even if the temperatures subsequently fall below the threshold temperature. Because temperature and C02 abundance appear to be closely correlated, the threshold can be expressed in terms of either of these quantities. Scientists Richard Betts and Peter Cox at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre have concluded that a rise in global temperature of 4C would be enough to destabilise the tropical rainforests and cause them, like the Greenland ice, to melt away and be replaced by scrub or desert. Once this happens the Earth will lose another cooling mechanism and the rate of temperature rise will accelerate. The floating ice of the Arctic serves as a white reflector of the summer sunlight that falls upon it and helps to keep the world cool. When that ice melts, as soon it may, the dark sea that replaces it will absorb the sun’s heat and as it warms accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice. While we cannot go back to the world of 1800, when there were only 1 billion of us, we may not be incapable of lessening the consequences of global heating. If there is a threshold and if we pass it, the nations of the world could limit the damage by stoppingand methane. The temperature rise would then be slower, as would the rise of sea levels, and it would take longer to reach the final steady hot state than it would if we continued business as usual. Even so, enormous damage would still have been done. I am not recommending nuclear fission as the long-term panacea for our ailing planet or as the answer to all our problems. I merely see it as the only effective medicine we have now. But we will have to do much more than turn to nuclear energy if we are to avoid a new Dark Age later in this century. We must follow the good green advice to save energy and we must all do this whenever we can, but I suspect that, like losing weight, this is easier said than done. We have to take global change seriously straightaway and do our best to lessen the footprint of humans on the planet. Our goal should be the cessation of fossil-fuel consumption as quickly as possible and there must be no more natural-habitat destruction anywhere. When I use the term “natural” I am not thinking only of primeval forests. I also include the forests that have grown back after farmland has been abandoned. These reestablished forests probably perform their services as well as the original forests did, but the vast open stretches of monoculture farmland are no substitute for natural ecosystems. We are already farming more than the Earth can afford and if we attempt to farm the whole planet to feed people it will make us like sailors who burn the timbers of their ship to keep warm. The natural ecosystems are not there for us to take as farmland; they are there to sustain the climate and the chemistry of the planet itself. Astronauts who have had the chance to look at our world from space have seen what a beautiful planet it is. I ask that we put aside our fears and our obsession with personal and tribal rights, and be brave enough to see that the real threat comes from the harm we ourselves do to the living Earth. The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock, is out in paperback this week. Penguin, £8.99 *** James Lovelock's fears for the future in themselves disprove his pseudo-scientific gaia theory. Humans are part of the biosphere, and if all is self-regulatory then all should be well! The earth is not self-regulatory: it is constantly losing its core heat, and eventually it will lose it entirely. Yes, ecosystems are to an extent homeostatic, but they can and do break down, and they may interact to cause overall great change in the whole global environment. The long-term answer is nuclear fusion -- not fission. This may be commercially practicable in 50 years. steve moxon, sheffield, The Times and The Sunday Times. ***************************************************************** 43 Recordnet.com: It's time to think solar and nuclear Saturday February 17, 2007 - Our country and the world desperately need an all-out program to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. The debate about whether global warming is happening is over when even our president acknowledges the fact. We now know Earth is heating at a rate unequaled in geologic history, and the predicted results are catastrophic. A majority of climatologists believe greenhouse gases from human activity are a major cause. Technical research is urgent. Physicists know how to use hydrogen to get a tremendous amount of energy when they make a hydrogen bomb. They just haven't discovered how to do it in a controlled way. Sooner or later, someone will learn the secret. It can be sooner if we devote necessary resources to the problem. We now have solar cells that make electricity more efficiently. They'll be even more efficient and practical with more research. Green plants can replace carbon dioxide from the air with oxygen. With a catalytic converter and the sun's rays, we should be able to do that, too. Scientists must have support, financing and organization from the public and political leaders. In 1940, getting enough energy from a single bomb to destroy a whole city was impossible to comprehend. However, the government spent a huge amount of money, found the scientists and avoided the invasion of Japan. In 1961, President Kennedy promised the American people that, within 10 years, we would land a man on the moon and bring him back to Earth. It sounded absurd. But we did it. A new and nonpolluting source of energy also is possible. While the cost of starting to solve this problem would be huge, the cost of letting it grow while talking about it would be many times greater. Current proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions are far too timid. We must take bold, gigantic action and soon. Do any presidential wannabes or other celebrities have the guts to step forward and take the lead? Oran Lee Johnson Mountain Ranch Reader Reaction These discussions and our forums are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. You need not be registered to report abuse. In accordance with our Terms of Service, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Click here if you wish to report inappropriate comments or behavior. Copyright © 1998 - 2007 ONI Stockton, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 The State: New S.C. reactors planned 02/18/2007 By JASON RYAN jpryan@thestate.com * Gaffney plant back from the Abyss There's a new nuclear age dawning in South Carolina and the state's utility companies are asking residents to help foot the bill. Billions of dollars are planned to be spent in the next four years in plans, permits and construction of as many as five new reactors in the Carolinas. Under a law proposed last week in the State House, the cost of financing the $2.5 billion to $5 billion plants — approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total cost — could be more easily passed on to ratepayers. New coal plants are included in the bill. Customers soon could start paying financing costs each year on loans taken out for engineering, permits and construction of the plants. The average power customer’s bill initially could go up about 10 percent over the next five years to pay for the interest on those construction loans. When the plants are up and running, in 2016 or later, customers’ rates then could go up again, to pay for the construction and design. Duke Power, Progress Energy and SCANA say building the plants — and paying finance costs now — would ensure cheap and reliable energy for the future. By paying millions in dollars in financing costs now, they argue, customers could avoid having to pay off higher interest that would accumulate until the plants become operational in 2016 or later. But consumer advocates, as well as some manufacturers, bristle at forcing today’s customers to pay for power of the future. The majority of Midlands electricity customers are served by SCE&G, a SCANA subsidiary, which is considering building one or two reactors at the V.C. Summer plant in Jenksinville it operates with state-owned utility Santee Cooper. SCANA predicts that quicker payment of financing costs will create a long-term, 40-year savings of $800 million — shaving 1 to 2 percent off customers’ bills. In the short term, SCANA power bills could increase about 1.5 percent a year, or 12 percent from 2009 to 2016, said Kenny Jackson, director of rates and regulation for the power company. For the average household with a bill of about $1,250, that is about a $20-a-year increase. Customers must remember they are already benefiting from existing power plants paid for by previous generations, Jackson said. SCANA also said the bill would firm up support and financing for new plants, which makes the company more attractive to investors and, in turn, makes power more affordable. New federal subsidies, as well as high natural gas and coal costs, are encouraging power companies to consider building nuclear plants as they plan for growth. A new nuclear power plant has not been ordered in the United States since 1978, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As many as five new reactors are planned to provide electricity to South Carolina residents. South Carolina utilities estimate the following short-term pre-construction cost estimates for permitting and planning proposed reactors at existing plants: ? $125 million this year for two reactors at William Statesly III Nuclear Station owned by Duke Power and Southern Co. in Cherokee County; ? $75 million between 2005 and 2008 for SCE&G’s 55 percent stake for up to two reactors at the V.C. Summer power plant in Jenkinsville, and; ? $390 million in the next four years for Santee Cooper’s 45 percent stake in V.C. Summer. Progress Energy is also considering a new reactor at its Harris nuclear plant outside New Hill, N.C., but no cost estimates are available for the next few years, a spokesman said. While investor-owned utility companies can recoup financing costs associated with such spending under the current law, the new bill proposes “streamlining” the process, said Dukes Scott, executive director of the state’s utility watchdog, the Office of Regulatory Staff. Under the new bill, the S.C. Public Service Commission would rule up front whether a utility’s plans, timeline and cost schedule for a nuclear plant are prudent, Scott said. As long as utilities stick to that plan and encounter little public and regulatory opposition, the power company can apply annually to include financing costs in rates. Previously, utilities had to win approval for the costs when they applied for general rate increases before the commission and the prudence of the plant could again come under question. Santee Cooper, a state-owned utility, does not report to the commission. Its board members, appointed by the governor, have approved including financing costs in rates since the mid-1990s, spokeswoman Laura Varn said. The chief sponsor of the bill, Rep. Harry Cato, R-Greenville, said the bill will save South Carolina residents money and increase the state’s power reserve. “It’s a way to entice the utilities to build the generation we need and at the same time it builds in some consumer protection,” said Cato, influential chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. Having more plants in South Carolina is important in case of energy shortages, Cato said. “I don’t want to be a California where we have rolling blackouts and brownouts.” Cato’s home in Travelers Rest is surrounded by major manufacturers that include Milliken, Michelin and BMW — all of which declined to comment for this article. A spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford also declined to comment on the bill. Cato expects them and others to have opinions when the House holds hearings on the bill this month — especially manufacturers that pay especially hefty power bills each year and are struggling with thin profit margins. “There are a lot of major manufacturers in the Upstate who are concerned about this,” Cato said. “They’re maybe concerned about paying for future generation they won’t be around to enjoy.” Tax credits could be granted to appease major manufacturers, Cato said, but the state needs to encourage the construction of nuclear plants. “The savings will be fairly significant,” he said. “I think it’s worth doing it.” Reach Ryan at (803) 771-8595. POWER HUNGRY South Carolinians are using more power today than ever before. ? The average household today has many more appliances that use electricity than was the case even a generation or two ago. ? In 2003, the average kitchen refrigerator used 1,462 kilowatts of electricity — more than double the electricity used by an entire household in 1932. ? Color TVs, computers, DVD players and video game systems were either not common or did not exist in 1970, when consumers paid among the lowest prices ever for electricity. GROWING DEMAND Average SCE&G household electricity usage through the years 1932 Kilowatts used: 617 Average monthly bill: $3.28 Adjusted for inflation: $37.94 1950 Kilowatts used: 2,446 Average monthly bill: $5.29 Adjusted for inflation: $39.03 1970 Kilowatts used: 9,853 Average monthly bill: $15.64 Adjusted for inflation: $75 2003 Kilowatts used: 14,538 Average monthly bill: $104.58 SOURCE: S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff, U.S. Department of Energy ***************************************************************** 45 Sunday Herald: Nuclear Delay Casts Doubt Over Future Of Energy February 18, 2007 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent THE NEWS that the energy white paper will now be delayed following a legal challenge on the government's plans to build a new generation of nuclear energy plants by environmental campaigners Greenpeace will fill those involved in the energy sector with dread. The judge ruled that the consultation exercise was "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair". Trade and industry secretary Alastair Darling admitted that the government had got it wrong and would now "go back to the drawing board". The DTI will now launch a fresh consultation on key areas of its energy review. How this will impact on decisions on other energy technologies awaiting decisions from the government is anyone's guess. It will certainly leave potential investors in the industry rolling their eyes. The energy white paper is expected to contain proposals on promoting alternative energy sources and energy efficiency and the fear is that these will now be held up also. It seems the key concern is to ensure prime minister Tony Blair's plans to see a new generation of nuclear plants built remain on track. The policy is believed to be considered part of his legacy to the country when he leaves Downing Street. Following the high court ruling there is now a danger that a fresh round of consultation will provoke public protests over the proposals to bury nuclear waste. These protests could cause further delays to the government's energy policy. Out on the sidelines meanwhile sit plans for nine full scale power plants based on burning fossil fuels. These plants would capture carbon dioxide and bury it deep beneath the North Sea where the public would not be affected. It should be remembered that this is not a new technology, it is an adaptation of a process which is nearly 30 years old. If successful the North Sea will get a new lease of life and the governement will be able to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. The UK will also be able to help the rest of Europe meet their carbon reduction targets and charge them for it in the process. There are also significant contributions to be made to the UK's energy portfolio by wave and tidal technologies that are awaiting decisions from government. If a new generation of nuclear plants gets the go-ahead it will take around 15 years to get them up and running. As Richard Lambert director general of the CBI said: "Energy security is one of the most vital issues facing the country so proper consultation is vital but so too is early action." Weir Group sale must lead to evolutionary growth Weir Group's decision to sell off its pumps division to Swiss-owned Sulzer has disappointed the approximately 400 employees who believed their futures had been vouchsafed but who will now find themselves without jobs. It has saddened many who spent their working lives on the historic site in Cathcart and it has also sent a shudder through the Scottish business community. However, City analysts have greeted the potential sale positively, citing the generous price considering the division's loss-making past. They have also pointed to the growing warchest now held by the Glasgow-headquartered company. Following the sale, Bridgewell Securites estimates that this will stand at around £400 million. The possibility has been around for some time that Weir is eyeing an acquisition that will lift the business out of its mid-sized company status to the next level. That some pain accompanies growth may well be true but will be of little comfort to those who will now lose their jobs. However, Scotland's industry watchers have long bemoaned the failure of Scottish companies to lift themselves to the top tier of industry players. We can only hope that come the day Weir Group's Mark Selway makes his next move in the transformation of the group, he will hold true to his commitment to keep its headquarters in Scotland. Should this prove to be the case then the loss of Weir Pumps will be easier to bear. Control of another important business went furth of Scotland last week when the European Commission cleared Scottish Power's sale to Spanish utility Iberdrola. We can only hope that that will be a positive development with the business becoming part of a big pan-European player. But we do have at least a frisson of disquiet over the increasing narrowness of the Scottish business base. ©2007 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 46 Capital Times: Nuclear comeback heats UW classroom By Mike Ivey The Capital Times The prospect of new nuclear power plants rising on the Wisconsin horizon sent sparks flying on the UW-Madison campus Friday. UW engineering physics professor Michael Corradini irked many in the audience at Grainger Hall with his call for expanding nuclear energy, saying that concerns over safety and waste disposal have been overblown. "You could take all of the high-level nuclear waste generated in the U.S. since 1957 and store it in half of Grainger Hall," Corradini said. "We're talking about a very small volume of material." No nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. in over two decades and a state law on the books since 1984 blocks any new plant construction in Wisconsin. But a debate on the future of nuclear power and whether it has a place in the state's energy portfolio has developed following a recommendation last month by the Legislative Council's Committee on Nuclear Power to lift the nuclear moratorium. Corradini has been a leading supporter of nuclear power and speaking at a forum sponsored by the Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies he argued for moving away from polluting fossil fuels. At present, the world relies heavily on fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal as primary energy resource. Fossil fuels account for over 75 percent for all energy and 70 percent of electricity production in the U.S. Worldwide, fossil fuels generate 88 percent for all energy and 65 percent of electricity. And the environmental impact of fossil-fuel energy are becoming significant. Recent analyses by NASA scientists indicate that if levels of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide are not reduced, global warming will become unstoppable. "If you're worried about CO2 then don't shut down nuclear," said Corradini. But Dennis Dums, research director for the Citizens Utility Board, said the lack of a viable storage facility for high level radioactive waste from the nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants remains an overriding concern. "The fact is, spent nuclear fuel continues to pile up in Wisconsin on the shores of Lake Michigan," he said. Wisconsin has two operating nuclear facilities, Kewaunee and Point Beach, supplying about 20 percent of the state's electric generation. Coal remains the largest source of electric generation at about 70 percent, with three new plants in the works in the state. The federal Department of Energy has been unable to site a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, despite spending millions of dollars in ratepayer money on the project. Dums said Wisconsin should keep its moratorium on nuclear plant construction until that issue is solved. Wisconsin utilities have been moving to divest their nuclear plants, with the Kewaunee facility being sold in 2005 to Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va. and the Point Beach plant being sold by Wisconsin Energy Corp. to Florida Power & Light. "Our utilities are showing no interest in ownership of these plants," said Dums. Dums also warned that if Wisconsin lifted its nuclear plant law, other companies could move in to site merchant plants here and sell the electricity out of state, leaving state residents to deal with the waste. Some in audience went a step further in their criticism of nuclear power, saying the industry continues to deceive the public about the risks of both waste and plant operations. "This is an industry that built two bombs that killed a lot of people and since then they have been trying to make something good out of it," said Jim Pawley, a UW professor of zoology. Others said that if nuclear power is such a panacea, why is the insurance industry hesitant to provide coverage and Wall Street reluctant to invest? But Corradini noted that the energy picture is a global one and whatever happens in Wisconsin will ultimately not mean much. He noted that electric use in Asia is increasing 5 to 8 percent annually vs. 2 percent in Europe and the U.S. "The short-term answer is energy efficiency either by cost or law, and we need both," he said. "Medium term we should be looking at 'clean' coal, nuclear, hybrid cars and wind." Corradini also tossed water on those who say renewable energy sources like biofuels can solve the energy crisis. He said using land to grow crops for energy use makes no sense from either an environmental or technological perspective. "Renewables just aren't going to do it." he said. This comes as Gov. Doyle has announced $30 million in his new budget for production of ethanol, biodiesel and other crop-based fuels in Wisconsin. Ave Bie, former chair of the state Public Service Commission, was among those in attendance Friday. "I think it's a good discussion to be having," said Bie, now working for the Quarles & Brady law firm. E-mail: mivey@madison.com Published: February 17, 2007 Copyright 2007 The Capital Times ***************************************************************** 47 Business: Looking for an alternative Attitudes, in Florida and nationwide, are shifting away from dependence on foreign oil. By DAVID ADAMS Published February 16, 2007 MIAMI - Two years ago when Tampa Bay burger boss Blake Casper heard guys were making diesel out of used cooking oil he decided he'd give it a try. "I figured we've got plenty of that laying around," said Casper, 33, CEO of Caspers Co., the largest McDonald's franchise in Florida with 78 outlets in Tampa Bay and northern Florida. Now Casper sits on the Florida Energy Commission, a new body tasked with advising the Legislature on a cleaner and more efficient energy policy that is less dependent on foreign oil. The commission, which held its first meeting in Tallahassee last week, is only the tip of a legislative iceberg formed over the need to address alternative energy sources and global climate change. Major energy reform once seemed a long way off. Now it appears to be a realistic possibility in the legislative session that opens next month, reflecting a tectonic shift in the energy debate under way from California to Washington, D.C. "The mood's changed," said Casper, who is active in Republican Party politics. "There's a lot of heat around this issue." Lawmakers are already looking at ways to enforce a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier this month, Gov. Charlie Crist proposed $68-million for alternative energy funding, a major increase. Some legislators want to increase that to $100-million. One of the keys to the mood swing is a growing realization that alternative-energy reform may not be the budget burden many fear, and, instead, could drive new economic development. "Green means two things: green for the environment and green for your pocketbook," said Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, one of the state's energy reform leaders. The pace and intensity of discussion have surprised even veteran environmental lobbyists. "Between last year and today, it feels like 10 years have passed in terms of level of interest and understanding," said Susan Glickman, a Tampa-based consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, which aims to identify the major challenges facing the state's future, also held hearings last week on global climate change. Chaired by St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker, it issued a report last month that identified moving away from fossil fuels as the principal challenge facing the state. The commission heard dramatic testimony from a panel of experts about the impact of climate change on Florida, including predictions of rising sea levels, outbreaks of tropical diseases and deadly heat waves. "If you are not at the table for climate change, you're going to be on the menu," Stephen Mulkey, a climate-change expert at the University of Florida, told the commission. Step one, Baker says, is to hire a team of energy professionals to come up with a customized "road map" for the state. As the fourth most populous state in the nation, Florida has a responsibility to reduce its emissions. Despite possessing some of the nation's best natural energy resources — forest, farmland and climate — the state woefully lags most of the rest of the country. But that may be changing. "Florida has got all the DNA for a great climate plan," said Terry Tamminen, climate change adviser to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps the nation's greenest political leader. Tamminen was sent to brief Crist last week by Schwarzenegger. "The governor (Crist) is very open and his entire staff are engaged," he said. Powerful new voices have also emerged on key legislative committees. "Right now in Tallahassee the general mood is, 'Let's do something different.' We need to move this to a much higher level," said Century Commission member Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, who also heads the Senate's Utility Committee. Among the ideas being floated are setting a renewable fuel standard to increase green energy use, as well as incentives for homeowners to install solar roof panels. Bennett also wants to set clean-energy standards for nuclear and coal-fired power plants. Casper, who runs his McDonald's fleet of company tractor-trailers on biodiesel, says he's glad to be part of the changing energy debate. "There's no easy fix here, but I think that the political mood is getting to the point where you have politicians who are much more bold about what they are saying about what needs to be done." David Adams can be reached at dadams@sptimes.com. © 2007 ? All Rights Reserved ? St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South ? St. Petersburg, FL 33701 ? 727-893-8111 ***************************************************************** 48 South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Alternate energy Re "FPL nuclear plans get a boost" (Wednesday): The state regulators have just given Florida Power & Light Co. a blank check, underwritten by FPL customers, to build nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants are notorious for their colossal overrun costs, sometimes multiples of their original cost estimates. With this arrangement, there is no incentive for FPL to control costs. Then there is the problem of the nuclear waste, which we still have not solved in a satisfactory manner. Why not look at environmentally friendly solutions? Florida has huge coast lines and lots of wind and sunshine. Why not consider tidal generation systems, solar and windfarms? Copyright 2007, Sun-Sentinel Co. & South Florida Interactive Inc. Sun-Sentinel.com, 200 E. Las Olas Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ***************************************************************** 49 Sunday Business Post: Chairman of ESB puts nuclear on the agenda 18 February 2007 By Niamh Connolly As trusted political appointees go, ESB chairman Tadhg O'Donoghue comes pretty much top of the pecking order, judging by the length of time he has been at the helm of one of the country's wealthiest companies. The ESB faced down criticism last year over mounting electricity prices but is once again entering choppy waters. A government White Paper next month will specify how the company is to reduce its monopoly in the power generation market. But a constant for the ESB in this period of flux is its chairman’s forthright views. In a world of prepared media scripts, O’Donoghue usually engages in plain speaking when the company’s annual results are published. Last year, O’Donoghue called for a debate on nuclear energy. The previous year he ruffled a few feathers by predicting a 10 per cent energy rise, jumping the gun on the energy regulator’s decision. This weekend, O’Donoghue has moved the nuclear debate a step further by indicating the ESB’s interest in entering the nuclear energy market in a partnership arrangement with an international player. ‘‘We would participate in one I think because the actual capital investment could be beyond us. As a company, once there is an opportunity to produce electricity in a legal manner, we’re interested,’ ‘ O’Donoghue said. ‘‘It would have to be with one of the big European companies, hopefully with us as a local partner - but that’s 20 years away. The law of the land is not going to get changed in the next five years, so therefore we’re not going to waste time on something that legally we can’t do.” However, this does not prevent the ESB chairman from putting down a marker for the future. And O’Donoghue clearly believes that the time has come to face up to the nuclear question in a country that depends almost exclusively on imported fuel. ‘‘Realistically it will have to change. I said before that most of the energy being consumed in this country will be nuclear generated in 50 years’ time. Because people will be forced into very hard choices, either continue polluting the atmosphere or change,” said O’Donoghue. The government’s position is that it does not support a nuclear power plant on the island and there appears little appetite for it among the public, so O’Donoghue is swimming against the tide of opinion. ‘‘As a company we’re quite neutral about this and whatever government decides we’ll just get on with our business accordingly. ‘‘But as an individual I believe we are causing serious harm to the atmosphere,” O’Donoghue said. The exchequer will be required to pay €217 million this year in carbon taxes, the main culprits being fuel, transport, manufacturing and agriculture. ‘‘One third of the stuff going up there is from electricity generation. It’s not all ours but one third of all the bad stuff going into our skies is electricity-generated - somebody’s got to do something about it,” said O’Donoghue. Alternative energy sources such as wind-generated power are unreliable, he says, and although wave-generated power offers possibilities, he believes this is some way in the future. ‘‘The debate in my view is whether you continue to use coal, oil, peat and gas forever more to produce electricity. We’ve got to the stage where we can’t have the lifestyle and civilisation without electricity,” said O’Donoghue. ‘‘We should stop this nonsense about Ireland being a nuclear-free zone. Short of a new invention somewhere it is the only clean energy in itself. I know nuclear waste has to be dealt with but there are no carbon emissions from it, no ‘NOx and SOx’ [nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide] and it’s perfectly renewable.” From Valentia, O’Donoghue was named 2007 Kerryman of the Year last night by the Kerry Association in Dublin. The citation for the award stated that he has led campaigns to generate vast amounts of money for charities throughout the county and has been a tireless worker for Tigh an Oilean, a residential home for people with intellectual disabilities in Valentia. Now living in Athlone, Co Westmeath, O’Donoghue was appointed ESB chairman in 2001 by a Fianna Fail-led government. H e is a personal friend of Mary O’Rourke who was a TD for Westmeath and public enterprise minister at the time. The former tax partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers was clearly seen as a safe pair of hands and was re-appointed in 2005 under Noel Dempsey, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The ESB is steeling itself for the publication of the government White Paper on energy which aims to address the country’s critical issues of security of energy supply and competition. Dempsey made clear last year that he wants the company to make available its considerable landbank of sites for the independent sector to build new plants. ESB sites offer competitors easy grid connection and fast-track the planning process. The minister only recently agreed to sign off on ESB’s new plant at Aghada on the condition that ESB agreed to make its sites available to the competition. Controversially, the state company is obliged to reduce its energy generation by about 1300 megawatts over the next three years. This will mean the closure of three or four of its older plants. O’Donoghue admits that a number of ESB plants are coming to the end of their useful lives. Formerly the ESB would have simply moved onto those sites and started building new plants. But he believes the government’s landbank plan is attracting little or no take-up by independent companies. ‘‘Somebody better get their act together and get people to build the new plant. The indications from people you talk to are, this idea is great, but that’s a long way from pouring a foundation,” said O’Donoghue. ‘‘We have a site ready to go with gas connection in Shannonbridge and it’s a bit like Croke Park last week at the end of the match - silence. There is nobody asking us to put a price on a site. Nobody has walked the field yet. ‘‘It seems tome that what officialdom, including the regulator, is saying and what punters are saying may not be the same thing. I don’t see any punters queued up but they all screamed about Aghada.” He warned that the minister’s plan to fast track competition will unravel unless an independent company makes a move this year. ‘‘If 2007 passes without buyers for Shannonbridge and Lanesboro in particular, and some expression of interest for Tarbert, the thing has to unravel,” said O’Donoghue.’ ‘The regulator needs punters, he needs players. I would say to competitors it’s time to stop talking and start making proposals.” The ESB is always keen to step into the breach and build new plants but this would defeat the government’s plans to boost competition.’ ‘Somebody has to move on it and we’re always ready and willing to build new plant but we need licences and consent,” said O’Donoghue. O’Donoghue expressed frustration with the length of time the ESB was kept waiting for a decision on its Aghada plant. ‘‘We reached a stage where we couldn’t care less about whether we got permission for Aghada and I told the regulator that in no uncertain language. ‘‘I told him he could stick Aghada, and as far as we’re concerned we were quite prepared to move on with our business,” said O’Donoghue. The interconnector linking Ireland with Britain and opening up the electricity market needed to be advanced quickly. ‘‘Again, we’ve had a lot of talk about that but it’s time somebody got out the shovel and started doing a bit of work on it,” said O’Donoghue. In the meantime, ESB will move on with the business of expanding its international portfolio since expansion on its home ground is limited. ‘‘A company cannot stand still, it either declines or grows and we cannot grow on the home market,” said O’Donoghue. ‘‘If we didn’t go international, this company would just decline and become a dinosaur.” The Sunday Business Post, 2006, Thomas Crosbie Media TCH ***************************************************************** 50 Star-Telegram: Nuclear-plant financing bill could hit ratepayers hard 02/17/2007 | By R.A. DYER STAR-TELEGRAM AUSTIN BUREAU TXU, which operates the Comanche Peak nuclear plant near Glen Rose, is among four companies considering plans to build more. AUSTIN -- Texas could see the construction of nuclear plants -- and the companies building them could one day get ratepayer-backed subsidies -- under legislation filed this week by a key lawmaker. Although going largely unnoticed as debate rages over coal-plant proposals and global warming, the legislation could set the stage for the construction of nuclear reactors, which don't pollute the air but create dangerous radioactive waste, in the state. At least four companies have proposed such facilities for Texas, which has two nuclear plants, one near Glen Rose and the other near Bay City. "The way I've been looking at nuclear, it's the direction that we want to go," said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, who heads the powerful House Committee on Regulated Industries. He says his legislation, House Bill 1386, would make it easier for nuclear operators to obtain financing. The legislation already has drawn fire, with some critics saying that it gives nuclear energy an unfair advantage and therefore violates the free-market principles that form the basis of the Texas electric-deregulation law. Others critics say serious safety and environmental concerns remain about nuclear power. "This whole issue of nuclear power is a loser," said Ken Kramer, director of the Texas chapter of the Sierra Club. How the bill works The federal government requires the establishment of special trust funds to finance the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their useful life, which can be about 50 years. These trust funds are also supposed to pay for the permanent storage of the plants' radioactive waste. If adopted, House Bill 1386 would change how these funds operate in Texas. The bill calls for the operator of a nuclear plant to provide money for the fund -- making it part of the cost of doing business -- but also requires that ratepayers pick up the tab if the company falls short or ends up in default. King said he also is considering an alternate industry-backed proposal that would pass all the decommissioning charges on to ratepayers in any case. Such costs can easily exceed $1 billion per plant. King said without such a bill, would-be nuclear operators would have a difficult or impossible time obtaining financing. He notes that no nuclear construction has begun since the 1970s, long before Texas or any other state deregulated their electric markets. Financing was easier under the previous regulated system because utilities had a guaranteed rate of return. "If we build nuclear power plants in Texas, they'll be the first that are privately funded," King said. "But there's a big question as to whether you can build a nuclear facility in a competitive market -- it's never been done. ... So the best thing for us to do is to put a bill out on the table. It just needs to be hashed out." TXU is among the companies that have floated plans to build nuclear plants in Texas. Others include Illinois-based Exelon, NRG Energy and Amarillo Power. TXU spokesman Tom Kleckner said his company is planning to file a regulatory request by December 2008 to operate up to three facilities. He said the earliest they would be operational is 2015. "We're looking at nuclear energy as more of a long-range answer to Texas' demand problem," he said. He said his company has not taken a position on King's legislation. Other companies contacted by the Star-Telegram provided similar responses. Critics abound Several critics question the fairness of the legislation. Tim Morstad, a policy analyst with AARP, said the legislation "sets up the scenario where today's babies may pick up the tab for nuclear cleanup when they hit AARP age." Phillip Oldham, energy counsel for a group of large industrial customers, said his organization doesn't have a position on the bill, but he stressed that "no technology should receive a subsidy, and having ratepayers backstop the cost of building a nuclear plant appears to be a subsidy." The Sierra Club's Kramer said that persistent environmental and safety concerns make nuclear power unpalatable. "It's pretty obvious that we have yet to solve the nuclear-waste issue," he said. King said that the legislation is a work in progress. Change is likely, he said. R.A. Dyer, 512-476-4294 rdyer@star-telegram.com | Copyright | About the McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 51 The Hindu: Left to oppose nuclear deal Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 Arunkumar Bhatt MUMBAI: The Left parties will strongly oppose the India-U.S. nuclear deal in the budget session of Parliament, according to national secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and MP, Sudhakar Reddy. Mr. Reddy told a meeting at the CPI office here on Wednesday that the country did not need the deal and foreign supply of uranium. "India has enough uranium to last 10 to 15 years and this time could be used for prospecting for new deposits of the nuclear material," he said. In his view the UPA Government had a hidden purpose of befriending the United States. "Behind the India-U.S. nuclear deal is the Government's desire to befriend the U.S. and take its support for getting a permanent seat in the United Nation's Security Council but this is not going to work," Mr. Reddy warned. He asked the Government to follow the example of China which secured the permanent seat replacing Taiwan despite U.S. opposition. Mr. Reddy said that of five lakh suicides committed in the country, 1.4 lakh were by farmers because agriculture was in a crisis. The Government was ignoring the suggestions made by the Opposition and farmers' bodies pleading for fresh credit and remunerative prices for the farmers. He said the package worth Rs.3,200 crore for the farmers in distress took care of only the interests on their loan and was not sufficient. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 52 Oberlin Review: Nuclear Energy: a Convenient Solution to an Inconvenient Truth? Front page News February 16, 2007 By Rebecca Caine Last Thursday night, students gathered in Hallock Auditorium to view The Nuclear Option, a film about nuclear energy by Robby Tinker, OC `06. Tinker, frustrated with the lack of viable solutions for the current energy crisis, decided to shoot this documentary for his independent senior project with Oberlin physics professor John Scofield. Incidentally, Scofield also makes scattered appearances throughout the film, extolling the virtues of nuclear energy. The Nuclear Option is intended as a sort of sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, which Tinker believes succeeded in outlining the current problem that the world is facing, but did not provide any solutions. According to Tinker, the only well-known alternative to fossil fuels at the moment is green energy. Green energy typically refers to renewable, non-polluting energy sources, like wind or solar power. However, green energy cannot even begin to cover the world’s energy needs. It is inefficient and expensive, and producing it on a large scale would be highly impractical. The Nuclear Option is intended to convince viewers that nuclear energy would be an excellent, practical solution to global warming. Production of nuclear energy costs about the same as that of fossil fuels; solar energy is about five times more expensive. Nuclear energy also generates 2,000 fewer tons of waste than fossil fuels. Furthermore, the waste from nuclear energy is packed away in containers and stored where it will not endanger anyone, whereas the waste from fossil fuels seeps into the atmosphere and harms the delicate planetary balance. Controversy still surrounds the use of nuclear energy. Some critics think having large barrels of nuclear waste sitting around could be a disaster. Barrels may leak underground, be destroyed in a car accident during transport or be stolen by terrorists. However, a promotional clip in the documentary detailed the precautions engineers have taken to avoid this. Used nuclear waste can be sealed up in many layers of heavy metal. These containers have been rigorously tested and can withstand being dropped from a distance onto concrete or engulfed in extremely hot fires, among other things. The storage facilities are highly guarded to prevent anyone from stealing and making ill use of nuclear waste. Another issue opponents bring up is the radiation from nuclear power plants, which they fear will cause terrible diseases. It turns out that coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants do. In fact, there is radiation everywhere; most is found in the soil, but dental X-rays also contribute some. Therefore, living near a nuclear power plant does not expose you to any more radiation than any other residential location. So what is preventing nuclear energy from becoming our primary source of energy? According to the documentary, no matter how much evidence science collects to dispel fears about radiation and nuclear waste, many people will still be afraid of it. Also, no state is willing to become host to a storage facility for nuclear waste. But finally, and worst of all, there are the politics. Alternative energy projects are picked up, only to be abandoned by the next administration. Four-year presidential terms do not give enough time to achieve something concrete and lasting. And in general, the U.S. government does not want to put out the funding required to experiment with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not the perfect source of energy, but Tinker thinks that it is the closest we’ve come so far. It is cheap, sustainable and non-polluting. If Tinker has his way, his documentary will inspire people to conduct their own research on nuclear energy and make their own decisions. He said that he “didn’t want [his film] to be dogmatic.” It is easy to see what he hopes the audience will understand: It is high time that nuclear energy, the energy of the future, became a reality. ***************************************************************** 53 New York Times: Rising Price of Electricity Sets Off New Debate on Regulation - Kristen Schmid Schurter for The New York Times Robert Butler, mayor of Marion, Ill., for 44 years, has never seen residents as upset about anything as they are about their electric bills. By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO Published: February 17, 2007 MARION, Ill., Feb. 12 — Robert Butler has seen and heard a lot in his 44 years as mayor of this small southern Illinois town. But not even the blizzard of 1987 compares with the distress many residents expressed after they opened electricity bills for January that were double or even triple December’s. In Illinois, Rising Rates "This is just flabbergasting," Mr. Butler, 80, said. "People should not be in the position of choosing between keeping warm or buying medicine and food, and I fear that too many are going to be in that situation." Utility rates had been capped in Illinois for 10 years, but the state agreed last year to raise them as part of an effort to open up its electricity markets to competition. Maryland, New Jersey and a half dozen other states are also removing caps. But residents in this part of Illinois are seeing some of the biggest rate spikes in the country — in some cases, increases of 100 percent to 200 percent. The higher rates are touching off a fresh round of national debate over unleashing competitive forces on traditionally regulated electricity markets. Opening up the markets was supposed to lead to savings for consumers. But that did not turn out as regulators predicted. The anticipated competition among energy suppliers never fully emerged as natural gas prices more than doubled in the last decade. Yet even as the pain of higher utility bills is setting in, the electric power industry is warning of an energy crisis that could rival California’s if higher fuel and plant construction costs cannot be passed onto consumers. Commonwealth Edison, which keeps the lights on for 3.3 million residents in the Chicago area, could lose $1.4 billion a year, or $4 million a day, and put the company “on the path to bankruptcy,” said Anne R. Pramaggiore, senior vice president for regulatory and external affairs. But that means little to residents who are clamoring for public officials to do something. In Illinois, the House speaker, Michael J. Madigan, plans to introduce legislation next week that would freeze rates for three more years. A similar effort was never taken up by the state Senate last year after a tough political battle in which Ameren, another utility company serving Illinois, and Commonwealth Edison lobbied furiously against it. Marion’s mayor has joined public officials in more than 60 other towns who are looking to buy power from someone — anyone, it seems — that can provide it for less than Ameren. In Maryland, the decision by the public utility commission to allow a rate increase of 72 percent this year prompted a special session of the General Assembly to provide relief. And in Virginia, lawmakers voted Feb. 6 to abandon the state’s decade-old experiment by halting its planned market opening in 2011. “There has now been more than a decade for this deregulation experiment to work, and as each state implements it, it just gets worse and worse,” said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. Mr. Slocum has invited officials from several states to Washington on Feb. 26 for a “Take Back the Power” conference, in which participants will discuss deregulation laws and hold closed-door strategy sessions on how to combat the rate increases. Since California botched the opening of its power industry to competition in 1998, suffering a spate of rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001, criticism has mounted against the deregulation models. Expectations of stable or lower gas prices set off a building boom of natural-gas-fired plants, with some 200,000 megawatts of capacity built from 1997 to 2003 — far more than what was needed to cover expected growth over 10 years. In the end, when natural gas prices rose sharply, companies that invested in coal and nuclear plants like Exelon, ComEd’s parent, became the big winners, reaping big profits under the frozen rates by dominating the sale of power to their regulated utilities. “The idea at the time was that by the time the rate freezes would expire, the competitive pressure would drive prices down and they would expire with a whimper rather than a bang,” said Lawrence J. Makovich, managing director for global power at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. But that has not happened. In Illinois, ComEd’s residential rates increased an average of 24 percent in January, while those in the Ameren service areas rose by up to 55 percent. Rate increases are far higher — 100 to 200 percent in the winter, and about 80 percent over the whole year — for residents who for years had received discounted rates for electric space heaters. The discounts were taken away in January. (Ameren recently told customers they could opt to phase in the increase over three years if they pay 3.25 percent interest a year.) Over the last decade, fuel costs have risen. Coal costs 31 percent more than in 1996, while natural gas prices are two and a half times what they were then, according to the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the Energy Department. But in Maryland and Illinois where big rate increases have been approved, nuclear plants generate about half of the power. The average price of uranium used in nuclear plants has risen by only 2 percent in the last decade, and the fuel represents less than a quarter of the cost to operate the plants. As Exelon has told its investors, the cost to produce nuclear power has gone down, not up, as plants have become more efficient. In Illinois, however, this matters little, because under the state's deregulation plan, power contracts are priced according to "bundled" contracts pegged to keeping the most expensive plants running, which are now natural-gas-fueled plants. Mr. Makovich said it would not be off base to compare the situation in Illinois to the experience in California. Pacific Gas and Electric, one of that state's three major utilities, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001 when it could not push through soaring wholesale prices because of a cap on retail rates. Energy traders at Enron and elsewhere made matters worse by trying to manipulate the West Coast power market. A bankruptcy in Illinois would not mean the lights would go off but it would hurt investors and could cause the restructured company to cut back on planned maintenance and investments in new plants. For the moment, however, there is no imminent shortage of power in the Midwest, analysts said. Still, in some parts of the country, like the Virginia-Carolinas region, there could soon be supply problems. And costs there are rising fast. Last year, Duke Energy, citing surging prices for skilled labor and for raw materials like steel, increased its cost estimate for two new coal-fired plants in North Carolina to $3 billion from $2 billion. Then, this month it said those costs were likely to rise still higher. "The costs of building new plants is skyrocketing," said John Shelk, president of the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group. "In a year or two those costs are going to dwarf what is happening now with rate increases." Consumer groups and many politicians in Illinois and Maryland, however, have little sympathy for the claims by utilities of imminent financial ruin, pointing to record profits at Exelon in 2006, mostly from generating and selling power to its regulated utilities. "The notion that they faced hardship under the rate freeze is just absurd," said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board in Chicago, a consumer advocacy group that has been working to keep rates frozen. "If you have this relationship where the biggest buyer of electricity is owned by the biggest seller, then customers need to share some of the benefits of that." Consumer advocates denounce the utilities' marketing tactics. Last year, Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, a lobbying group almost solely financed by ComEd, spent more than $10 million on a television ad warning that Illinois could be heading toward a "California-style energy crisis." In October, a group dressed in red T-shirts appeared on the steps of the Illinois statehouse and sang "We Shall Overcome" in support of higher utility rates. Avis LaVelle, a spokeswoman for the lobby, said the efforts were a "dose of hardcore reality." She said the utilities were already in a precarious situation because bond-rating agencies, concerned last year that the governor of Illinois would stop the unfreezing of rates, downgraded the ratings of both ComEd and Ameren to junk or near-junk status. Critics of the utilities, including the Illinois lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, countered by urging residents to put tea bags in the envelopes with their utility payments to symbolize the Boston Tea Party. In Marion, with a population of 17,000, dozens of residents continue to stop Mayor Butler at the grocery store and in church to complain. Robert Barnett, a local county commissioner, showed Mr. Butler a bill for $2,540 for the Veterans of Foreign Wars clubhouse - more than twice the previous month's bill of $1,260. "I guarantee you there will be a lot more people using fans this summer than air-conditioning," Mr. Barnett said. "That is like rolling the clock back 35 years." Mr. Butler said he was worried not only about residents on fixed incomes who will not be able to afford the increase but also about skyrocketing municipal power rates forcing officials to cut back on other services. The mayor and dozens of other local officials from other small towns recently met at a civic center in Marion to discuss their plan to buy power from an independent supplier. With summer only a few months away, there is little time to waste. Mr. Butler acknowledged that local officials should have heeded the warnings of the utilities that rates would shoot up after January and taken action earlier. "But we were creatures of habit," he said. "Now the wheel has come off the cart." Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: China Controls Seek to Prevent Terrorism From the Associated Press Saturday February 17, 2007 10:31 AM By SCOTT McDONALD Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - China said Saturday that its new export controls on nuclear technology requiring buyers to meet stricter obligations would prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons or dangerous radioactive material. China's Cabinet, the State Council, enacted amendments to regulations on dual-use nuclear technology to prevent acts of nuclear terrorism. The plan was first announced on Friday, but no details were given. ``The government will resolutely oppose the proliferation of mass destructive weapons and the means of their delivery,'' the Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on its Web site Saturday. Under the revised regulations, the Ministry of Commerce will take a greater role in controlling China's export of nuclear technology. The statement said ``the revision was a significant measure taken by the government to strengthen the legislation against the proliferation of mass destructive weapons and their means of delivery.'' The United States and other countries strictly control access to nuclear technology out of fear that terrorists could one day launch a nuclear attack or detonate a ``dirty bomb'' that releases radioactive material into the air. China - a nuclear power and member of the U.N. Security Council - has been part of efforts to persuade North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs because of concerns that such technology could fall into the hands of terrorists. Under the revised rules, a special panel will be set up under the Ministry of Commerce to evaluate and verify nuclear goods and technologies for export. The Ministry said it will have the power to ask customs authorities to detain and inspect suspicious cargo, or have the cargo sealed and the ``relevant departments'' carry out the inspections. ``The Ministry of Commerce will shoulder its responsibility and enforce the laws strictly,'' the statement said without giving further details. Previously the State Council had to approve changes to the nuclear export control list, but under the revised regulations, the Ministry of Commerce said it will have the authority to make regular changes in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog - and Nuclear Suppliers Group, which sets guidelines for its members on nuclear exports and nuclear-related exports. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 55 Burlington Free Press.com: Vermont and Vieques -- connected on many levels burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Published: Sunday, February 18, 2007 By Tim Johnson Free Press Staff Writer It would make a decent "Jeopardy!" question: "This little backwater, with a seven-letter place name that begins with 'V,' has long been a magnet for political and environmental activists, and also for vacationers looking for an unspoiled getaway." "What is Vermont?" would be one correct response, but another reply might impress the audience more: "What is Vieques?" Vieques (pronounced vee-EH-kez) is an oblong island east of the Puerto Rican mainland, with a population of about 9,400, that has probably drawn more than its share of people from Vermont over the years -- protesters, "social justice" advocates, and plain old beach lovers. Otherwise, the two Vs don't seem to have a great deal in common, and in any case, Vermont's presence in Vieques appears to be much greater than vice versa. Brigades of Vermont college students have flocked to Vieques over the last few years to do course work. Among the more recent were the 15 students in the University of Vermont geography 190 class, who spent two weeks there between semesters with assistant Professor Jeffrey "Sasha" Davis. They lived in a hostel and devoted some of their time to studying and compiling data on such topics as housing prices, health conditions and health-care access, environmental degradation -- all of which also happen to be popular research fare back in Vermont. For about 60 years, until 2003, part of the eastern half of Vieques was used by the U.S. Navy as a bombing range and as a testing ground for new munitions. The bombing range supplanted an agrarian economy (sugar cane, subsistence crops) and pushed the population to the western half of the island, or elsewhere. Much of the eastern half was, and remains, off limits. It's designated a Fish and Wildlife Service refuge, but parts are overlaid with unexploded ordnance that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its contractors are reclaiming, acre by acre, in a process that will take years. After a security guard was killed by an errant bomb in 1999, protests grew to demand that the bombing range be shut down, as demonstrators from the continental United States showed up in solidarity with local activists. Among them was Manuel O'Neill of Woodbury, who led delegations of Goddard College students, and then in 2001, during his summer vacation, was jailed for 10 days for "trespassing in a federal firing range during live bombing exercises." The closure finally came in May 2003, and one effect was to raise Vieques' appeal as a tourist destination. There's still plenty to protest, according to Davis, although the demonstrations are smaller now. Soaring real estate prices are an example. UVM students Shelley Wilson and Abby Frazier did a survey of house sales. Some exceed $1 million; the median price generally drops as one gets closer to the old bombing range. More than three-fourths of Vieques' population, they found, live in houses valued under $100,000. Often, Wilson said, they found "two families living in one house." About 60 percent of families in Vieques are below the poverty line, according to Wilson and Frazier, compared to fewer than 10 percent for the United States as a whole. With the recent influx of North Americans who are buying property, Davis said, "You have a lot of people with a lot money next to a lot of people with none." Hence, a "Vieques is not for sale" protest campaign that local activists waged in front of real estate offices. Another local controversy, Davis said, is the method of open detonation that's used to get rid of explosives. Toxins and heavy metals released into the air and soil are feared to be linked to elevated rates of cancer and other diseases. Scientific proof tying particular toxins to disease rates is hard to come by, Davis said. Rates of diabetes are elevated, too, said Grayson Hellmuth, a junior who focused on that "major health problem." The reasons are unclear, although she pointed out that veterans of the Vietnam War -- during which Vieques was a testing ground -- suffered from elevated diabetes rates, possibly from Agent Orange exposure. High diabetes rates also have been found in Pacific islands subjected to fallout from nuclear tests, said Davis, whose professional specialty is militarism and environmental destruction. Concerns about public health and the environment are hard to find in some of Vieques' tourist promotions. The first hit brought up by a Google search is titled "The Enchanted Isles ... Welcome to Vieques Island ... a little bit of paradise." If Vieques has a cachet for tourists, it's the rustic quality. The island has only one big resort. "People are looking for a place where you don't have 10 high rises on the beach," said Cathie Merrihew, travel counselor at Accent Travel in Williston, adding that "up till about five years ago, nobody was going there." A 2004 Columbus Dispatch article raved about the beaches and the "undiscovered" quality of this "sleepy island." The article quoted Burr Vail, co-founder of Carbur's Restaurant in Burlington, describing how he and his wife searched the Caribbean for a hotel to buy before settling on Vieques, in 1995, as "the only place we could find more laid-back than Vermont." "The practice bombing and shelling was restricted to 900 acres on the very east of the island," said Vail, owner of the Hacienda Tamarindo, in an e-mail. "That's 900 acres out of over 20,000 that the Navy owned. From our hotel, the shelling sounded like distant thunder and was unalarming." In November 2004 after he lost his race for governor, then-Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle and his wife, Betsy Ferries, spent four days in Vieques, unwinding. "We had a wonderful time," Ferries recalled the other day. "It was so undeveloped." They kept running into people they knew from Vermont. "It was uncanny," she said. Contact Tim Johnson at 660-1808 or tjohnson@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com. Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 Digital Journal: Best Kept Military Secrets: The Broken Arrows A nuclear bomb is lost over Savannah, Georgia; could it wipe out an entire city in a flash? The answer may be YES. Wassaw Sound is a body of water on the coast of Georgia (U.S. state) into which the Wilmington River flows. The closest city is the historically rich, Savannah. This beautiful city of gracious hospitality, and magnificent architecture could be wiped out within a matter of few seconds. A nuclear bomb, lies somewhere, buried in nearby Wassaw Sound. The government can't find it and it's not an isolated incident. Infact, there are as many as 7 incidents (11 worldwide) classified as IRRETRIEVABLY LOST as far as nuclear bombs are concerned in the United States. The military refers to these as 'Broken Arrows'. Goldsboro, North Carolina - January 24th, 1961 A B-52 bomber carrying two thermo-nuclear hydrogen bombs is refuelling in mid=air when suddenly the right wing rips off and the plane explodes. While scouting the area of the crash, the military finds only one of those two bombs while the other one has disappeared into the muddy earth. But possibly the most controversial incident involving a broken arrow occured in Savannah, Georgia - February 8th, 1958 A B-47's right wing is clipped in mid-air by another U.S. Air Force plane. The pilot has to act fast if he is to land the plane and ensure the safety of the crew. The command centre assures him that nuclear bomb he's carrying is NOT armed and may be dropped in order to lighten up the plane. So the bomb is dropped over what looks like the open sea, but instead turns out to be Wassaw Sound, near Savannah, Georgia. Recently de-classified documents state that this bomb might have been armed after all. Some argue, that after decades of water corrosion, the bomb is not likely to explode now. The truth is, since the bomb has not been located and the government has no intention of resuming the search for it, we may never know if the threat of the Savannah bomb is live or not. copyright © 1998-2007 digitaljournal.com ***************************************************************** 57 icNewcastle: In the grip of nuclear fear Feb 17 2007 By Ray Marshall, The Evening Chronicle It was like something out of an episode of Quatermass. A crash between two trains; passengers injured and then - the discovery of a radioactive package. Back in 1962 trhis happened when a train, the Northumbrian Express, carrying 200 passengers, smashed into the middle of a goods train carrying coal, only yards from the King Edward Bridge. The coal train had been making its way up the Bensham curve from Dunston. Luckily only three people were hurt, none seriously. But the biggest scare came when the railway porter lifted a box out of the wreckage and, from its markings, realised it was radioactive. From the newspaper cuttings of the time it seems the box had been addressed to a Tyneside firm and was, luckily, undamaged. But that didn't stop the emergency services swinging into action. The porter was whisked straight off to hospital for tests, although there is no report of the results. It was incidents such as this that inspired the massive Ban the Bomb marches of the 1960s. You have to remember these were the days when the arms race between East and West was at its height and the world was in grave danger of entering into a nuclear holocaust. The USA, Russia and Britain were testing atomic bombs and moving on to the H-bomb. It seemed to everyone that a nuclear war was inevitable and in a desperate attempt to get the message across to politicians that Joe Public wanted none of it, CND was formed exactly 49 years ago today. In March 1960 Ban the Bomb marchers were parading through Newcastle handing out thousands of leaflets. Although most shoppers seemed apathetic to the marchers' chants, according to both Evening Chronicle and Journal reports, there were still the odd shouts of support from the crowds. Placards carried by the marchers bore such slogans as Four Minutes to Suicide and This Is Not To Be The Final Generation. These were the early days of the anti-nuclear marches that culminated in the massive Aldermaston marches, peace camps at Greenham Common against cruise missiles and marches near to the Faslane naval base against nuclear submarines. © owned by or licensed to NCJ Media Limited 2007 icNewcastle™ is a trade mark of NCJ Media Limited. ***************************************************************** 58 Herald News: GE plans nuclear recycling HeraldNewsOnline.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group February 18, 2007 By BOB OKON Staff writer MORRIS -- GE Morris Operation was licensed 36 years ago to recycle nuclear fuel. But the facility has never been used for its intended purpose. The federal government called a halt to the country's first recycling projects in the 1970s, and GE Morris has been holding spent nuclear fuel rods for more than three decades. Now, the federal government is on the verge of approving a new fuel recycling plan. And GE Morris combined with research facilities at Argonne National Laboratory outside of Lemont are among 13 sites in the United States under consideration for the project. GE Morris Operation was licensed 36 years ago to recycle nuclear fuel. The federal government halted the projects in the 1970s but are now on the verge of approving a new fuel recycling plan. LIZ WILKINSON ALLEN/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER Argonne National Laboratory is one of two research facilities in the country that have been developing the new recycling process that would be used in the new program. The recycling project The U.S. Department of Energy will hold what it calls a "scoping meeting" in Joliet on Thursday to hear public comments on the potential environmental impact of a nuclear fuel recycling operation at GE Morris Operation. The meeting will be 6 to 9:30 p.m. in the Barber & Oberwortmann Horticultural Center at 227 N. Gougar Road in Joliet. The project, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, has been developing a fuel recycling technology that would not isolate plutonium. Plutonium is an essential element in the production of nuclear weapons. Recycling technology available in the 1970s isolated plutonium, and fears arose that re-use of nuclear fuel could inadvertently lead to plutonium getting in the wrong hands. Still, General Electric believed that the nation at some point would have to consider the recycling option again, said company spokesman Tom Rumsey. "The decision not to recycle in our opinion did not make a lot of sense," Rumsey said. "Ninety-five of it (fuel) can be recycled. It was a political decision." Local response Rumsey said GE already has received letters of support for the project from local officials in Grundy County. Most of the public is just beginning to hear about the plan, but GE has been approaching local officials in recent weeks. The project does have some attractive economic points: an investment of more than $1.5 billion into the GE Morris Operation to build the new recycling plant; up to 2,000 construction jobs over a five-to-six year period; and more than 400 high-paying, permanent jobs similar to those at Exelon Nuclear's Dresden Station, which is a neighbor to the GE facility. GE presented its plan to the Coal City Village Board last week, and the board was "very interested in what the presenters had to say," said Village Administrator Philip "Leo" Middleton. Coal City actually is closer to the GE facility than Morris. But GE will make a similar presentation at the Morris City Council meeting on 7 p.m. Tuesday. In addition to the economic benefits, Middleton said, local officials are interested in the prospect of using the spent nuclear fuel that has been piling up at Dresden and other nuclear plants. Spent fuel There are 55,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in the United States, said Craig Stevens, spokesman for the Department of Energy. Most of it is being stored at nuclear plants like Dresden and Exelon Nuclear's Braidwood Station, part of a fleet of Exelon plants through northern Illinois. The government's primary plan up to now has been to move fuel to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But the Yucca Mountain project has been stalled for years, largely because of opposition in Nevada. The meeting in Joliet this week is one of a series of meetings to be held around the country at the proposed sites to scope out local opinion about the project. If GE Morris does get the contract, just recycling the fuel already on site would take about five years, Rumsey said. The logical next place to get spent fuel after that would be from Dresden and other nuclear facilities in the region, he said. "There's enough spent nuclear fuel in Illinois to power it for the life cycle of the plant," said Rumsey. GE Morris would have a life cycle of about 40 years, he said. The timetable Unlike the Yucca Mountain Project, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is expected to be put into use in a set time frame. "I think your going to see this move pretty quickly," said Stevens at the Department of Energy. The timetable now calls for the Department of Energy to award contracts for the project in June 2008. It would take four to five years to build the recycling plant, according to GE. Sites that get the contract would initially be testing the new process to see if it works commercially. So far, the recycling technology has been done only at the laboratory level -- at Argonne and at Idaho National Laboratory. The key to the project, Stevens said, is to demonstrate that the new recycling process can be put into operation at a commercial level. "Right now, we can do it on a laboratory scale," he said. Bob Okon can be reached at (815) 729-6046 or bokon@scn1.com © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group ***************************************************************** 59 Monroenews.com: Wrestling with waste Informing Monroe County, Michigan, for more than 180 years By: Charles Slat story updated February 17. 2007 11:39PM - U.S. Department of Energy photo Workers load used nuclear fuel bundles into a cask at a nuclear plant in Surry County, Va. While DTE Energy ponders building a new nuclear plant near Newport, it faces a more urgent deadline for dealing with the mounting problem of storing highly radioactive waste - the spent nuclear fuel from its existing Fermi 2 reactor. In about three years, the utility will run out of room in a fuel storage pool next to the reactor vessel and expects it will have to store the fuel bundles on the Fermi plant's grounds in heavy concrete and steel casks designed to contain the radiation. "We have received some bids from a number of vendors and those are under evaluation," said John J. Austerberry, a DTE spokesman. "We're also looking at the option of forming alliances with other plants to obtain the storage containers." Cask storage of used nuclear fuel has been a controversial issue at various plants in the U.S. and elsewhere due to environmental and security concerns. But, lacking a central federal storage facility, spent fuel continues to crowd nuclear plant storage pools around the nation. DTE will begin a $9 million "re-racking" of Fermi's fuel pool this month, allowing a tighter pack of the spent fuel assemblies to extend the pool's capacity to 2010. It now has 2,296 fuel bundles cooling in the pool with room for a total of 3,146. With the re-racking, capacity will rise to 3,588 bundles. It will be the second time the plant has had to re-rack the pool. Initially, the federal government vowed to take the used fuel off the hands of utilities with nuclear plants and store it deep underground in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The storage plan is funded by $28 billion in surcharges electric customers have paid as part of their electric bills. Michigan customers already have paid more than $450 million into that fund. But that plan is years behind schedule, due to planning, political and safety concerns. During a talk at the Detroit Economic Club last week, Anthony F. Earley Jr., DTE chairman and chief executive officer, said the Yucca impasse may worsen due to the rise of longtime Yucca opponent Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to Senate Majority Leader. But he suggested it might be proper to explore reprocessing of spent fuel - a prospect that was downplayed in past decades because of its potential link to weapons development. "We now need to explore other options," Mr. Earley said. "In fact, the nuclear fuel left in these used fuel rods has immense value, so we really do not want to ‘dispose' of them by just burying them in the ground. The political logjam on Yucca may give us the opportunity to rethink nuclear fuel policy. But he asserted that the used fuel issue is a political and policy debate, not a safety debate. "Used fuel can be stored for decades in fuel pools and dry cask storage facilities in total safety," he said. Michael Keegan, a Monroe resident, DTE shareholder, and member of the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, disagrees. "They are teeing up a situation that would be very inviting for terrorists. In doing so, I'd say they're aiding and abetting," he said. "It's irresponsible of them to generate another ounce of this stuff knowing there's no place to put it." He said even transporting the waste to a central repository would risk having a "mobile Chernobyl," a reference to the 1986 Soviet reactor accident that contaminated parts of Europe. "The casks are faulty," he added. "There is no cask technology that's solid." But industry experts claim storage in casks is far safer than storage in fuel pools. A DTE cask storage facility would consist of reinforced concrete pads located inside the plant's "protected area," behind barriers, fencing and security portals, and licensed casks would be placed on those pads, said John J. Austerberry, a DTE spokesman. "Those spent fuel containers are proven to be very robust." Dale Zorn, vice chairman of the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, has been following efforts to develop a federal waste storage facility and visited Yucca Mountain in 1998. "If there's really a concern to this it's to get the high-level waste out of our local communities," he said. "The federal government has said by law they would accept the waste. They haven't done that and they need to start accepting it. Casks are safe but we still need to get it out of our local communities." But DTE officials have said that because of the buildup of waste at most of the nation's nuclear plants, the chances of any Fermi waste ever being transported to Yucca Mountain are slim. Spent fuel already is stored in casks at Consumers Energy's Big Rock plant near Charlevoix, Palisades plant near South Haven, and the Davis-Besse plant near Port Clinton, Ohio, and more than two dozen other locations around the country. - U.S. Department of Energy photo Crews (right) use a crane to lift a cask filled with highly radioactive fuel bundles at a Hanford, Wash., nuclear facility. - U.S. Department of Energy photo Casks holding used nuclear fuel often are stored vertically on concrete pads outside, such as this one in Idaho. ***************************************************************** 60 Courier Post Online: Shieldalloy promotes plan to bury radioactive waste South Jersey's Web Site CHARLES J. OLSON/Gannett News Service Dave Smith, radiation safety officer at Shieldalloy's Newfield facility, walks past a slag pile on Friday. WHAT'S NEXT Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-Ventnor, will join federal Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield and local officials Tuesday for a tour of Shieldalloy's Newfield facility. Sunday, February 18, 2007 By MILES JACKSON Gannett News Service NEWFIELD A photo of what was once a heap of radioactive slag at a sister company of Shieldalloy in Ohio features a gently sloping grass field, a hedgerow of autumn-tinged trees and two white-tailed deer standing in the foreground. What the picture depicts is a far cry from the jagged stacks of crusted gray rock piled 30 feet high at the Shieldalloy's Gloucester County facility, company officials admit. But that's exactly what the current unsightly slag heap could look like if company officials dispose the waste by capping the piles and landscaping in the back eight acres of Shieldalloy's 68-acre Newfield property. The site would be safe, too, the officials said during a presentation to members of the media Friday to promote the company's plans to bury the mildly radioactive waste at the Newfield site. Capping the waste locally is safer than putting the entire pile on trucks or railroad cars and moving the slag, company officials said. "Not unsafe," said Hoy E. Frakes Jr., senior vice president and general manager of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation. "Just not as safe as leaving it where it is." If left where it is, the slag won't leach radioactivity or other pollutants into the groundwater or release it into the air, company officials said. If someone stood next to the pile for a year, he would receive a fraction of the radiation acquired during a single coast-to-coast flight in a modern airliner flying above 25,000 feet, according to company officials. But moving the pile might release some of those pollutants, they added. Dust from crushing the slag to fit on trucks and dust raised as the trucks or railroad cars travel to a yet-unnamed place that might accept the slag would be a greater risk than burying the slag right where it sits, said Frakes and Eric Jackson, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation president. And that doesn't take into consideration what might happen should a truck spill some of the material, which is basically rock with traces of a radioactive substance left over from the company's previous owner's activities at the Newfield facility. Jackson, Frakes and other company officials didn't mention what municipality might welcome the material -- which residents of Newfield, Gloucester and Cumberland counties and some state regulators want removed from the property. Reach Miles Jackson at mjackson@thedailyjournal.com Copyright 2007 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 61 Newswire: US Produced Uranium ‘To Be Highly Sought After’ at Tuesday’s Sealed Bid Auction - Mining/Metal/Mineral | NewswireToday This article was published at no charge for their issuers. Only PREMIUM Articles are 3rd party Ad-Free! NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Sarasota, FL, United States, 02/18/2007 - TradeTech weekly spot uranium price indicator remained at $75/pound for the third straight week. Buyer and sellers await the results of Tuesday’s sealed bid auction to gauge the metal’s price direction. The weekly TradeTech uranium spot price indicator remained unchanged for a third straight week, but Tuesday’s sale of 100,000 pounds U3O8 could result in another record price spurt. According to Nuclear Market Review (NMR) editor Treva Klingbiel, “This lot of material represents an opportunity for buyers to secure material at a fixed price and is expected to be highly sought after.” Klingbiel pointed out in the February 16th issue of NMR, “The majority of other supply currently available to potential buyers is being offered with market-related pricing terms at time of delivery.” Utilities and other buyers hesitate to accept U3O8 and related product under these terms. As a result, the spot uranium price has remained nearly unchanged for the past two months, aside from small percentage increase at the end of January. About Stockinterview.com Stockinterview.com is an online news service, which provides investigative reporting, editorial, analysis and provocative commentary of the nuclear fuel cycle, uranium mining, nuclear power, the environment and the natural resource industry. StockInterview.com is now the most popular website for uranium mining stocks as a result of its best-selling publication, “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market: A Practical Investor’s Guide to Uranium Stocks.” The 304-page trade softcover edition of “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” is now available online or by visiting amazon.com About TradeTech TradeTech, and its predecessor companies–NUEXCO Information Services, CONCORD Information Services, and CONCORD Trading Company–has supported the domestic nuclear fuel cycle (uranium) industry for more than 35 years, and is widely recognized for its expertise in trading activities and its comprehensive knowledge of the technical, economic and political factors affecting this industry. TradeTech provides expert market consulting, participates in the buying and selling of uranium products and services, and maintains an extensive information database on these industries. After publishing the weekly uranium spot price indicator in the Nuclear Market Review magazine every Friday, TradeTech publishes the price indicator on the consulting service’s website at uranium.info # # # For more information, please visit: StockInterview | StockInterview bookstore Contact: Jackie Lee 941-929-1640 editor[.]stockinterview.com ©2006 Newswire Today — Limelon Advertising, Co. ***************************************************************** 62 Salt Lake Tribune: Waste elevated: Gov. Huntsman should veto SB155 Tribune Editorial Article Last Updated: 02/16/2007 07:35:44 PM MST It's time for Gov. Jon Huntsman to dust off the veto pen. The target should be SB155, which would exempt EnergySolutions from approval by local authorities, the Legislature and the governor, to increase capacity by 50 percent at its nuclear waste dump in Tooele County. The company wishes to pile waste up to 83 feet high, roughly twice the height allowed now. The bill has passed both the House and Senate by so-called veto-proof majorities. Well, not really. It passed by more than a two-thirds majority in both houses, and that is the same margin that the Utah Constitution requires to override a governor's veto. But there hasn't been a veto of the bill yet. And until there is, and the strength of the bill's support is tested on the floor of both houses in an override vote, no one knows whether a veto-proof majority indeed exists. We hope that it doesn't, that the critical number of legislators who voted for this bill the first time around will reconsider. The reasons are straightforward. If SB155 becomes law, EnergySolutions, the successor to Envirocare, would have to win approval for this license amendment to expand capacity only from the state's Radiation Control Board. EnergySolutions claims that this already is the case for a facility with an existing license. It further claims that the bill merely reaffirms existing regulatory policy and reinstates a "grandfathering" clause that acknowledged EnergySolutions' existing rights under its license. That clause was inadvertently removed when the law was rewritten in 2005, according to the company. But this is much more than a technical issue. The political debate over disposal of nuclear waste remains a hot one, both in Utah and in Washington, D.C. It's an economic issue as well. With the governor busily reforming tax and education policy in the name of attracting new businesses to the state, this is not the time for Utah to signal that it welcomes expansion of low-level nuclear waste storage at EnergySolutions' facility without a full public debate followed by approval by the Legislature and the governor. Gov. Huntsman wisely vetoed a bill last year that would have limited his office's authority in these matters. His veto was upheld. He should do the same again. Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map ***************************************************************** 63 Salt Lake Tribune: Radwaste declines at Tooele County landfill The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 02/16/2007 11:09:36 PM MST Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions, the nation's largest radioactive waste company, received far less waste material last year at its Tooele County landfill. After a record-breaking performance in 2005, the facility recorded a 34 percent decline last year in waste sent by customers nationwide, primarily from government cleanups and commercial reactors. ?There was less waste to be disposed of from '05 to '06,? said company spokesman Mark Walker. In 2006, EnergySolutions received 16.6 million cubic feet of hazardous and low-level radioactive waste, according to reports filed with the state Division of Radiation Control. A year earlier, the amount was 24 million cubic feet, a record volume for the company that began operations in 1988. The U.S. Energy Department, traditionally one of EnergySolutions' largest customers, faced critical deadlines last year for cleaning big projects in Fernald, Ohio, and Rocky Flats, Colo. The company has been predicting a decline in ?legacy projects? like these for years. ?The trend is starting to go down,? said Walker. EnergySolutions estimates that its mile square disposal site can hold nearly five times as much waste as is already buried there. It owns two of the three commercially operated low-level radioactive waste disposal sites in the nation. It is the sole option available to generators of low-level waste in 39 states. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 64 The State: Utah firm envisions big roles for S.C. 02/18/2007 Energy Solutions sees bright future in nuclear industry By SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com SNELLING — Steve Creamer sat in an office building at a nuclear waste landfill here last week, chattering like a youngster at his first Major League Baseball game. Creamer, president of Energy Solutions of Utah, is convinced nuclear power can solve the world’s energy needs. And he says Barnwell County’s landfill is important to atomic power’s resurgence. Creamer’s company is lobbying the S.C. Legislature to extend the life of the landfill, but that is only a small part of his company’s ambitions these days. Since Creamer and investment groups founded Energy Solutions a year ago, the company has gobbled up nuclear service businesses from Europe to South Carolina. Today, it owns contracts at most major federal atomic weapons complexes. In the Palmetto State, the company has: ? Acquired BNG, a British company that has contracts at the Savannah River Site nuclear weapons complex near Aiken. ? Said it will bid on Savannah River Site’s new main operating contract against WSRC Inc., which has run the site for the government since 1989. The contract is expected to top $1 billion a year. ? Received nearly $1 million from the federal government to study recycling nuclear fuel in Barnwell County. It’s a controversial plan bashed by environmentalists as unsafe. Creamer says an S.C. recycling plant would be more than safe — and employ 12,000, the equivalent of the work force at the Savannah River Site. ? Acquired Duratek, owner of Barnwell County’s low-level nuclear waste landfill, in a $400 million deal last year. Creamer said he’s realizing a dream in building an atomic services company. “The nuclear industry is something that always fascinated me,’’ Creamer said. “We basically have put together a solid company.’’ Jack Harrison is an executive with Studsvik of Tennessee, a competitor of Energy Solutions. “They are a big company that’s continually adding arms’’ through acquisitions of other nuclear services companies, Harrison said of Energy Solutions. “They are an aggressive competitor.’’ ‘GOOD CORPORATE NEIGHBORS’ So far, South Carolinians know little about Energy Solutions, other than information in a few advertisements that ran on television stations last fall. But state leaders are learning. During the past year, the company has hired 10 lobbyists to advance its cause in South Carolina, as well as Tim Dangerfield, former chief of staff at the S.C. Department of Commerce. Creamer also has lunched with the governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council. In 2006, a division of Energy Solutions contributed $3,500 to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tommy Moore and $3,500 to the campaign of incumbent Republican Mark Sanford, who won re-election. State Rep. Skipper Perry, R-Aiken, said he met Creamer at a party the night before Sanford’s inauguration last month. “They’re spreading a lot of money around; they’re trying to be good corporate neighbors,’’ Perry said. On Thursday, state lawmakers introduced a bill to keep the Barnwell County low-level waste landfill open to the nation for another 15 years, rather than closing it in 2008 to all but three states. Supporters say the state needs money generated by the landfill. Last month, Energy Solutions persuaded U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to speak at a customer conference in Utah. Graham’s talk, relayed by satellite from Washington, looked at his — and the Bush administration’s — interest in nuclear energy and fuel recycling. Graham said he told those attending the conference that nuclear power is a way to attack global warming and reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. “I told them now was the time to come to the administration and the Congress,” Graham said. Graham, R-S.C., said he’s impressed with Energy Solutions and Creamer, whom he met about a year ago. The company’s push to recycle spent nuclear fuel could be a boon to the S.C. economy and help the nation, Graham said. “From what I know of the company, they’re going to be very competitive; they have a great reputation out West,’’ Graham said. “I was impressed with Steve (Creamer’s) corporate vision. He sees a new industry developing in the United States that was not there 10 years ago because of politics.’’ WHERE THE UTAH JAZZ PLAY Creamer’s push to make Energy Solutions a national player doesn’t surprise people who have dealt with him before. Once a lobbyist in Utah, Creamer is described as a smooth, intelligent businessman, adept at talking with policy makers. He’s tried to foster good will and promote the company since Energy Solutions was formed. The company has purchased television ads in Utah to promote itself. Late last year, the company bought the naming rights to the Utah Jazz’s basketball arena in Salt Lake City. “Energy Solutions Arena” now shows up regularly in sports pages across the country. Creamer said the new name has done wonders for his corporation’s image in Utah. Creamer’s political savvy, ad campaigns and business smarts have made Energy Solutions a major player in Utah public policy debates. The company recently persuaded the Utah Senate to approve a bill that critics say will help Energy Solutions expand its low-level waste landfill west of Salt Lake City. “Energy Solutions has an impressive dog-and-pony show, but it’s important to look behind the curtain,’’ said Vanessa Pierce, who heads Heal Utah, an environmental group that has battled Creamer. “You realize their driving force is profit. It’s important that elected officials also hear concerns about health and safety.’’ Claire Geddes, an outspoken critic of Energy Solutions in Utah, said the company has repaired its image with many people in Utah. The company became Energy Solutions in 2006, about a year after Creamer and investors bought the beleaguered Envirocare low-level waste corporation. Envirocare had been rocked by a scandal in which its owner paid off a government regulator. Energy Solutions has showered the public in Utah with television advertisements extolling its virtues, Geddes said. “You’d think they are curing cancer,’’ Geddes said. “It’s a very deceptive campaign to make people feel warm and fuzzy about nuclear waste.’’ Creamer said his company runs environmentally safe landfills in both Utah and South Carolina. During his career, Creamer has worked as a principal in an array of business ventures across the West, ranging from hydropower production to toxic waste disposal. Some businesses were more successful than others. Creamer, for instance, has taken a beating for his involvement in construction and design of a Utah dam that later failed. The failure cost the state of Utah $11 million. Creamer says the failure was not his engineering firm’s fault. Creamer also has angered other nuclear waste company executives. A former executive with Envirocare, who wanted to start a rival company, sued Creamer last year for $60 million. The lawsuit claims Creamer’s company leaned on close friendships in government to gain a national waste disposal monopoly. Creamer said the allegations are groundless. Still, Creamer generally has done well since quitting Utah’s state environmental agency to begin a consulting firm in the 1970s. In 2002, for instance, he sold a concrete products company he founded as part of a $227 million deal, according to news reports. RECYCLING AND SRS While the question of leaving Barnwell open is expected to produce lively debate in the Legislature, Energy Solutions already is making inroads on other parts of the nuclear business in South Carolina. In January, the company received a $963,000 federal grant to study nuclear fuel reprocessing at a site not far from its Barnwell landfill. The grant is one of three that Energy Solutions received to study reprocessing. The company’s reprocessing plan would focus on a proposed Barnwell County reprocessing facility that was abandoned in the 1970s. It could become a $20 billion construction project that would produce 12,000 jobs, Creamer said. Supporters say reprocessing would cut down on the amount of high-level nuclear waste piling up around the country. Detractors say it’s a technology that can produce weapons-grade byproducts. “It’s a big deal,’’ Creamer said. “The governor and the Legislature, if it’s something they want to do, they’ll win the race.’’ Energy Solutions’ S.C. expansion also has included acquiring contracts at the Savannah River Site, part of the company’s purchase of BNG last year. The contracts were for about $125 million, about 10 percent of total SRS contracts, according to WSRC, the site’s prime contractor. Energy Solutions’ Savannah River duties now include managing low-level nuclear waste and hazardous waste. In some cases, that involves processing the waste or shipping it off site to other disposal areas, WSRC spokesman Dean Campbell said. Currently, Energy Solutions is collaborating with other contractors to build the Salt Waste Processing Facility, a factory to help clean up toxic atomic waste on the 310-square mile Savannah River Site. The facility is behind schedule but vital to the cleanup of high-level waste at Savannah River. In the meantime, Creamer plans to continue his push to let the public know about his company. He has helped launch school programs in Utah that examine nuclear energy and wants to do the same in South Carolina. It’s all part of his master plan. “If people understand nuclear energy, they’re not scared of it,’’ he said. “They will understand that it is very safe, that you can’t just make a bomb out of it or have another Three Mile Island (nuclear meltdown) because the safety precautions are so much more rigorous today.’’ Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537. WHAT IS ENERGY SOLUTIONS? A look at the Utah-based company, headed by Steve Creamer Dec. 15, 2004: Creamer and investor groups acquire atomic waste disposal company Envirocare of Utah from its founder, Khosrow Semnani. Feb. 1, 2005: Creamer holds news conference to say he supports a state ban on bringing more highly radioactive waste to Utah than state law allows. Creamer’s purchase of Envirocare is finalized the same night. Feb. 3, 2006: Envirocare announces its new name, Energy Solutions, after acquiring BNG America and Scientech D&D. BNG is the U.S. cleanup division of British Nuclear Fuels, owned by the United Kingdom. Feb. 6, 2006: Energy Solutions acquires Barnwell County low-level nuclear waste site from Duratek, the site’s parent company. June 29, 2006: Energy Solutions’ acquisition of Duratek is completed in a $396 million deal. The deal gives Energy Solutions control of two of the nation’s three low-level nuclear waste landfills. Fall 2006: Energy Solutions runs TV advertisements in South Carolina letting the public know about the company. Oct. 1, 2006: Energy Solutions hires former S.C. Department of Commerce chief of staff Tim Dangerfield as executive vice president. Oct. 25, 2006: Energy Solutions expresses interest in bidding for the Savannah River Site contract held by Washington Savannah River Co. Nov. 27, 2006: Energy Solutions proposes piling more waste at its Utah landfill. The nuclear waste pile would stand 83 feet high. Nov. 21, 2006: Energy Solutions buys naming rights to the Utah Jazz’s basketball arena in Salt Lake City, Utah. The center formerly was named for Delta Airlines. Nov. 29, 2006: Energy Solutions is one of a handful of companies/consortiums picked by the Department of Energy to study for recycling used nuclear fuel. An S.C. site being studied is in Barnwell County Dec. 4, 2006: Energy Solutions acquires Safeguard International Solutions Ltd. of the United Kingdom. It is the company’s first UK acquisition. Jan. 17, 2007: Energy Solutions acquires Parallax, an environmental cleanup, engineering and management company. ***************************************************************** 65 PE: Governor asked to turn up pressure on perchlorate cleanup in Rialto Inland News | PE.com | Download story podcast 08:01 AM PST on Saturday, February 17, 2007 By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA The Press-Enterprise Video: Rialto residents demand cleanup of perchlorate contamination Survey: Should Gov. Schwarzenegger declare a state of emergency in Rialto because of perchlorate contamination in the groundwater? RIALTO - A group of residents wants the governor to declare a state of emergency in Rialto because perchlorate contamination in the city's groundwater supply is endangering residents' health. Officials with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and about 40 residents also demanded during a protest Friday that the State Water Resources Control Board force polluters to clean up the contamination and reimburse residents for cleanup costs they have incurred. A hearing set for March 23 to determine which companies are responsible for a mileslong underground plume of perchlorate was delayed after the hearing officer resigned. The hearing also would have forced cleanup of the plume, believed to have been generated by defense contractors in the 1950s and '60s. "Enough is enough. We are tired of all the delays," said Sujatha Jahagirdar, clean-water advocate for Environment California. "The state water board must issue a full cleanup order that requires every drop of contamination to be cleaned and to provide safe water to residents until it is done." Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel and fireworks, has contaminated six Rialto water wells. It is believed that the chemical interferes with thyroid function and brain development. Human fetuses and newborn children are considered most at risk. Davin Diaz, of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice in San Bernardino, said the goal is to have Gov. Schwarzenegger make Rialto's water a top priority and apply pressure on the state water board to move quickly. But Rialto officials would have to declare a local state of emergency before the governor could issue a declaration, said Eric Lamoureux, spokesman for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. Because there is no request from Rialto officials, it is difficult to assess the situation, Lamoureux said. Councilman Ed Scott said he will be in Sacramento on Thursday to ask the state water board to hold hearings on Rialto's perchlorate problem. City officials have no plans to declare a local state of emergency, he said. Maria Harrada, a five-year Rialto resident, said she wants the contamination cleaned up so she won't have to worry about her children drinking tap water. "It doesn't seem fair that we are paying to clean a mess we didn't make and that those responsible aren't paying," Harrada said during a protest at one of the first wells where perchlorate was found nearly 10 years ago. Rialto residents are charged a $6.85 flat fee for perchlorate cleanup on their water bills. An additional charge is assessed based on consumption. Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said the city plans to reimburse residents once cleanup funding becomes available from the responsible parties. © 2007 Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 66 Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Nuke Capital Mulls Radwaste Repository Business: 17 February 2007, Saturday. Bulgaria's Danube town of Kozloduy, home of the country's only Nuclear Power Plant is holding Saturday a referendum on building a final repository facility for low- and intermediate-level radwaste in the area. A total of 18,000 people have the right to vote in the referendum, organized by Mayor Milko Torbov. Voting takes place in 28 sections, 16 of them in Kozloduy and the rest in the other four villages from the municipality. The facility will cost between BGN 70 M and BGN 100 M and its construction is part of the conception for safe exploitation of nuclear Units. Experts commented for SNA that the referendum is rushed, because the exact spot for the facility hasn't even been chosen yet. novinite.com Forum Google Tourism Business MobileBulgaria All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2007 - Copyright & Disclaimer - Privacy Policy ISO 9001:2000 Certified Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest ***************************************************************** 67 Tucson Citizen: Radioactive dump cleanup needs action now | www.azstarnet.com tucsoncitizen.com Our view: 16-year delay in removing threat to Colorado River is not acceptable Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.18.2007 The U.S. energy secretary made an alarming statement earlier this month. Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a congressional hearing that the plan to clean up a radioactive uranium dump that threatens the Colorado River may be delayed by 16 years. That's right. Sixteen years. Note to Secretary Bodman: Those of us who live downstream from this hazardous waste and drink Colorado River water aren't willing to wait 16 years. Yes, we understand the threat isn't immediate; our state won't all be poisoned if the site isn't cleaned up in six months. We weren't thrilled when the Energy Department announced in 2005 that it would have the radioactive waste moved and secured in seven to 10 years, but we understand it was a massive project. The costs involved and the engineering challenges meant the cleanup couldn't be done speedily. But 16 years? It's a mystery to us why every member of Arizona's congressional delegation is not camped out at Bodman's door demanding an explanation and reversal of the delay. The health of Tucson and Phoenix — not to mention Las Vegas and Los Angeles — is directly linked to the health of the Colorado River. Politicians from every state that uses the Colorado for drinking water should be pushing vigorously not only for the Moab cleanup but for a Colorado River protection plan, a multistate effort similar to the collaborative efforts put together by the Great Lakes states and those near Chesapeake Bay. In each case a group of states recognized they needed to protect a body of water that crosses multiple boundaries and served more than one jurisdiction. In those states it was not, as it often is in the Southwest, a concern with the supply of water, but with the quality of the water, an issue that has not yet motivated Southwestern states to act collaboratively. The debacle unfolding at Moab — one that we thought had been addressed two years ago — should once again provide a wake-up call for the governors and congressional representatives of the Colorado River states. There is ample documentation for the potential contaminations caused by mining wastes and nitrates from thousands of septic tanks. The problem does not require more study. It requires political will. The uranium tailings at Moab were supposed to be moved by 2012. At least, that was the word two years ago. But now, Bodman told Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, that the new schedule calls for the project to be completed in 2028. The Energy Department requested about $24 million for the cleanup in the 2008 budget released earlier this month. The project is estimated to cost around $400 million. Both Matheson and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, expressed their unhappiness with the delayed timeline in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Hatch issued a statement about the delay saying, "That's very disturbing to me, and I intend to push DOE to recognize the need to keep as close as possible to the original timeline." The radioactive tailings at Moab, Utah, some 750 feet from the Colorado River near Arches National Park, are all that remains of a Cold War era uranium mill. The mill was owned by Atlas Minerals Corp., which filed for bankruptcy in 1998 and put a temporary cap on the huge tailings dump. The estimated 25 million people who live downstream of the Moab tailing site should be concerned about when and how the radioactive waste is removed. The material has the potential to create severe health hazards if a natural disaster washes any of it into the Colorado River, a major source of drinking water for the major metropolitan centers in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California. Delaying cleanup of the uranium dump threatens the Colorado River and our state's future water supply. Removing the radioactive waste and protecting the river cannot wait another 16 years. ***************************************************************** 68 YHRO: Yakamas want damage assessment from Hanford operations Yakima Herald Republic Online - Yakima, Washington News, Published on Sunday, February 18, 2007 By PHIL FEROLITO YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC GORDON KING/Yakima Herald-Republic Scientists tour the remnants of a missile-defense system installed on Rattlesnake Mountain in the mid-1950s to protect the nearby Hanford nuclear reservation. The Yakama Nation is concerned about the Cold War-era structures and their encroachment on the mountain, which they consider sacred. HORN RAPIDS, Wash. -- An icy wind cuts across Rattlesnake Mountain as Dana Miller combs its snow-covered ridge for recent disturbances or unnatural activity. Miller and a few other workers with the Yakama Nation frequently visit the area to see if there have been any trespassers on the peak, which rises more than 3,000 feet just west of the Hanford nuclear reservation about eight miles north of Benton City. The mountain once served as a place to pray, hunt and gather food, and is regarded as sacred by Northwestern Indians. Smoholla, a Wanapum spiritual leader considered a prophet by many, often journeyed up the steep grade to communicate with the Creator and receive direction in life, says Russell Jim, with the Yakama Nation Environmental Restoration/Waste Management Program. But in the mid-1950s, an anti-aircraft missile-defense system was erected on the mountain to protect the Hanford site. Remnants of a radio tower still stand on the ridge near a few other buildings, including a battery-control area. Although the mountain has been marred by the equipment, its cultural significance is still recognized by the Yakama Nation, says Jim, who for years has been working with the federal Department of Energy to address the tribe's cultural concerns in the area. That's just one site that's important, and there are many, many things that need to be tied together," he says. Like the mountain, all of the 560-square-mile Hanford nuclear reservation lies within the tribe's ceded area, where tribal members retain their traditional rights to hunt, fish, gather food and perform sacred ceremonies. Since Hanford transformed operations in 1989 to full-scale cleanup, the Yakamas have taken an active role in monitoring and identifying sacred sites throughout the area on the nuclear reservation. Concerned about possible harm that plutonium production may have had on the area, the tribe has been involved during the past five years in a lawsuit against the federal government seeking an assessment of natural resources and unspecified damage that Hanford operations may have had on the area. Last year, the states of Washington and Oregon and three other Columbia River tribes -- Umatilla, Nez Perce and Warm Springs -- joined the lawsuit. The states merely want the federal government to cover the cost of assessing any damage. A U.S. District judge in Yakima on April 26 will hear oral arguments on a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Department of Energy officials say cleanup must be completed before damages to natural resources can be assessed. "We are currently conducting extensive sampling for contaminants in water, sediment, soil, and (the region's plant and animal life) so that cleanup decisions continue to have a solid scientific basis for the protection of human health and the environment," says Department of Energy spokeswoman Megan Bernett in Washington, D.C. "As we complete risk assessment activities, the department is committed to implementing cleanup remedies in accordance with state and federal laws." GORDON KING/Yakima Herald-Republic Yakama Nation archaeologist Dana Miller walks near the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain on an icy morning. An October report from RIDOLFI, an environmental restoration group in Seattle, detailed these findings: * Water was diverted from the nearby Columbia River to cool nuclear reactors and then dumped back into the river despite being treated with chemicals to prevent corrosion of reactor components. * Hazardous chemicals from the site continue to make their way into the environment, and there are billions of cubic yards of solid and diluted liquid waste containing radioactive and other toxic materials. * In an area about 35 miles north of Richland adjacent to the Columbia River, roughly 11 square miles of groundwater is contaminated with chromium and radioactive elements. The groundwater pours into the Columbia River, which supplies communities downstream with drinking water. * In another area, significant concentrations of hazardous chemicals such as uranium and cyanide have been found in groundwater. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy has been working to clean up the area, and has committed to removing roughly 99 percent of the waste being stored in underground tanks. "They want to take 99 percent of the waste out of those tanks and call it good," says Phil Rigdon, deputy director of the tribe's department of natural resources. "I think it's those kinds of decisions that we need to have some involvement with." Tribal officials say a damage assessment needs to be conducted before any thorough cleanup can be done, and the tribe's cultural dependency on the area for hunting, fishing and food gathering -- all inseparable links to their beliefs -- must be considered. "One of our greatest concerns is that everything is done on such a fast track, that sometimes they forget about the natural resources and don't do a good job of assessment," Rigdon says. "Everything that we do is to try to protect the resources important to the Yakama Nation." But it's not just tribal members who would benefit from such an assessment, Rigdon says. Sportsmen and residents also rely on the area's resources. Jim, who isn't a party in the lawsuit, says a damage assessment would not only help with cleanup, but also would better protect workers by identifying what exactly is in the ground. When a cleanup crew runs into any remains or artifacts while digging, the tribe is called to survey, document and inventory the site, he says. There are numerous burial sites and remnants of ancient villages throughout the area. "We're very concerned about what is there," he adds. "Are these people jumping down into something that they can't smell, see, that may be very dangerous? Our people can't be running down there without knowing what they're jumping into." Jim has been working to put together guidelines outlining the tribe's physical and spiritual ties to the area's natural resources in hopes of launching a thorough cleanup. "We are tied to everything," he says. "We're trying to cover everything, foods, medicines, fish, animals ... right down to the smallest microbe." Turning his thoughts to the mountain again, Jim tells how its surrounding lower-than-normal elevation provides for moderate winters while its relatively tall peak allows foods to grow late into the summer. Many elders whose ailing bodies limited their ability to travel often stayed there year-round, he says. "It was also a place that served as the next step when you left this land to go to the next world," he says. "That was the belief of some, and it's very easy to understand when they speak of that in our (traditional) language. Very significant." * Phil Ferolito can be reached at 837-6111 or pferolito@yakimaherald.com. © 2007 - Yakima Herald-Republic - www.yakimaherald.com ***************************************************************** 69 KnoxNews: UT-Battelle gets highest score ever Contractor's performance for managing ORNL also nets $10.38M By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 17, 2007 OAK RIDGE - UT-Battelle received high marks and more than $10 million for managing Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2006. The lab contractor, a partnership of the University of Tennessee and Battelle, received an overall performance score of 97 - the highest ever - in its annual report card from the U.S. Department of Energy. Gerald Boyd, DOE's Oak Ridge manager, said UT-Battelle met or exceeded performance expectations in all five goals for management and operations at ORNL. UT-Battelle received an "A" for mission accomplishment, which carried the most weight in the fee-determining process. That covers the lab's research and development activities in virtually all areas of science and technology. The contractor also received an "A" or "A-" in several other areas, including design, fabrication, construction and operation of facilities. That category included completion and startup of the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source - one of the nation's biggest science projects. The lowest grades received by UT-Battelle were "B+" for integrated safety, health and environmental protection; business systems; and security and emergency management. The company received $10.38 million out of a maximum available fee pool of $10.7 million. The evaluation period was for fiscal 2006, Oct. 1, 2005, through Sept. 30, 2006. The year's highlights included first operations at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences and upgrades to the lab's stable of supercomputers and the High Flux Isotope Reactor. ORNL also took over leadership of the U.S. work on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor - the world's largest fusion energy project. "It was a very good year," said ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth. Wadsworth said he was proud of the 2006 accomplishments and the 97 score in the performance rating. But he added, "We're always interested in that missing 3 percent." He said UT-Battelle's management fee is used to cover some of the corporate costs in Oak Ridge, including charitable donations, and the remainder is split evenly between the parent organizations - UT and Battelle. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 70 Tri-City Herald: Science, technology earn good grades for PNNL Published Saturday, February 17th, 2007 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer Battelle Memorial Institute has the science and technology stuff down pat at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, but there is room for improvement on planning and taking care of the business side of the lab. The Department of Energy released its annual report cards on 10 national laboratories Friday, including PNNL, which Battelle has run for more than 40 years. This year's report card evaluates each lab in eight areas, with scores of A+ to F being possible. A grade of B+ is the expected performance level, said Julie Erickson, acting director of the DOE's Pacific Northwest site office in Richland. PNNL scored one A+, two A's, two B+'s, two B-'s and one C. Although DOE doesn't average the scores, they yield about a B+ for PNNL's performance in fiscal year 2006, which ended Sept. 30. The grading allows Battelle to earn 87 percent of the $7.8 million performance fee under the DOE contract. That means $6,809,400 this year, said Greg Koller, PNNL spokesman. Last year, under a less definitive grading system that had fewer categories for evaluation, the lab earned slightly less than $6.8 million. The lab excelled with an A+ for accomplishing its missions for DOE and other customers, including the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences and the Office of Advance Scientific Computing Research. The lab also was tops in work involving defense nuclear nonproliferation and in research about energy efficiency and renewable energy, noted Erickson in her letter to PNNL interim director Michael Kluse. "We are proud that our performance earned very high marks for our science and technology. Those who fund our research noted PNNL is delivering world-class science and technology, from proteomics to environmental molecular science, and homeland security to energy infrastructure improvement technologies," said Kluse in a prepared statement Friday. The lab's highest grades came on its design and operation of facilities and for its research programs, which "exceeded expectations," stated Erickson. Battelle's lower scores were for not having adequately prepared, planned and acted on replacing facilities in the 300 Area, which resulted in some delayed decisions during 2006, Erickson said. "It took a while to get going on that project, to define the needs and put the package together. It was a hard task to do," Erickson noted. But Battelle's staff at PNNL has responded well in dealing with the shortcoming. "They have made some very good corrective actions since the end (of the fiscal year)," she said. DOE gave a C grade on developing a plan to replace facilities in 300 Area. "Most performance expectations to provide planning for and acquire the facilities and infrastructure required to support future laboratory programs were not met," Erickson wrote in the report card to Kluse. Kluse acknowledged there is room for improvement in the Capability Replacement Laboratory project. "We got the message, and we're sharpening our focus to improve our performance," he told the Herald, noting that a recently completed DOE review -- called a Lehman Review -- of the CRL project was successful. The lab earned B- grades, reflecting below DOE expectations, on the performance of its business systems and on stewardship and leadership of the lab. But Erickson commended Battelle for increasing diversity at the lab by adding women and minorities. Erickson said the new grading process, with focuses on eight areas of performance and measure, allows DOE to apply the same evaluation methods for all national laboratories. "We want everybody thinking along the same lines, to evaluate all the lab contractors consistently," Erickson said. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************