*****************************************************************
02/23/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.45
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] US Feeding Garbage Intel to UN on Iran's Nuke Pgm
2 [southnews] Cheney warns of nuclear Iran; war option "still on the t
3 What is behind Russia’s delay of Iran’s nuclear reactor?
4 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats Trying to Restart Iran Talks
5 Guardian Unlimited: Report Says Iran Continuing Nuclear Work
6 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: Stop bullying Iran
7 UPI: Blair opposes military force in Iran
8 AFP: Six world powers to discuss Iran in London Monday
9 IAEA: Report on Iran Safeguards Sent to IAEA Board, Security Council
10 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats to Work on New Iran Resolution
11 AFP: Rice cajoles Russia to support more sanctions against Iran -
12 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Vows to Defend Nuke Program
13 Dpr Korea Invites UN Nuclear Chief Four Years After Leaving Non-prol
14 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief: North Korea Soliciting Talks
15 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Deal Rife With Benefits
16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea invites nuclear watchdog
17 Korea Herald: N.K., U.S. said to plan exchange of nuclear envoys
18 BBC NEWS: N Korea 'tried uranium project'
19 Korea Times: North Korea to Invite Rice
20 Korea Times: Another Nuclear Crisis
21 AFP: US 'very pleased' about North Korean invitation to UN watchdog
22 Guardian Unlimited: S.Korea: North Committed to Disarmament
23 AFP: Cheney warns on China, NKorea
24 AFP: 'Long way' to go in North Korea nuclear pact - US
25 US: Herald News: Want to be heard?
26 AFP: Britain in talks with US on hosting 'son of Star Wars'
27 The Herald: Why UK is secretly lobbying for son of StarWars
28 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: Return to Star Wars
29 UPI: Putin OKs nuke coop with U.S.
30 Guardian Unlimited: 45 held in Trident base protest
31 The Hindu: Position on nuke testing not to hinder deal - U. S.
NUCLEAR REACTORS
32 US: SBR&J: Approval Process Underway For Two New Nuclear Reactors at
33 US: AZ Republic: Federal nuke regulator visits troubled Palo Verde
34 Guardian Unlimited: Darling delays energy white paper but still keen
35 US: AZ Republic: Palo Verde safety grade slips
36 US: FresnoBee.com: Speaker backs nukes in Fresno
37 RIA Novosti: Namibia, Russia discuss nuclear cooperation -
38 US: NRC: NRC Re-Schedules Public Meeting to Discuss Revisions, Addit
39 US: Platts: US FERC approves $380 mil Palisades nuclear plant sale t
40 US: Platts: US NRC to increase its oversight of Palo Verde nuclear f
41 US: Platts: Spurgeon: US likely to need nuclear for future energy de
42 US: NRC: NRC Completes Web Site Redesign
43 US: toledoblade.com: Flawed Fermi 2 test baffles experts; defective
44 US: Detroit Free Press: Nuclear plants: Safe enough yet?
45 HSE: HSE publishes THORP leak report
46 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Plant's Safety Rating Takes Hit
47 US: UPI: Palo Verde plant issued white finding
48 Business Report: Russians determined to supply nuclear units to SA
49 US: UPI: Uncertain U.S. nuclear economics
50 UPI: GCC, IAEA agree to study nuclear power
51 US: Hampton Union: Work at nuke plant
52 US: Lehigh Valley News: Nuclear weapons expert to speak in Valley
53 US: csmonitor.com: Where Bush would steer energy R&D |
54 AFP: Sweden restarts nuclear reactors
NUCLEAR SECURITY
55 Security UN To Step Up Action To Keep Deadliest Weapons Away From Te
NUCLEAR SAFETY
56 US: Alert: Demand radiation standards that use precautionary princip
57 Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing
58 Dr. Rosalie Bertell - ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT DU AND GULF WAR SYNDRO
59 [du-list] Uranium weapons health effects - Dr. Craig Etchison
60 US: Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Abandons Big Bomb Test
61 US: reviewjournal.com: TEST SITE EXPLOSION: Divine Strake blast dead
62 US: Pahrump Valley Times: DIVINE STRAKE: Feds cancel detonation
63 KUAM: Celestial submits evidence supporting nuclear testing claimant
64 BBC NEWS: Litvinenko inquiry 'nearing end'
65 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utahns praised for halting Nevada explosion
66 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Feds pull plug on desert blast
67 US: Spectrum: Strake canceled
68 US: lamonitor.com: Divine Strake test scratched
69 US: Reid: REID STATEMENT ON DIVINE STRAKE CANCELLATION
70 US: ABC4.com: Matheson calls for Divine Strake federal hearings -
71 US: UPI: Bunker-busting 'Strake' test blast is off
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
72 US: The State: South Carolina¹s credibility a
73 US: Herald News: Nuke plan unpopular
74 US: Platts: Uranium prices continue to rise, reaching at least $85/p
75 US: Platts: French, Russians sign MOU to develop uranium deposits in
76 US: London Times: Global drive for nuclear power lifts uranium to re
77 Norway Post: Aker Kvaerner JV wins Sellafield contract
78 US: Daily Herald: Huntsman considers veto on nuclear waste
79 US: Montgomery Newspapers - Adviser: Fuel rod storage may not be 'te
PEACE
80 AFP: Military police storm anti-nuclear protest ship
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
81 Hanford News: Bechtel to add 760 workers
82 AP Wire: Hanford official retires, top two jobs now open
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] US Feeding Garbage Intel to UN on Iran's Nuke Pgm
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:04:49 -0500 (EST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Guardian via Info Clearing House - Feb 22, 2007
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17149.htm
US Iran intelligence 'is incorrect'
By Julian Borger in Vienna
Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN
inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic
sources in Vienna said today.
The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war,
coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a
UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.
That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general,
Mohammed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the
imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran and raises the possibility that the
US could resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.
At the heart of the debate are accusations - spearheaded by the US - that
Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided
by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when
investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with
detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.
"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some
follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of
[banned nuclear] activities.
"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility
test."
One particularly contentious issue was records of plans to build a nuclear
warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by
an informant inside Iran.
In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the
material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to
confront Iran.
Tehran rejected the material as forged, and there are still reservations
within the IAEA about its authenticity, according to officials with
knowledge of the internal debate in the agency.
"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on
laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English
which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point
you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is
some doubt over the provenance of the computer."
IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency
by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.
A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran
had sometimes been patchy, but argued that the essential point was Tehran's
failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
"I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for
nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the
official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true
intentions."
That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report, which concluded
bluntly that "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in
defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop.
The report noted that Iran had continued with the operation of a pilot
enrichment plant.
Furthermore, the report said Iran had informed the agency of its plan to
install 18 arrays, or cascades, of 164 centrifuges in an underground plant
by May - a total of nearly 3,000.
At the moment, Iran's centrifuges are being used to make low enriched
uranium, but if they were switched to making highly enriched, weapons grade
uranium they could produce enough for a bomb in less than a year.
Mr ElBaradei's report said that Iran had so far not agreed to the IAEA
installing remote monitoring devices in the enrichment plant to keep
constant tabs on what the Iranians were doing with them.
Furthermore, the IAEA still has a string of questions about the Iranian
programme that remain unanswered. Until they are, the agency will not give
Iran a clear bill of health.
One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a
15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by
mistake with a batch of unrelated paperwork in October 2005.
That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium,
for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present
a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.
"The issue here is the Iranians have not addressed outstanding issues, and
we are still uncertain about the scope and intent of the programme," a
senior UN official said last night.
"We cannot ensure the correctness and completeness of their declaration."
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 [southnews] Cheney warns of nuclear Iran; war option "still on the table"
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:35:52 -0600 (CST)
The United States has left open the possibility of a military strike
against Iran as Australia warns of the "nightmare scenario" of Iran
becoming emboldened by any coalition defeat in Iraq.
The United States could resort to force if diplomacy failed and Iran
looked set to acquire nuclear weapons, Vice President Dick Cheney said
Saturday.
'All options are still on the table,' Cheney said during a joint press
conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Cheney warns of nuclear Iran; war option "still on the table"
DPA Feb 24, 2007, 3:51 GMT
Sydney - The United States could resort to force if diplomacy failed and
Iran looked set to acquire nuclear weapons, Vice President Dick Cheney
said Saturday.
'All options are still on the table,' Cheney said during a joint press
conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
Cheney said every effort would be made to persuade Iran to give up its
nuclear ambitions through diplomatic means.
'But I have made the point, and the president has made the point, that
all options are still on the table,' Cheney said after an hour- long
meeting with Howard in his Sydney office.
Cheney, who arrived Thursday after visiting Japan and will leave on
Sunday, said the US was dismayed by Iran's ambitions.
'We see a nation that has been fairly aggressive in the Middle East, a
sponsor of Hezbollah,' Cheney said. 'They have made some fairly
inflammatory statements. They appear to be pursuing the development of
nuclear weapons. It would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran
became a nuclear power.'
Howard, in parallel remarks, said Iran stood to gain from any
precipitate withdrawal from Iraq.
'I don't think there would be a country whose influence and potential
clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's would
be if the coalition were defeated in Iraq,' Howard told reporters.
Australia, which with Britain and Poland committed troops to the US-led
invasion of Iraq, has 1,400 soldiers deployed there. Last week Howard
announced that a further detachment of up to 70 military trainers would
be sent.
Howard, described by President George W Bush as a 'man of steel,' sets
great store in Australia's military alliance with the US. This week he
also signalled that Canberra would be increasing its strength in
Afghanistan, perhaps to a force of 1,000 troops from 550 at present.
) 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
--------------------------------------------
US steps up pressure on Iran over nuclear programme
AFP Saturday February 24, 1:44 PM
The United States is stepping up the pressure on Iran over its nuclear
programme, with Vice President Dick Cheney Saturday refusing to rule out
using force to keep atomic weapons out of the hands of Tehran.
In a concerted effort, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was due
to meet with top European diplomats in London Saturday.
In Ottawa Friday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed hope
that Russia would support a second Security Council resolution for
sanctions against Iran to force an end to its nuclear programme, after
talks with her Russian counterpart a day earlier.
The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher Security
Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and Russia have taken
softer stances.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a
nuclear power," Cheney warned during a joint press conference with
Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "All options are still on the table."
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued a report saying
that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded, its uranium
enrichment programme, defying a UN Security Council demand to stop by
this week.
"We've worked with the European Community and through the United Nations
to put in place a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up
their aspirations," said Cheney. "That's still our preference."
"The next step now is being debated, between our government and the
others involved," he added.
"Nick Burns, the number-three man at the (US) State Department, is in
London today to negotiate with our European friends... on the future
course of action we want to pursue with respect to the United Nations
sanctions and so forth," he said.
Rice Friday downplayed the likelihood of US military action against Iran.
"I don't want to speak for my Russian colleague, but... we would expect
to continue to pursue our Security Council track as well as to pursue a
track that would hopefully lead to negotiations," Rice said during her
visit to Canada.
"I expect on that, we're all on the same page," she said.
Rice met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Berlin on Thursday.
"Our envoys... will meet in London next week to examine the prospects
for a Security Council resolution," Rice said.
"I believe that everybody understands the importance of continuing to
show the Iranians that there is both a Security Council track if they
will not adhere to international standards and a negotiated track if
they will."
Asked if military action to force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions
was imminent, Rice said: "We've been very clear that we're on a
diplomatic path, that we believe the diplomatic path can succeed if the
international community stays unified in confronting Iran with the
consequences of its continued defiance of the international community."
"It is the international community, not the United States. It's the
international community on a vote of 15-0 in the Security Council that
has said that Iran must suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities.
"And so we are joined with the international community in showing Iran
that this activity, this path that they're on, is one of isolation, but
that there's another path.
"We have, with our partners in the European Union, Russia and China, put
forward a proposal for widespread economic and political cooperation
with Iran through a negotiated process, and we continue to hope that
Iran will take that path rather than the one of confrontation."
Iran says it cannot accept UN demands that it halt enrichment of
uranium, because they are contrary to its rights under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
While many nations suspect weapons ambitions, Iran insists the research
is to produce civilian energy. Uranium enrichment is a key stage of
making a bomb and energy production.
____________________________________________________--
US leaves options open on Iran strike
AAP Saturday February 24, 01:31 PM
The United States has left open the possibility of a military strike
against Iran as Australia warns of the "nightmare scenario" of Iran
becoming emboldened by any coalition defeat in Iraq.
"All options are still on the table," US vice president Dick Cheney told
a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard in
Sydney on Saturday.
Mr Cheney said Washington preferred to work with it allies to persuade
Iran to give up its nuclear weapons.
"But I have made the point, and the president (George W Bush) has made
the point, that all options are still on the table.
"The next step is now being debated."
Mr Cheney, winding up a three-day visit to Australia, said America was
"deeply concerned" by Iran's activities.
"We see a nation that has been fairly aggressive in the Middle East, a
sponsor of Hezbollah," he said.
"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements.
"They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.
"It would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear
power."
Mr Howard, under pressure from Labor Leader Kevin Rudd's resurgent
opposition to pull out of Iraq, drew a direct link between the unpopular
war and the emergence of Iran.
"I don't think there would be a country whose influence and potential
clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's would
be if the coalition was defeated in Iraq," Mr Howard said.
"I don't think you can separate the two.
"Iran would be emboldened if the coalition was defeated in Iraq.
"And that would be seen to have occurred if there was a significant
coalition withdrawal.
"Iran would benefit enormously from that.
"For many countries in the Middle East, not just Israel, that would be a
nightmare scenario."
The statements by Mr Howard and Mr Cheney followed British Prime
Minister Tony Blair's plans to start sending British troops home from Iraq.
They also came after Tehran ignored a UN deadline to stop nuclear work
and a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran should
stand up to the world and pursue its nuclear program.
"If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will
increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they
will retreat," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in northern Iran.
The UN Security Council had given Iran until February 21 to halt uranium
enrichment, a process that can make fuel for power plants or material
for warheads.
The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran had
not heeded the demand.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will
meet in London next week to discuss possible further steps in addition
to UN sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how
that were imposed in December.
Ahmadinejad has said that when Iran has compromised over a nuclear
program, which it insists has only peaceful aims, the West had simply
increased its demands.
*****************************************************************
3 What is behind Russia’s delay of Iran’s nuclear reactor?
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:18:51 -0600 (CST)
What is behind Russias delay of Irans nuclear reactor?
After repeated delays, Russia and Iran agreed last year to
a timetable for the reactors completion: the delivery of nuclear
fuel was due by March 2007 and the launch of the facility in
September, with electricity generation to start in November. Now
the supply of nuclear fuel will be delayed. According to Andrei
Cherkasendko, an official with the Russian state nuclear power
company Atompromresursy, operations will probably not commence
until mid-2008.
The announcement provoked an angry Iranian response.
Muhammad Saeedi, deputy director of the Atomic Energy
Organisation of Iran, denied the country had been late in making
payments. He insisted that the financial problems lay with the
Russian contractor, not on the Iranian side. On Wednesday,
Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, the speaker of the Iranian parliament,
urged Russia to complete the reactor on time and warned that a
delay will have adverse affects on the minds of the Iranian
people.
It is evident that non-payment is simply an excuse for the
delay. Iran wants to make payments in euros, rather than US
dollars, as part of its stated policy of holding reserves and
settling accounts in currencies other than the dollar. As part of
its campaign against Tehran, the Bush administration has been
pressuring European and Asian banks to freeze Irans
dollar-denominated accounts. Rather absurdly, Rosatom has refused
Iranian payment in euros, with a renegotiation of the original
contract accordingly.
Several commentators have noted the $1.3 billion contract
signed in 1995 is no longer as profitable for the Russian
contractors involved. Any renegotiation of the contract could be
used to squeeze some more money from Iran. The high-profile
project is, however, an important aspect of Iranian-Russian
relations. A petty dispute over the nearly completed Bushehr
reactor could compromise Moscows hopes for further nuclear
construction contracts that have been mooted to follow.
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats Trying to Restart Iran Talks
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 7:46 AM
AP Photo ZBER112
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
BERLIN (AP) - U.S., European and Russian diplomats agree on
encouraging Iran back to the bargaining table over its disputed
nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
Thursday. Diplomats from the U.S. and its negotiating partners
plan to meet next week to try drafting a new U.N. resolution on
the standoff.
``We reconfirmed we will use available channels and the
Security Council to try to achieve that goal'' of restarting
negotiations with Iran, the top U.S. diplomat said. Rice spoke
after a breakfast meeting with her counterparts from Germany,
Russia and the European Union.
The group reviewed Iran's compliance with a U.N. Security
Council demand that it stop enriching uranium, a key step toward
producing either nuclear power or a nuclear weapon.
After the meeting, the U.N. nuclear watchdog released a
report confirming the Islamic republic's refusal to freeze
enrichment. The report by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran has expanded
enrichment efforts.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Thursday he will
travel to London on Monday for meetings aimed at forging a new
resolution on Iran.
Burns said he hoped the United States and other permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, can quickly
draft a resolution. He said it was too soon to say what
provisions the resolution might contain but said his hope was one
would be drafted that would ``see Iran repudiated again.''
The atomic energy agency's report is a step toward additional
sanctions, but it was not clear whether U.N. Security Council
members Russia and China would go along.
Rice said she and her counterparts made no decisions Thursday
because they met before ElBaradei's report was released. Rice
headed back to the United States immediately after the breakfast
meeting.
``The report gives us a pretty clear picture that shows that
Iran has not changed its behavior, has not changed its views and
is continuing on the path of defiance. We think that's
unfortunate,'' State Department spokesman Tom Casey told
reporters.
Iran has called for talks with the United States - but has
not budged on council demands that it mothball its enrichment
program.
Enriched to a low level, uranium is used to produce nuclear fuel
but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building an
atomic bomb. The West claims the Islamic republic intends to
build a bomb with enriched uranium. Iran says it merely wants to
develop peaceful nuclear power.
In moderate remarks Wednesday directed at Washington - the
key backer of tougher U.N. action - Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said the dispute ``has to be decided
peacefully with the United States.''
But other top Iranian officials used harsher language, and
none showed signs of compromise on the main demand of the U.S.
and other world powers - a halt to enrichment and related
activities.
``The enemy is making a big mistake if it thinks it can thwart
the will of the Iranian nation to achieve the peaceful use of
nuclear technology,'' Iranian state TV's Web site quoted
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Wednesday.
Rice said last week that the United States probably would press
for another U.N. resolution condemning Iran for continuing to
defy the U.N. demand to stop enriching uranium, and to seek
additional penalties against Tehran.
The Security Council set a 60-day deadline on Dec. 23 for Iran
to freeze its enrichment activities and said continued Iranian
defiance past that ultimatum, which ran out Wednesday, could lead
to stronger punishment.
The U.N. is demanding an immediate and unconditional halt to
uranium enrichment, after which European-led negotiations over an
economic reward package might begin. Iran has long insisted it
will not stop its nuclear activities as a condition for
negotiations to start.
``The best course would be for Iran to suspend its enrichment
and reprocessing activities so that we can return to
negotiations,'' Rice told reporters Tuesday. ``That is the entire
purpose of having the pressure on the Iranian regime, so that the
Iranian regime can make better choices about how to engage the
international community.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Report Says Iran Continuing Nuclear Work
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 8:16 AM
AP Photo VIE111
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran has ignored a U.N. Security Council
ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to
nuclear arms - and has instead expanded its program by setting up
hundreds of centrifuges, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said
Thursday. The finding paves the way for new U.N. sanctions.
Hours later, the United States said key countries would meet
next week to try to develop a new U.N. resolution on the
standoff.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to
the Security Council and its 35-nation board that Tehran also has
continued to build a heavy water reactor and related facilities -
which, along with enrichment - could help it develop nuclear
arms.
In addition, the report said Iran ignored a Security Council
call to cooperate with the IAEA in its efforts to shed light on
suspicious nuclear activities.
The conclusions, while widely expected, were important because
they could serve as the trigger for the council to start
deliberating on new sanctions meant to punish Tehran for its
nuclear intransigence.
In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said he
will travel to London on Monday to meet with the United States'
negotiating partners to try to draft a new resolution on Iran.
``It is effectively thumbing its nose at the international
community,'' he said of Iran.
Burns said he hopes the United States and other permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, can quickly
draft a resolution to ``see Iran repudiated again.'' He said it
was too soon to say what provisions the resolution might contain.
In Tehran, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization, Mohammed Saeedi, ruled out suspending enrichment,
saying such demands were against Iran's ``rights, the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and international regulations.''
Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Tehran's chief delegate to the IAEA, told
The Associated Press that sanctions against the Islamic republic
only create ``more solidarity of the Iranian nation to protect
their inalienable rights.''
The council issued three demands to Iran on Dec. 23 - freeze
uranium enrichment, stop building heavy water facilities and
fully cooperate with the IAEA. It introduced limited sanctions
and gave Iran 60 days to comply - a deadline that expired
Wednesday.
The IAEA report prepared by director Mohamed ElBaradei showed
Tehran has instead expanded its enrichment efforts - setting up
nearly 1,000 uranium-spinning centrifuges in and above an
underground bunker, enriching minute amounts of uranium and
bringing nearly 9 tons of the gaseous feedstock into its
underground nuclear facility at Natanz in preparation for
enrichment.
Iranian officials also informed the agency that they would
expand their centrifuge installations to close to 3,000 by May,
the report said.
Iran's stated goal is running 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz to
churn out enriched uranium - enough for dozens of nuclear weapons
a year.
Iran maintains it only wants to develop enrichment to generate
power and says its heavy water facilities at the central city of
Arak - which will produce plutonium, another potential pathway to
nuclear arms - are meant solely to generate isotopes for medical
research and other peaceful purposes.
Even before the IAEA report was issued, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. and its allies would use the
Security Council and other ``available channels'' to bring Tehran
back to negotiations over its nuclear program.
British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said her country
would consult with other Security Council members on the next
steps, adding: ``We remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring
the means to develop nuclear weapons.''
The sanctions approved in December banned all countries from
supplying Iran with materials and technology that could
contribute to its nuclear and missile programs and froze the
Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to
those programs.
Russia and China, veto-holding council members with close ties
to Iran, are likely to oppose strict economic sanctions or
weapons bans. A travel ban was dropped from the initial
resolution because of Moscow's opposition, so tough negotiations
are expected.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Thursday he had
``no substantive comment'' on the IAEA report but reiterated
Moscow's desire for a diplomatically negotiated solution.
``We should not lose sight of the goal - and the goal is not to
have a resolution or to impose sanctions,'' he said. ``The goal
is to accomplish a political outcome.''
In addition to the sanctions, the U.S. government has been
increasing pressure on Tehran on other fronts, arresting Iranian
officials in Iraq and persuading European governments and
financial institutions to cut ties with the Islamic republic.
With the United States also beefing up naval forces in the
Persian Gulf, concerns have grown that Washington might be
planning military action against Tehran.
In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said ``the only
sensible way'' to solve the crisis was to pursue political
solutions, but that he could not ``absolutely predict every set
of circumstances.''
Still, ``I know of nobody in Washington that is planning
military action on Iran,'' Blair told British Broadcasting Corp.
radio.
The U.S. has said it has no plans to strike Iran militarily -
but has also said all options remain on the table.
The IAEA began probing Iran's nuclear activities more than
four years ago, after revelations of nearly 20 years of secret
work that included plans to enrich uranium.
Since then, the IAEA has made several worrying finds, such as
Iranian experiments with plutonium, unexplained traces of
enriched uranium and a 15-page document showing how to mold
uranium into the shape of nuclear warheads.
---
AP writers D'Arcy Doran in London, Nasser Karimi in Tehran,
Anne Gearan in Berlin and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: Stop bullying Iran
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Hossein Derakhshan
The Islamic Republic is worth defending. Even at its worst, it is
way better than anything the US or anyone else can bring to Iran.
Hossein Derakhshan
February 23, 2007 12:30 PM | Printable version
It's the ultimate hypocrisy of the west to punish Iran for a law
Iran has not broken.
When no one has found the tiniest evidence of Iran producing nuclear
weapons - which is the whole purpose of the non-proliferation treaty
that it has signed - what kind of international law justifies the UN
security council's sanctions on Iran?
Since when has international law become able to measure the
intentions of countries and react to them, if they say Iran intends
to produce nuclear weapons? And how come the same UN security
council turns a blind eye to Israel, India, and Pakistan - who
everyone knew had long the same intention? They have neven signed
the non-proliferation treaty, yet their defiance has been and is
still rewarded.
Make no mistake, when the powerful UK, which has lived safely among
its peaceful neighbours still feels the need for its nuclear
arsenal, any sovereign state like Iran, which has constantly been
under the US threat for since its popular revolution against an
American-aligned, corrupted and incompetent monarchy. Especially
when suddenly it finds two of its neighbouring countries invaded.
That's why I would definitely support Iran if one day it decided to
start making the weapons. But has it actually started? Everyone says
that even if Iran plans to, it will take up to 10 years before it
manages to do so. So what is all this bullying really about?
The more the clash between the west and Iran escalates, the more
convinced I become that the west's real problem with the Islamic
Republic of Iran is not its nuclear activities, its level of
democracy, its human rights record, or its support for "terrorist"
groups. Pakistan, followed closely by Saudi Arabia, easily beats
Iran on all these fronts.
The real problem is that the Islamic Republic has decided to be
independent in a region saturated with fossil energy resources, and
at the same time run by American puppets. Iran has posed the biggest
continuous challenge to the American hegemony in the whole world,
and so it has to pay a price.
Increasingly, a lot of secular Iranians, like myself, are figuring
that even if Iran is turned into the most democratic, secular, fair
and peaceful state on earth, there is no guarantee the US won't find
another excuse to try to overtrow its goverment. It will start
bullying Iran for its "devastating role" in climate change, or
animal rights, or - who knows? - for obesity.
The interests of the Islamic Republic, with all its internal
struggles, challenges and flaws, have never overlapped more closely
the interests of Persia as a historic nation. And here lies the
surprising support of most Iranians, despite their serious
dissatisfaction and frustration, for the Islamic Republic and its
resistence towards the US, symbolised by its nuclear programme.
I'm not saying this as a fervent religious man with sexy
Ahmadinejad's posters on my wall. In fact, I am an athiest and this
can easily get me into serious trouble in any Islamic country. I did
not vote for Ahmadinejad and I would do anything to democratically
bring him down.
I have also risked my life and future in Iran by becoming the first
Iranian after the revolution who has publicly visited Israel. Why?
To counter both countries' nasty and demonising propaganda against
each other and to save my grandmother, postman or university
professor from being compared to Nazi soldiers who must be nuked
tomorrow.
A a matter of fact, I am even a victim of the paranoid state of Iran
that censors criticism and punishes dissent for fear of
foreign-backed revolt. (Remember the CIA had commissioned newspaper
articles and cartoons to discredit prime minister Mossadeq before
bringing his democratically elected government down by a coup in
1953.) My own blog is blocked in Iran and I was detained and forced
to sign an apology for my writing before being allowed to leave Iran
in 2005.
And of course I do have the dream of an open, free, fair and secular
Iran, run by competent and representative officials, and in peace
with the whole world, obviously including Israel.
However, I believe the Islamic Republic is a valuable cause, worth
defending and, at its worst, is way better than anything that the
United States or anyone else can bring to Iran.
If the US waged a war against Iran, I would absolutely go back and
defend Iran.
Fortunately, I'm not alone.
* * *
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
7 UPI: Blair opposes military force in Iran
United Press International - NewsTrack -
Updated: 02/22/2007 9:35:04 PM -0500 UTC
LONDON, England, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Sources in the British
government tell the Times of London they fear the Bush
administration plans to use military force against Iran.
"He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor," one
senior official told the newspaper.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, President George W. Bush's staunchest
ally in Afghanistan and Iraq, has come down against military
action in Iran.
"I can't think that it would be right to take military action
against Iran," he said in a BBC interview. "What is important is
to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the
only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the
Iranian issue."
The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran has
expanded its nuclear enrichment program, instead of meeting
demands that the program be suspended. While most in the Bush
administration have said there are no plans for military action,
the United States has sent two carrier groups to the Persian
Gulf, the newspaper said.
© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Six world powers to discuss Iran in London Monday
Fri Feb 23, 4:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Six world powers will meet early next week in
a bid to defuse the nuclear crisis with Iran, while the United
States and its allies seek stiffer UN sanctions, US officials
said Thursday.
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns
"will be going to London on Monday" for consultations with his
Russian, Chinese, British, French and German counterparts, said
State Department spokesman Tom Casey.
The meeting announcement came after the UN nuclear watchdog agency
concluded in a report Thursday for its 35-nation board that Iran had
not suspended its nuclear fuel enrichment as the UN Security Council
demanded.
The United States, France and Britain called for increased sanctions
against Iran. Germany said that further consultations were
necessary, and Russia and China withheld comment.
In Tehran Friday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would
defend its nuclear programme to the bitter end.
The UN Security Council passed a resolution December 23 imposing
limited sanctions on Iran and demanding it freeze enrichment, which
makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also produce atomic bomb
material.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Berlin earlier
Thursday that world powers were agreed on the need to refer Iran
back to the UN Security Council.
"We reconfirmed that we will use our available channels and the
Security Council to achieve that goal and the goal is to get Iran
back to negotiations once they suspend their enrichment activities,"
said Rice after meetings with Russian, German and EU foreign
ministers.
"We have the common goal to encourage Iran back to the bargaining
table," she said.
Washington and European powers say that Iran is enriching uranium as
fuel for nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists the fuel is for
electrical generation only.
The council gave IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei 60 days to report on
whether Iran had complied. The IAEA board is to meet on March 6, but
meanwhile the UN nuclear watchdog agency issued its Iran report to
the board on Thursday.
The report said Iran had failed to cooperate on crucial issues and
was actually increasing the scale of its fuel processing. The report
also raised the possibility of a military dimension to Iran's
nuclear fuel work.
Iran has failed to hand over a 15-page document outlining the plan
for making the core of nuclear bombs, for instance, it said.
The report also provoked calls from France and Britain for tougher
UN Security Council sanctions on Iran "which will lead to the
further isolation of Iran internationally," as Britain said.
But Tehran insisted that it would not halt its nuclear work.
"Iran considers that a suspension of uranium (processing) would be
contrary to its rights, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to
international rules," said Mohammad Saidi, deputy director of Iran's
atomic energy agency.
"Given that, Tehran cannot accept Security Council Resolution 1737
demanding a suspension of uranium enrichment."
At the United Nations, Slovakian Ambassador Peter Burian, security
council president for February, said he would sound out the body's
15 members next week on steps toward possible action against Tehran.
US State Department officials would not comment on the potential
elements of a new, tougher resolution against Iran, which could meet
resistance from Russia and China, both of which have closer
commercial relationships with Tehran.
"There are a number of ideas I know that people are circulating
around," one US official said privately. "But there are not any sort
of formal elements or any agreed-upon sense of the specific language
that would be included."
"I don't think anybody is pretending that negotiations about this
are easy or quick. But I do think that our general belief is that,
yes, in fact, it is possible to have another resolution with some
additional measures," he said.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
9 IAEA: Report on Iran Safeguards Sent to IAEA Board, Security Council
Web IAEA.org
22 February 2007
IAEA Board of Governors, Vienna, Austria. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest
report to the upcoming meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on the
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant
Provisions of Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The report - submitted in parallel to the UN
Security Council - covers developments since Dr. ElBaradei´s report
of 14 November 2006.
The 35-member Board will consider the report at its next meetings
beginning in Vienna 5 March. The report´s circulation is restricted
and unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise it cannot be released to
the public.
The report is in addition to the one on Iran and IAEA cooperation
that the Director General circulated to the Board on 9 February in
light of UN Security Council Resolution 1737 adopted 23 December
2006.
See Story Resources for more information.
Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomats to Work on New Iran Resolution
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 11:01 AM
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran is ``thumbing its nose'' at the
international community by expanding its uranium program, a top
U.S. official said, setting the stage for difficult negotiations
on new U.N. sanctions, with the U.S. likely to push for tougher
measures.
In the wake of the U.N. nuclear agency's confirmation that
Iran expanded its uranium enrichment program, senior diplomats
from the five permanent Security Council nations and Germany will
meet on Monday in London to start work on a new resolution to try
to pressure Iran to suspend that program, which can lead to the
production of nuclear weapons.
Among the permanent council members, Britain and France are
likely to join the U.S. in a call for harsher sanctions than
Russia and China will accept.
Some diplomats said the new measure may invoke travel bans,
expand the list of technology and materials countries are banned
from making available to Iran and create stiffer economic
sanctions, among other options.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who announced
the London meeting in Washington, said Thursday that Iran was
``effectively thumbing its nose at the international community''
and a new resolution was needed to ``see Iran repudiated again.''
He said, however, that it was too soon to say what provisions
the resolution might contain.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he had ``no
substantive comment'' on the International Atomic Energy Agency's
report Thursday which concluded that ``Iran has not suspended its
enrichment related activities'' as the Security Council demanded
in a resolution adopted on Dec. 23. But he reiterated Moscow's
desire for a diplomatic negotiated solution.
``We should not lose sight of the goal - and the goal is not to
have a resolution or to impose sanctions,'' Churkin said. ``The
goal is to accomplish a political outcome.''
The IAEA began probing Iran's nuclear activities more than
four years ago, after revelations of nearly 20 years of secret
work that included plans to enrich uranium. Since then, it has
made several worrying finds, including Iranian experiments with
plutonium, unexplained traces of enriched uranium, and a document
showing how to mold uranium into the shape of nuclear warheads.
Last June, the six nations offered Tehran a package of
economic incentives and political rewards if it agreed to
consider a long-term moratorium on enrichment and committed
itself to a freeze before negotiations on its nuclear program.
Tehran refused to comply with an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend
enrichment, insisting its program is aimed solely at producing
nuclear energy.
The Security Council responded by unanimously adopting a
resolution on Dec. 23 after two months of tough negotiations
imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend enrichment. It
ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and
technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile
programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12
individuals related to those programs.
The council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions
if Iran refused to comply and that is what members will now be
considering.
During negotiations on the December sanctions resolution, the
U.S. administration pushed for tougher penalties but Russia and
China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and
Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked.
To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on
international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and
missile development and specified exactly which items and
technologies were banned.
Several council diplomats have stressed the importance of
maintaining council unity on a new resolution - even if means
sacrificing tougher sanctions.
Stressing the importance of unity, U.S. deputy ambassador
Jackie Sanders said Thursday ``we do need to ratchet up the
pressure and Iran needs to see an international community that
stays coordinated and showing common purpose to have them stop
what they're doing in developing nuclear weapons.''
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy echoed the
importance, saying, ``unity and firmness are ... the only
effective instruments we have to get Iran to turn toward the
international community, and away from isolation.''
``We support a second resolution, to be passed unanimously by
the Security Council, to continue sanctions,'' he said.
Two diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because
negotiations haven't even started, spoke of an ``incremental''
strengthening of sanctions in a new resolution to ensure that
unity is preserved.
Diplomats said Thursday that new measures under consideration
include a mandatory travel ban against individuals on the U.N.
list, new individuals and companies subject to sanctions,
additional prohibited items, economic measures such as a ban on
export guarantees to Iran, and an expansion of the nuclear
embargo to an arms embargo.
The permanent council members believe the initial sanctions have
had some positive effects. Iran now says it wants negotiations,
though it still refuses to suspend enrichment.
Whether new sanctions can bring Tehran to comply with the
council's demands remains to be seen.
``It's Iran's refusal to talk which right now has gotten Iran
in a lot of hot water,'' said Burns, the U.S. State Department
official. ``Iran is increasingly isolated, and we hope Iran is
going to choose negotiations.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: Rice cajoles Russia to support more sanctions against Iran -
Fri Feb 23, 6:32 PM
OTTAWA (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed
hope Friday that Russia would support a second Security Council
resolution for sanctions against Iran to force an end to its
nuclear program, after talks with her Russian counterpart a day
earlier.
The top US diplomat, meanwhile, downplayed the likelihood of US
military action against Iran.
"I don't want to speak for my Russian colleague, but ... we would
expect to continue to pursue our Security Council track as well as
to pursue a track that would hopefully lead to negotiations," Rice
said during a visit to Ottawa.
"I expect on that, we're all on the same page," she said.
Rice met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Berlin on
Thursday.
The same day, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a
report saying that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded,
its uranium enrichment program, defying a UN Security Council demand
to stop by this week.
The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher
Security Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and
Russia have taken softer stances.
"Our envoys ... will meet in London next week to examine the
prospects for a Security Council resolution," Rice said.
"I believe that everybody understands the importance of continuing
to show the Iranians that there is both a Security Council track if
they will not adhere to international standards and a negotiated
track if they will."
Asked if military action to force Iran to abandon its nuclear
ambitions was imminent, Rice said: "We've been very clear that we're
on a diplomatic path, that we believe the diplomatic path can
succeed if the international community stays unified in confronting
Iran with the consequences of its continued defiance of the
international community."
"It is the international community, not the United States, it's the
international community on a vote of 15-0 in the Security Council
that has said that Iran must suspend its enrichment and reprocessing
activities.
"And so we are joined with the international community in showing
Iran that this activity, this path that they're on, is one of
isolation, but that there's another path."
"We have with our partners in the European Union, Russia and China
put forward a proposal for widespread economic and political
cooperation with Iran through a negotiated process, and we continue
to hope that Iran will take that path rather than the one of
confrontation."
Rice also said Friday the US administration is "very pleased" about
an invitation to the chief UN atomic watchdog to visit North Korea
and discuss a landmark deal to curb Pyongyang's nuclear arms program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), announced in Vienna the trip to the North Korean capital,
expected to take place in mid-March.
"We are really very pleased that the IAEA (will) ... be able to go
back into North Korea to be able to verify compliance with the
agreement that is to take place over the next 60 days that would
shut down the Pyongyang reactor and would seal it," Rice told
reporters during a visit to Ottawa.
This would allow a next phase, "which is the disablement of the
nuclear facilities of North Korea on the way to the full
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," she said.
"It is indeed a good sign it has happened as quickly as it has."
In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Fratto earlier described
the North Korean invitation as a step forward toward implementing a
February 13 deal whereby Pyongyang would shut down a key nuclear
facility in exchange for energy aid.
"It's a positive sign," Fratto told reporters. "It shows that we're
beginning to execute the terms of the agreement.
"We'll be interested in hearing his (ElBaradei's) report when he
gets back," the spokesman said. "But certainly, our view is positive
on that."
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: Ahmadinejad Vows to Defend Nuke Program
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 11:16 AM
AP Photo VAH101
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
vowed Friday that Iran would defend its nuclear program,
describing his country as a potential role model for others
trying to develop advanced technology.
State television reported the hard-liner's speech to a crowd in
a northern Iranian town, delivered a day after the U.N. nuclear
watchdog reported that Iran had not heeded the world body's
demand to roll back its nuclear program.
``The Iranian nation has resisted all bullies and corrupt powers
and it will fully defend its all rights,'' the broadcast quoted
Ahmadinejad as telling people in Fuman. It did not say whether
the president elaborated.
Ahmadinejad declared that if his country reaches the ``peaks
of technology and science, then it will be a role model'' for
other countries, state television quoted him as saying,
apparently referring to nuclear power.
The television did not report whether Ahmadinejad mentioned
the report on Iran given Thursday by the International Atomic
Energy Agency to the U.N. Security Council.
The IAEA told the council that Iran has ignored a Security
Council ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment and has instead
expanded its program by setting up nearly 1,000 centrifuges.
The report said Tehran also has continued to build a heavy
water reactor and related facilities, and has ignored a Security
Council call to cooperate with the IAEA in its efforts to learn
about suspicious nuclear activities.
Senior diplomats from the five permanent Security Council
nations and Germany will meet on Monday in London to start work
on a new resolution to try to pressure Iran to suspend its
uranium enrichment program, which can lead to the production of
nuclear weapons.
The council issued three demands to Iran when it adopted its
resolution Dec. 23 - freeze enrichment, stop building heavy water
facilities and fully cooperate with the IAEA.
It introduced limited economic sanctions and gave Iran 60 days
to comply - a deadline that expired Wednesday.
The United States and its Western allies have insisted Iran
must suspend enrichment before it will enter any negotiations
over its nuclear program - a condition Tehran has rejected as it
pushes ahead with developing its enrichment facilities.
Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the
United States and other Western countries accuse it of using it
as a cover to develop weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
13 Dpr Korea Invites UN Nuclear Chief Four Years After Leaving Non-proliferation Pact
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:00:05 -0500
DPR KOREA INVITES UN NUCLEAR CHIEF FOUR YEARS AFTER LEAVING NON-PROLIFERATION PACT
New York, Feb 23 2007 4:00PM
More than four years after ordering United Nations inspectors out
and withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has invited the
head of the UN atomic watchdog to visit for talks next month.
“I see this as a step toward the denuclearization of the North Korean
Peninsular,” UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_dprk.html">IAEA)
Director-General
Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters of the invitation, which
follows six-party talks in Beijing where the DPRK committed to dismantle
eventually all nuclear weapon facilities and materials in
return for energy and other aid.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on an official visit to Vienna, Austria,
where the IAEA is headquartered, welcomed the move, saying
he hoped that Mr. ElBaradei would be able to discuss with the DPRK
authorities detailed matters, such as freezing its nuclear facilities
and the eventual dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and
facilities. Since its withdrawal from the NPT, the DPRK has carried
out a nuclear bomb test, which prompted the Security Council
to impose sanctions on Pyongyang.
“I hope that the DPRK may eventually come back as a member of the
IAEA,” Mr. ElBaradei told a <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=990">joint
news conference with Mr. Ban. “We will discuss
issues of mutual concern and how we can implement the agreement
reached at the six-Party talks about the shut down and eventual
abandonment of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing
facility.”
He said he looked forward to “seeing the DPRK come back to the Agency
as full members where we can not only provide verification but
provide also assistance in many areas in terms of nuclear technology
and nuclear safety.”
Ever since the DPRK ordered the IAEA inspectors out at the end of
2003 and formally withdrew from the NPT and its inspections and
other safeguards of fuel diversion from energy generation to weapons
production, top UN officials have repeatedly appealed to it to
return to the fold.
Yesterday Mr. Ban called on Iran, which is embroiled in a dispute
with the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, to learn
from “some good lessons” offered by the DPRK’s commitment at the
six-party talks “that it is always better, always desirable, to
resolve all of the issues through dialogue.”
Earlier this week Iran, already under limited UN sanction, ignored
a Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment and faces possible
further sanctions. Enrichment can produce fuel either for nuclear
energy, which Iran says is its only goal, or for making nuclear
weapons, which other countries, including European nations and
the United States, maintain is its main aim.
2007-02-23 00:00:00.000
___________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
_______________________________
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
14 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Chief: North Korea Soliciting Talks
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 10:16 PM
AP Photo VIE108
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - North Korea on Friday asked the chief
U.N. atomic inspector to visit four years after expelling his
experts and dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -
an encouraging sign the reclusive regime is serious about
dismantling its weapons program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, offered few details about his upcoming trip, which
other agency officials said would likely occur in the second week
of March.
Still, his announcement was significant because it signaled
the North's willingness to subject its nuclear program to outside
scrutiny for the first time since withdrawing from the
Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just weeks after
ordering nuclear inspectors to leave.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed the invitation -
which came five months after the North conducted its first
nuclear weapon test - as a ``good beginning,'' an interpretation
shared by the U.S. administration.
``We are really very pleased that the IAEA is now receiving
the initial steps to be able to go back into North Korea to be
able to verify compliance. It is indeed a good sign that it has
happened as quickly as it has,'' Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice said in Ottawa, Canada.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the invitation shows
North Korea is willing to begin executing the terms of the
six-nation deal reached Feb. 13 in which the North said it would
dismantle its nuclear facilities and normalize relations with
South Korea, Japan and the U.S. in exchange for oil shipments and
security guarantees.
``We'll be interested in hearing his report when he gets
back,'' Fratto said.
ElBaradei's trip will mark only an initial step in the long
and complex process that the international community hopes will
result in stripping the North of its nuclear weapons capabilities
and ensuring it remains without such arms.
In a process that one U.N official said ``could take years,''
IAEA inspectors would be tasked with re-establishing the
monitoring of the plutonium-producing Yongbyon nuclear facility,
and then being on site while it is closed and dismantled.
``At the same time, there has to be some kind of declaration of
what North Korea has and some way of following that up,'' the
official said on condition of anonymity because the information
was confidential.
Little is know about the North's nuclear program, leaving the
outside world to rely mostly on North Korean claims since IAEA
inspectors left in December 2002.
Making sure North Korea declares all its nuclear facilities
and shuts them down will likely be difficult. The country has
sidestepped previous agreements, allegedly running a
uranium-based weapons program even as it froze a plutonium-based
one and sparking the latest nuclear crisis in late 2002. The
North is believed to have countless mountainside tunnels in which
to hide projects.
Conservatives in Washington have berated the Bush administration
for caving in on its previous tough stance against the North. The
U.S. agreed to resolve financial restrictions it placed on a
Macau bank - accused of complicity in counterfeiting and money
laundering by North Korea - to pave the way for the
disarmament-for-aid deal.
On Friday during a visit to Australia, Vice President Dick
Cheney expressed caution about the agreement, but called it a
``first hopeful step.''
``We go into this deal with our eyes open,'' Cheney said. ``In
light of North Korea's missile test last July, its nuclear test
in October and its record of proliferation and human rights
abuses, the regime in Pyongyang has much to prove.''
The Feb. 13 agreement signed by the two Koreas, the United
States, Japan, China and Russia specifies only that IAEA
inspectors should be tasked with supervising the closing of the
Yongbyon reactor. But former U.N. nuclear inspector David
Albright, who last month visited North Korea, said officials
there told him they wanted the agency's role expanded to ``verify
nuclear disarmament.''
``They see the IAEA as the natural organization to verify
whatever is done,'' said Albright, whose Washington-based
Institute for Science and International Security tracks the North
Korean and Iranian nuclear programs.
ElBaradei said he and North Korean authorities would meet on how
to ``implement the freeze of (nuclear) facilities'' and the
``eventual dismantlement of these facilities.''
``I hope eventually they'll come back to be members of the
IAEA,'' he said of the North, which left at the same time it quit
the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Ban, who was visiting U.N. agencies in Vienna, said he hoped
the ElBaradei invitation would translate into concrete steps in
denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.
``I hope that he and his delegation will be able to discuss
with North Korean authorities ... methods on first freezing
nuclear facilities and including the eventual dismantlement of
all nuclear weapons and facilities,'' Ban said.
Expressing his disappointment about Iran's nuclear defiance -
Tehran continues to enrich uranium in violation of the U.N.
Security Council - Ban said: ``I hope sincerely that Iranian
authorities should learn from the North Korean issue.''
The Feb. 13 deal requires North Korea to first shut down and
seal its main nuclear reactor within 60 days of the agreement,
accept international monitors and begin discussions with the U.S.
on its other nuclear facilities. In return, the nations would
ship the North an initial load of fuel oil.
If North Korea declares all its nuclear programs and begins
to disable its nuclear facilities, it would get a much larger
shipment of fuel oil and aid. The U.S. also would begin the
process of removing North Korea from its designation as a
terror-sponsoring state and ending trade sanctions.
---
Associated Press writers Rohan Sullivan in Sydney, Australia,
Jae-soon Chang and Burt Herman in Seoul, South Korea, and Matthew
Lee in Ottawa, Canada, contributed to this report.
---
On the Net: www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Deal Rife With Benefits
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 1:01 AM
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The breakthrough nuclear agreement with North
Korea could pay wide-ranging dividends for all sides, especially
in the area of already improving U.S. relations with China and
America's allies, chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill said
Thursday.
Other side benefits might include a peace treaty formally ending
the war on the Korean peninsula after more than a half-century, a
cut in the force of 25,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, a better
life for impoverished North Koreans and the State Department's
declassifying of the North as a sponsor of terror, Hill said in
remarks at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-oriented think
tank.
The U.S. negotiator said he plans to meet with North Korean
counterparts within 30 days to work on these issues and a
schedule for North Korea to go beyond its commitment last week in
six-sided negotiations in Beijing to seal its main nuclear
reactor and permit international inspection.
In return, Pyongyang is due to receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel
oil and ultimately another 950,000 tons in fuel if it completely
abandons its nuclear weapons program.
``We are very mindful we have a long way to go,'' Hill said.
For one thing, he said, Pyongyang must provide a complete list
of programs to be put out of commission.
Conservatives have blasted the agreement, which was considered
a breakthrough after months of deadlock and bickering, as naive
and worse. They say it rewards North Korea for bad behavior and
sets a terrible precedent for Iran, another country with which
the U.S. is locked in a nuclear standoff.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said in an interview that
the North Korean regime ``is not going to give up something so
central to its survival as nuclear weapons.''
North Korea is known to have tried to acquire aluminum tubes
from Germany and ``made certain purchases of equipment which is
entirely consistent with a highly enriched uranium program,'' he
said.
The agreement already has strengthened U.S. relations with China
and South Korea, Hill said. China wants ``clarity'' from North
Korea on abandoning its weapons program and, ``We really have
lined up our interests with them,'' Hill said.
Further closing ranks on all fronts, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice is planning to meet with the foreign ministers
of the five other countries in April in Beijing. They are North
Korea, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
In a parallel move, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte
will make a trip early next month to Japan, South Korea and
China. The State Department has ruled out a stop in Pyongyang by
Rice's new top deputy.
Hill stressed that North Korea has not yet made a commitment
to abandon its entire program.
``They're going to make decisions to move on a step- by-step
basis. And as they move one step, they will look back and say,
'This is a better place than we were in yesterday.' And that will
encourage them to take still another step,'' Hill said.
Meanwhile, he said, North Korea is very interested in getting
off the State Department list of terror sponsors.
``We are prepared to begin that process, with the understanding
it's going to take some time. ... We need some answers from
them,'' he said.
A peace treaty to replace an armistice and formally end the
Korean war is not technically a six-party issue. Hill said he
assumes China, the United States, North Korea and South Korea
would meet to resolve thars.''
---
Eds: Associated Press Writer Foster Klug contributed to this
report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
16 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea invites nuclear watchdog
Agencies in Vienna
Saturday February 24, 2007
The Guardian
North Korea offered further conciliation on its nuclear weapons
programme yesterday when it invited the chief UN weapons
inspector to visit next month. The move is a further signal of
Pyongyang's willingness to open its nuclear programme to outside
perusal for the first time since it expelled UN weapons
inspectors more than three years ago.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, said he and North Korean authorities would discuss
details of dismantling the country's nuclear programme, following
a deal this month under which Pyongyang agreed to take steps
towards disarmament in return for $300m (£152m) of aid.
Mr ElBaradei said the North hoped "to go back to being a member
of the agency", and added: "The first [issue] of course is how to
develop a plan to freeze the Yongbyon facilities, and more
importantly to make sure that they come back as a fully fledged
member of the agency."
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, on an official visit to
Austria, said he hoped the invitation would translate into
concrete steps in removing nuclear weapons from the Korean
peninsula.
"I'm convinced that his visit to Pyongyang will make a great
contribution to implement the joint statement," he said,
referring to the deal agreed on February 13 between North Korea
and its five interlocutors - the US, Russia, China, Japan and
South Korea.
"I hope that he and his delegation will be able to discuss with
North Korean authorities ... methods on first freezing nuclear
facilities and including the eventual dismantlement of all nuclear
weapons and facilities," he said. "This will be a good beginning."
Useful sites
North Korea virtual library
CIA factbook: North Korea
UN security council
UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty
NK news - database of North Korean propaganda
North Korea Database
North Korea Zone
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
17 Korea Herald: N.K., U.S. said to plan exchange of nuclear envoys
North Korea's chief negotiator to the six-nation talks aimed at
dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear program is expected to visit
Washington early next month.
Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea's vice foreign minister, will meet his
U.S. counterpart Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to
discuss the nuke accord reached earlier this month, Yonhap News
reported quoting unidentified diplomatic sources.
The two officials will discuss how to implement the Feb. 13
six-party agreement to shut down and disable the communist regime's
nuclear facilities in return for a one million ton aid package.
A specific date has not been set for the talks, it said.
According to the sources, the two envoys may also discuss visits to
the reclusive county by ranking U.S. officials, including Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice, and former President George H. W. Bush.
The report came amid rising expectations that the two countries are
moving to revive cross visits ranking officials. Such expectations
have loomed after media speculation earlier this week that the newly
appointed U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte will
possibly make a stop in North Korea early next month to discuss the
accord implementation as part of his Asian tour slated for Mar. 1-6.
Separately, the local daily Dong-a Ilbo yesterday reported Kim and
Hill had discussed a visit to Pyongyang by U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice during the bilateral talks in Berlin last month.
The pair discussed a visit by the highest U.S. official for the
first time in seven years, which would come when the deadlock in the
nuclear negotiation finds a breakthrough, the newspaper said quoting
an unidentified diplomatic source.
In 2000, then U.S. State Secretary Madeleine Albright and North
Korea's National Defense Commission's Vice-chairman Gen. Jo
Myung-rok made calls to Pyongyang and Washington respectively in
efforts to reach a breakthrough on the nuclear issue.
During the Berlin talks, Kim also told Hill that Bush senior's visit
to the North would be the most reliable assurance for the U.S.
President George W. Bush's announced plan to end his anti-North
Korean policy, the source said.
But the U.S. State Department yesterday denied the reports, saying
it has currently no plans for trips to Pyongyang by any U.S.
official or civilian.
Seoul officials said they had never heard about any visit
discussions, but added possibilities remain for visits by ranking
U.S. officials to the North.
They said if North Korea takes necessary steps in compliance with
the Beijing accord, Rice's visit could be realized.
In 1994, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's talks with then-North
Korean leader Kim Il-sung in Pyongyang brought about an unexpected
breakthrough during the first nuclear crisis.
(davidpooh@heraldm.com)
By Jin Dae-woong
2007.02.24
*****************************************************************
18 BBC NEWS: N Korea 'tried uranium project'
Last Updated: Friday, 23 February 2007, 11:03 GMT
By Charles Scanlon BBC News, Seoul
The nuclear disarmament deal was agreed at six-party talks
South Korea's chief nuclear negotiator says North Korea has tried
to develop a second, secret nuclear programme based on the
enrichment of uranium.
Chun Yung-woo said, however, that Pyongyang was not thought to be
operating such a system at the moment.
The North has long denied American allegations that it was
building a uranium programme in addition to its publicly
acknowledged plutonium plant.
Under the deal, reached this month, the North has agreed to shut
down its nuclear facilities in return for economic aid.
'Illicit trade'
North Korea has agreed to produce a list of all its nuclear
facilities as a first step towards disabling them in line with the
agreement.
But it continues to deny the existence of an alleged uranium
programme which led to the breakdown of its last nuclear deal with
the United States.
Mr Chun said the North's attempts to acquire parts for such a
programme were well known to countries that monitor the illicit
trade.
But he said it was not clear how far the North had got, and no-one
thought it was actively enriching uranium for nuclear weapons at the
moment.
North Korea has agreed to shut down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon,
the source of the plutonium for its existing nuclear arsenal.
But analysts say the dispute over uranium could derail further
progress.
The chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, said in Washington it was
a very serious problem that had to be addressed.
South Korea said the recent deal is just the first step in a very
long process.
It said much will depend on improving the political climate and the
deep mistrust between the United States and North Korea.
* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
19 Korea Times: North Korea to Invite Rice
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Yoon Won-sup Staff Reporter
Kim Gye-gwan, North Korea¡¯s top envoy to the six-party talks on
Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear program, plans to visit the United States early
next month to discuss a senior U.S. government official¡¯s visit to
Pyongyang.
Though no dates have been set for Kim¡¯s visit to New York, it is
likely to be from March 5 to 7, according to reports Friday.
The Pyongyang envoy will likely invite Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and former President George H. W. Bush for a
possible meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, the Yonhap
News Agency said.
Kim and his U.S. counterpart, Christopher Hill, had reportedly
discussed Rice¡¯s visit to Pyongyang during their meeting in Berlin
last month.
Kim was known to have told Hill that a top U.S. government
official¡¯s visit to Pyongyang would show the U.S. intention to
abolish its hostile policy toward North Korea.
Government officials close to the Pyongyang-Washington dialogue said
they were unaware of such discussions but did not rule out the
possibility.
However, the U.S. Department of State said there were no plans for
anyone to visit North Korea at the moment.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to comment on the
matter. Cho Hee-yong, spokesman of the ministry, said, ``The
ministry can¡¯t say anything about it.¡¯¡¯
Kim will visit the United States as part of follow-up measures to an
agreement struck in the six-party talks in Beijing on Feb. 13. In
the accord, Hill and Kim agreed to hold the first meeting of a
proposed working group in New York. The working group must convene
by March 13 according to the agreed timetable.
It would be the first step for Pyongyang and Washington to open
talks for diplomatic normalizations, one of political benefits for
the North for implementing initial measures toward its
denuclearzation.
North Korea agreed to shut down and disable its nuclear-related
facilities in phases. In return, it will receive up to one million
tons of heavy fuel oil or the equivalent in energy and economic
assistance.
Han Song-ryol, deputy chief of the North Korean mission to the
United Nations, reportedly has had preparatory meetings for Kim¡¯s
visit to New York and discussed food aid with U.S. officials.
yoonwonsup@koreatimes.co.kr 02-23-2007 18:12
*****************************************************************
20 Korea Times: Another Nuclear Crisis
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion
Multilateral Diplomacy Is Answer for Iran, Too
Even before the ink becomes dry on the Beijing accord to halt North
Korea's nuclear programs, Washington has to turn westward. Tension
is escalating in the Persian Gulf as Iran defied a U.N. Security
Council-set deadline on Wednesday to stop its uranium enrichment
program. We Koreans cannot help paying unusual attention to the
other nuclear crisis, despite the largely different situations
surrounding the two challenges to U.S. global influence. One thing
should be the same, however _ the way they should be solved.
Unlike North Korea, Iran is one of the world¡¯s largest producers
and exporters of oil. While Pyongyang has to worry about mounting
popular discontent about anachronistic Stalinist rulers, Teheran has
less of a concern, as its people appear relatively satisfied with
their theocratic leaders. If the Middle East country has to develop
nuclear energy, however, it may be because of its excessive reliance
on oil. This of course does not mean other countries can call on
Iran to stop it if it¡¯s for purely peaceful purpose.
Unfortunately, Teheran¡¯s track record appears less than trustworthy
in terms of transparency. The country had secretly enriched uranium
for 18 years until commercial satellites found its nuclear
facilities in 2002. The International Atomic Energy Agency¡¯s
belated inspection has experienced difficulties due to a lack of
cooperation from Teheran. Considering the perennial volatility of
Middle East politics, the international community¡¯s suspicion about
Iran¡¯s intentions could be justified to a considerable extent.
But reported U.S. plans for preemptive attacks on Iran are not
justifiable. Some say that military threats can sometimes be a good
diplomatic means to finding a solution. They may be right
theoretically, but this course of action is dangerous, particularly
as the country is situated in the middle of a global tinderbox. Iran
may have sufficient reasons to feel security threats from
nuclear-armed rivals and neighbors, including Israel, Pakistan and
Russia. One way of easing these concerns would be the international
community¡¯s joint provision of a security guarantee.
Similar international cooperation would also help to solve Iran¡¯s
energy problems, too. In return, Teheran needs to take specific
actions to show it is ready for dialogue. If it really needs to
develop nuclear energy to reduce its undue dependency on oil
dollars, Iran would have enough time and chances after it wins
international confidence. As in the case of North Korea, however,
the United States holds the final key. As Hans Blix, former IAEA
director general, said Washington could earn better results with a
¡°less insulting approach.¡± There are few reasons what can be done
in Far East cannot be done in the Middle East.
The Korea Times welcomes our readers' contributions to Letters to
the Editor and Thoughts of The Times. The article should be
preferably submitted by e-mail to opinion@koreatimes.co.kr and
not exceed 900 words. _ ED.
02-23-2007 17:35
*****************************************************************
21 AFP: US 'very pleased' about North Korean invitation to UN watchdog - Rice
Fri Feb 23, 4:54 PM ET
OTTAWA (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday
the US administration is "very pleased" about an invitation to
the chief UN atomic watchdog to visit North Korea and discuss a
landmark deal to curb Pyongyang's nuclear arms program.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), announced in Vienna the trip to the North Korean capital,
expected to take place in mid-March.
"We are really very pleased that the IAEA (will) ... be able to go
back into North Korea to be able to verify compliance with the
agreement that is to take place over the next 60 days that would
shut down the Pyongyang reactor and would seal it," Rice told
reporters during a visit to Ottawa.
This would allow a next phase, "which is the disablement of the
nuclear facilities of North Korea on the way to the full
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," she said.
"It is indeed a good sign it has happened as quickly as it has."
In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Fratto earlier described
the North Korean invitation as a step forward toward implementing a
February 13 deal whereby Pyongyang would shut down a key nuclear
facility in exchange for energy aid.
"It's a positive sign," Fratto told reporters. "It shows that we're
beginning to execute the terms of the agreement.
"We'll be interested in hearing his (ElBaradei's) report when he
gets back," the spokesman said. "But certainly, our view is positive
on that."
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: S.Korea: North Committed to Disarmament
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 10:46 AM
AP Photo SEL105, SEL106
By BURT HERMAN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea will abandon its nuclear
programs only if other countries create a welcoming political
environment and remove the threats that Pyongyang claims pushed
it to develop its atomic arsenal, South Korea's main nuclear
envoy said Friday.
Chun Yung-woo told foreign reporters in Seoul that Pyongyang
appeared committed to at least disabling its existing nuclear
programs under an agreement last week in Beijing with the U.S.
and other regional powers. But whether the country will also
relinquish existing nuclear weapons and material - believed
enough for as many as a dozen bombs - will depend on the other
countries involved.
``What is important is not to give any excuse to North Korea
to delay its denuclearization obligations and for it to avoid
implementation of its end of the deal,'' Chun said. ``What is
important is to create a political climate that can address their
threat perceptions.''
His comments come after harsh criticism of the six-country
disarmament agreement by conservatives in Washington, who have
berated the Bush administration for caving in on what had been
its previous tough stance on the North.
The U.S. agreed to resolve financial restrictions it placed on
a Macau bank - accused of complicity in counterfeiting and money
laundering by North Korea - to pave the way for the
disarmament-for-aid deal.
On Friday during a visit to Australia, Vice President Dick
Cheney expressed caution about the agreement, calling it a
``first hopeful step.''
``We go into this deal with our eyes open,'' said Cheney. ``In
light of North Korea's missile test last July, its nuclear test
in October and its record of proliferation and human rights
abuses, the regime in Pyongyang has much to prove.''
Meanwhile, Japan has also said it will not provide any aid under
the deal or lift sanctions until the North takes concrete steps.
Tokyo wants the North to address the issue of its abducted
citizens that the North has admitted kidnapping but Japan says
hasn't been fully resolved.
Under the Feb. 13 agreement, the North will eventually receive
the equivalent of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil to dismantle
its nuclear facilities, along with moves toward normalizing
relations with the U.S. and Japan.
South Korea is heading a working group on energy aid created
under the pact, and Chun said it hoped to start meeting the week
of March 12.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
23 AFP: Cheney warns on China, NKorea
by Olivier Knox Fri Feb 23, 3:00 PM ET
SYDNEY (AFP) - US Vice President Dick Cheney warned China Friday
that its swift military build-up worried the world and said
Washington was not blindly trusting North Korea to implement a
landmark nuclear deal.
On the first full day of an official visit, Cheney also used a
speech to a group of prominent US and Australian citizens to assail
unnamed critics who he said want the allies to "turn our backs" on
places like Afghanistan or Iraq.
But his visit, aimed at thanking staunch US ally Australia for its
support in Iraq, was marred by a second day of clashes between
police and demonstrators protesting Cheney's trip outside the hotel
where he was speaking.
In some of his most extensive remarks on the North Korean pact,
Cheney praised China's help but said its military build-up and
anti-satellite weapons test clashed with its stated goal of being a
peaceful power.
"The Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat
to their own security," he told the Australian-American Leadership
Dialogue, but "other actions by the Chinese government send a
different message."
"Last month's anti-satellite test and China's continued fast-paced
military build-up are less constructive and are not consistent with
China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise,'" Cheney said.
China shot down one of its own orbiting weather satellites in space
with a ballistic missile, provoking an international outcry amid
fears over satellite security.
US-China military ties chilled in 2001 following a collision between
a Chinese fighter jet and an American spy plane that killed the
Chinese jet pilot. Beijing infuriated Washington by holding the spy
crew for 11 days.
As for the nuclear deal, which requires North Korea to shut key
facilities in exchange for energy aid, Cheney sought to allay
concerns in Asia -- especially in Japan -- that the United States
was going soft on Pyongyang.
"We go into this deal with our eyes open. In light of North Korea's
missile tests last July, its nuclear test in October and its record
of proliferation and human rights abuses, the regime in Pyongyang
has much to prove," he said.
"Yet this agreement represents the first hopeful step towards a
better future for the North Korean people," said Cheney, who was
here after a visit to Tokyo aimed at soothing worries about the
agreement.
Cheney also made a full-throated defence of the Iraq war and the new
US plan to pacify Baghdad, which has drawn opposition in the United
States even as key ally Britain announced a troop draw-down.
With US Democrats and a majority of the US public pushing to
withdraw troops, Cheney warned that hastily quitting Iraq would
unleash terrorists and sectarian violence on the Middle East and the
world.
"The notion that free countries can turn our backs on what happens
in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or any other possible safe haven
for terrorists is an option we simply cannot indulge," said Cheney.
Washington and its allies are waging a battle for the survival of
their civilisation, he said.
"We've never had a fight like this and it's not a fight we can win
using the strategies from other wars," he said.
"The only option for our security and survival is to go on the
offensive, face the threat directly, patiently and systematically
till the enemy is destroyed."
He also held out a hand to China, asking Beijing to "join us in our
efforts to prevent the deployment and proliferation of deadly
technologies, whether in Asia or in the Middle East" -- an apparent
reference to Iran's nuclear program.
Outside the venue around 100 protesters struggled with police, who
arrested four people.
Cheney later met Australian Prime Minister John Howard's chief
political rival, opposition leader Kevin Rudd, who has vowed to pull
Australian troops from Iraq if elected later this year.
Cheney was to hold talks Saturday with Howard, who he described as
an old friend and staunch US ally who shared Washington's values,
before taking a tour of Sydney's scenic harbour, US officials said.
He leaves Sunday.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 AFP: 'Long way' to go in North Korea nuclear pact - US
Fri Feb 23, 2:50 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said Thursday there was a
"long way to go" to implement a landmark North Korea nuclear
deal, and warned tough talks loom on Pyongyang's suspected secret
uranium enrichment program.
US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill defended the deal
with the isolated and impoverished Stalinist state which emerged
from exhaustive six-nation talks in Beijing last week.
"I think there is a real sense among all the parties that we have a
process going. We are very mindful of the fact that we have a long
way to go," Hill said at a briefing at the Brookings Institution
think-tank.
Hill lavished praise on China for its role in brokering the deal,
and confirmed that if things go smoothly, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice will travel to Beijing in April as required by the
deal for talks with her North Korean counterpart and ministers from
the other parties to the negotiations: China, Russia, Japan, and
South Korea.
The deal, which binds North Korea to shut key nuclear facilities in
exchange for energy aid, requires Pyongyang to produce a list of all
its nuclear programs.
"We will face the problem -- in fact, the very serious problem -- of
the highly enriched uranium program," Hill said,
Hill said the North Koreans had never acknowledged US accusations
they had a program to manufacture highly enriched uranium (HEU) for
nuclear bombs, but added that the United States had information
North Korea had bought equipment consistent with plans for such a
scheme.
"But they have been willing to discuss what we know and to try to
resolve this ... to mutual satisfaction," he said.
"We don't know whether we're going to be able to do that, but we
have agreed to have this discussion."
The United States accused North Korea in October 2002 of hiding a
program to produce HEU, and the ensuing showdown sent relations back
into the Cold War deep-freeze, ultimately resulting in the rupture
of a 1994 deal which froze the Stalinist state's plutonium-based
nuclear program.
Officials in Seoul this week warned Pyongyang must disable all
programs under the six-party deal.
Critics have complained the pact does not directly address North
Korea's existing plutonium nuclear bombs, or its suspected HEU
program.
Hill heaped praise on China for hosting the six-party talks.
"I do believe that we have been able to synchronize our goals," Hill
said.
"I think we're also synchronizing not only the goals, but also the
strategy and in many respects the tactics themselves, so we've
really come together with them on this."
"If we're successful with all of this, our plan is to then have a
ministerial" where Rice will travel to Beijing and meet with her
five counterparts, "including the North Korean minister of foreign
affairs, and review the first 60 days," Hill said.
Hill's remarks came a day after Washington said US Deputy Secretary
of State John Negroponte will travel to major Asian capitals next
week for talks likely to focus on the nuclear deal.
Economically crippled North Korea has agreed to start disabling its
nuclear facilities in exchange for badly needed energy aid.
It agreed to close and seal its Yongbyon reactor -- long suspected
to be the centre of its nuclear programme -- within 60 days and
admit UN nuclear inspectors in return for 50,000 tonnes of heavy
fuel oil.
Further steps to disable nuclear facilities would be rewarded with
up to 950,000 tonnes of heavy oil or other aid, while Washington
also agreed to discuss removing North Korea from a list of state
sponsors of terrorism and begin talks on normalizing relations.
Meanwhile US Vice President Dick Cheney, on a visit to Australia
after a stop in Japan, sought to allay concerns that Washington was
going soft on Pyongyang.
"We go into this deal with our eyes open," Cheney said in Sydney.
"In light of North Korea's missile tests last July, its nuclear test
in October and its record of proliferation and human rights abuses,
the regime in Pyongyang has much to prove," he said.
"Yet this agreement represents the first hopeful step towards a
better future for the North Korean people," said Cheney.
Cheney on Thursday wrapped up a visit to Japan, offering to support
Tokyo on the emotionally charged issue of resolving North Korean
kidnappings of Japanese citizens, which has cast a shadow over the
nuclear deal.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 Herald News: Want to be heard?
HeraldNewsOnline.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group
February 23, 2007
The U.S. Department of Energy comment period for the GE facility
proposal ends April 4.
To have your concerns addressed:
Tom Rumsey, manager of communications and public affairs for General
Electric Co., listens as residents and activists voice concerns
Thursday about the proposed use of the GE plant in Morris as a
nuclear recycling center.
KARA BERCHEM/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
1. Call (866)645-7803
2. Send an e-mail to gnep-peis@nuclear.energy.gov.
3. Send a fax to (866) 645-7807
4. Send mail to Mr. Timothy Frazier, Office of Nuclear Energy/U.S.
DOE, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585.
heraldnewsonline.com: Feedback | Contact Us | About Us | Advertise
© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group |
*****************************************************************
26 AFP: Britain in talks with US on hosting 'son of Star Wars'
by Lachlan Carmichael Fri Feb 23, 1:04 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britain is consulting with the United States about
possibly hosting part of a US "son of Star Wars" missile defence
shield, the government said Friday.
The United States has already begun negotiations with Poland and the
Czech Republic to install a radar and 10 long-range missile
interceptors, angering Russia and stirring unease in some European
countries.
The US administration says the shield is to guard against any attack
by rogue states such as Iran or North Korea. Moscow has dismissed
this argument.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said the US-British talks were at
a very early stage as Britain bids to be "kept in consideration" as
a possible location for the system.
"The prime minister thinks it is a good idea that we are part of the
consideration by the US," a spokeswoman for Blair said.
"We believe that it is an important step towards providing missile
defence coverage for Europe, of which we are part."
The confirmation came after The Economist weekly reported that
Blair, a key US military ally, had been "discreetly waging a
campaign" for several months because he believed the system would
make both Britain and the United States more secure.
It said that a new missile silo could be sited at an existing US
military base in Britain.
However, the US deputy chief of mission in London, David Johnson,
said Britain was not the main focus.
"As we go forward there may be opportunities for us to talk to other
countries about their needs, but right now we are concentrating on
the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary sites where we would
be looking for this," Johnson told BBC radio.
The Economist quoted US officials as saying that the interceptors
are purely defensive weapons that are just chunks of metal without
warheads that would destroy ballistic missiles through impact in
space.
The BBC said that Blair had discussed the shield with US President
George W. Bush and that Blair's chief foreign policy advisor, Sir
Nigel Sheinwald, had been working with the US National Security
Council on the issue.
Without confirming the BBC report, the Blair spokeswoman said
discussions had taken place at "various levels."
Liam Fox, the opposition Conservative spokesman on defence, told BBC
radio that the government had to explain whether the shield was
"applicable and practical" and outline the nature of the threat
against which it might be used.
Fox warned that both Russia and Iran had stepped up their investment
in ballistic missiles.
In Berlin Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the
planned system was designed to counter a threat from Iran, which
Washington fears is developing nuclear weapons, and posed no danger
to Russia.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), a British pressure
group, said the US shield would spark a "new arms race."
Even though Washington called it defensive, it "would enable the US
to attack other countries without fear of retaliation," it said.
CND also argued that the system was unreliable and chairwoman Kate
Hudson warned that the system, if deployed, would put Britain on
"the front line in a future war."
CND is among the main opponents to Blair's desire to replace
Britain's US-built Trident missile nuclear deterrent, arguing it
would lead to a new wave of nuclear proliferation. A vote is due in
parliament next month.
The missile shield has been nicknamed "son of Star Wars" after the
Strategic Defence Initiative, known as "Star Wars," launched by
President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s before the Soviet Union
collapsed.
The United States already has interceptor silos in Alaska and
California to defend against an attack by North Korea.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 The Herald: Why UK is secretly lobbying for son of StarWars
Web Issue 2765 February 24 2007
CATHERINE MacLEOD, Political Editor February 24 2007
Comment
As if the prospect of a new generation of nuclear weapons was not
bad enough, the revelation that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have
been discussing the possibility of siting a US missile defence
system, the so-called "son of Star Wars", on British soil was bound
to incense the anti-nuclear lobby.
According to an article in yesterday's Economist magazine, the Prime
Minister has been discreetly waging a campaign since last autumn to
secure America's interceptor for Britain. The campaign could only be
discreet as Poland and the Czech Republic, both recently granted
membership of the European Union, are hoping to secure the
interceptor for themselves.
Downing Street did confirm that the Prime Minister had been involved
in discussions with the US but, apart from saying that negotiations
were not as far advanced as the article implied, gave away few
details.
A spokesman said: "The objective of these conversations was to make
sure that the UK is kept in consideration to be one of the locations
for the system should the US press ahead with the system. It is
purely about being part of the conversation. These discussions are
at a very early stage."
The Prime Minister believes that hosting the interceptors would make
Britain as well as America more secure, and it is also possible that
he believes its very presence would keep Britain at the top table in
both Washington and Brussels.
Whatever his reasons, he, or his successor - most likely Gordon
Brown - can look forward to a battle royal with Labour party
colleagues and anti-nuclear protesters if the Americans decide that
Britain can have it.
High-profile protests over nuclear-armed cruise missiles at Greenham
Common galvanised the anti-nuclear lobby in the 1980s and 1990s. In
the early 21st century, an even more sophisticated lobby could be
organised at home and abroad as experts predict a new arms race with
Russia and China.
Paul Ingram, senior analyst at the British American Security
Information Council (Basic) defence policy think-tank, said the
proposal to site the interceptors in Britain was grossly premature.
"If there is any suggestion in future this is aimed at Russia, they
are going to want to swamp these defences with more missiles so it
does drive a missile race," he said.
Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, perhaps smarting that he is
not in a position to finance a missile shield system of his own, has
already complained that US plans to extend the shield to Europe
would trigger an inevitable arms race, and a Russian general has let
it be known that Russian missiles would target any interceptors in
eastern Europe.
It is unclear if Russia is worried about having such a strategically
important US presence in its midst but Poland and the Czech Republic
believe Russia is on the defensive, trying to scare or blackmail
them over the hopes of attracting the interceptor.
The development of the anti-ballistic missile defence system has
been haphazard. For the past four years, the US has been improving a
limited shield to protect itself and its allies against missiles
from terrorists or rogue states, principally Iran and North Korea.
Interceptor sites already exist in Alaska and California and,
although there is still doubt about its capability, the Pentagon is
now considering the placement of silos with 10 missile interceptors
in Europe. The Americans believe this deployment will greatly
enhance the chances of destroying any long-range missiles fired from
the Middle East.
In 2003, the US paid for the upgrade of Britain's early-warning
radar station at an RAF base at Fylingdales in Yorkshire so that it
could play its part in the missile defence system, but today it
appears that Britain is trailing in the race to host the interceptor.
No sooner had David Johnson, the US deputy chief of mission in
London, told the BBC that the US was primarily looking at the Czech
Republic and Poland to locate the system than Rick Lehner, a
spokesman for the US Missile Defence Agency, confirmed the best
location to defeat long-range missiles from Iran was in eastern
Europe.
"Those are the best locations, the ones that best meet the technical
requirements. We can defend Europe and the US from that site," he
said.
Gordon Brown elected not to comment, but his aides said all costs of
installing an interceptor on British soil would be met by the US.
MPs were caught on the hop, having had no idea that discussions were
taking place behind the scenes.
The Tories kept the door open for further discussions. Seeking
confirmation the system would be applicable and practical, Liam Fox,
Shadow Defence spokesman, said: "We would want to be involved in
discussions about the abilities of the technology, the potential
benefits and to look at the potential risks coming from increased
defence programmes in countries like Iran and Russia."
Ian Davidson, Glasgow South West Labour MP, said: "I am astonished
that we have gone so far so fast in complete secrecy. It seems to
indicate that we are in Bush's pocket. It seems we're in competition
with Putin and China to be a missile silo for the US without any
debt or discussion. I see no justification for us adopting this
position."
Sandra Osborne, Labour MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock , admitted
she was instinctively against the system but added it should not be
considered without widespread public consultation.
Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,
said: "The system threatens to provoke international instability,
arms proliferation, a space arms race and will fuel the ideology of
first strikes. The system is a threat to peace and security, not a
path to it."
According to sources on both sides of the Atlantic, a decision is
not expected immediately. However, it may be that the US has decided
it will site the interceptors in eastern Europe, not least because
it would provoke less of a reaction.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
28 Guardian Unlimited : Comment is free: Return to Star Wars
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Alok Jha
Missile defence systems sound like science fiction. And sometimes
they are.
Alok Jha
February 23, 2007 5:00 PM
For a generation brought up on James Bond, the idea of missile
defence is bound to end up bordering on the melodramatic. Using
missiles and lasers to intercept and destroy other missiles
somewhere out in space - wait, that's a plot thought up by Spectre's
Ernest Bloefeld isn't it? Or perhaps Austin Powers' nemesis, the
maniacal Dr Evil?
Ronald Reagan announced "Star Wars" in a speech in march 1983. The
idea was to find a way out of the deadlock of the Cold War doctrine
of mutal assured destruction (MAD), where his country and the Soviet
Union were forever poised to annihilate each other with massive
numbers of nuclear warheads.
In his speech, he called on scientists "who gave us nuclear weapons
to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace:
to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete".
Reagan's missile defence plan was called the Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) and designed to protect against a massive Soviet
strike, perhaps 20 or more nuclear warheads flying into the US at
one time. The central concept was called "brilliant eyes" and
"brilliant pebbles" - a flotilla of sensors and interceptors in
separate orbits around the Earth.
There was no central controller; a brilliant eye would spot a
missile, communicate with a brilliant pebble and send instructions
to hit it.
The US government abandoned SDI on cost grounds - the Heritage
Foundation, an American right-of-centre think-tank, estimated in a
report in the early 1990s the SDI would have cost around $69bn to
implement.
But soon after the end of the Cold War, however, George Bush senior
revived it in a programme called the Global Protection Against
Limited Strike.
This would stop one or two missiles at a time, rather than the
barrage envisioned by SDI. Bill Clinton subsequently shifted the
focus of missile defence to ground-based interceptor missiles as
part of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation, though it was
never very high on his list of priorities.
When George W Bush came to power in 2001, he resurrected some of the
old SDI technology as part of the National Missile Defense and
Ground-based Midcourse Defense, the so-called "son of Star Wars".
This contained the space-based sensors that draw on the brilliant
eyes technology and add something called "multiple kill vehicles"
that are designed to distinguish between decoys and real weapons.
On the ground, there are already missile silos and radars in the US.
But this would only allow the Americans to intercept a missile in
the last stage of flight, which is difficult because it would be
moving very quickly. In addition, if the warhead contained chemical
or biological elements, intercepting it could spread the warhead
over the intended target anyway.
Having bases on other countries is an attempt by the US to widen the
net. Intercepting a missile when it is in space means that it is
moving more slowly and it is away from your own country. Conversely,
the problem is that your intercept missile has a long way to travel
from the ground up into space and getting one fast-moving object to
hit another somewhere very far away is by no means easy.
Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and
international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
is a prominent critic of missile defence. He studied the use of the
Patriot missile to intercept Iraqi Scud rockets during Operation
Desert Storm. The US army had claimed a success rate of 80% in Saudi
Arabia and 50% in Israel. When Bush senior visited the Patriot
manufacturing plant during the first Gulf War, he declared, the
"Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"
Postol testified before a congressional committee in April 1992 that
"the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The
evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's
intercept rate could be much lower than 10%, possibly even zero."
Physicist Hans Bethe, who worked with Edward Teller on both the atom
bomb and the hydrogen bomb at Los Alamos National Laboratory, said
at the start of the SDI plan that a laser-based defence shield would
be costly and difficult to build, but could be simple to destroy
with thousands of decoy missiles.
To get around some of the problems, missile defence specialists talk
about "layering" - employing lots of different systems at once so
you get more than one shot at the incoming missile. There are scores
of other technologies that cold be employed as part of a missile
defence programme, some more feasible than others.
The air-based laser, for example, is based on old SDI idea: putting
lasers on a few airplanes that would then circle the Earth and head
to potential rogue states if it were suspected they were about to
launch nuclear weapons. Dr Evil would be proud.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
29 UPI: Putin OKs nuke coop with U.S.
United Press International - Security & Terrorism -
2/23/2007 2:49:00 PM -0500
MOSCOW, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has
approved increased nuclear security cooperation with the United
States.
Putin "submitted Wednesday a protocol to a document that facilitates
large-scale cooperation between the United States and Russia on
nuclear nonproliferation for ratification by the (Russian State
Duma, the )lower house of parliament," the RIA Novosti news agency
reported Thursday.
The agreement will give renewed life to 15 years of previous
cooperation agreements on nuclear storage security between the
United States and Russia.
"An umbrella agreement on the safe and secure transportation,
storage, and destruction of weapons and the prevention of weapons
proliferation, the agreement implementing the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program (CTR), was signed by the presidents of the United
States and Russia on June 17, 1992," RIA Novosti said.
"The CTR, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, was the first
large-scale program for U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear
non-proliferation, and became the basis for collaborative
non-proliferation efforts on chemical and biological weapons as
well," the Russian news agency noted.
"Because the 1992 CTR Agreement was signed in compliance with the
former Russian legislation, it came into effect immediately on
signing without ratification by the State Duma," the report said.
"When the CTR Agreement expired in June 1999, a protocol was signed
to extend it for seven years, and the agreement is used on a
temporary basis at present.
RIA Novosti noted that Putin "issued orders last year to initiate a
procedure to prepare for ratification of both the CTR Agreement and
the protocol."
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
30 Guardian Unlimited: 45 held in Trident base protest
Press Association
Friday February 23, 2007 8:48 PM
Forty-five people have been arrested after a blockade of Britain's
nuclear submarine base.
Seven Greenpeace vessels, including the 164ft former icebreaker
Arctic Sunrise, attempted to gain entry to Faslane Naval Base on the
Clyde as part of an anti-nuclear protest.
With six inflatable speedboats, the vessel breached the base's
restricted area at around 8am on Friday, sparking a game of
cat-and-mouse with up to 18 police boats.
The day culminated in the storming and seizure of the Arctic Sunrise
by police after a five-hour stand-off.
Faslane is home to the UK's Trident nuclear submarine fleet and
frequently the scene of demonstrations. Greenpeace timed its action
to coincide with the visit of a delegation of Labour MPs to Faslane.
Within two hours of arriving in the restricted area, the six rigid
inflatables had been rounded up and a total of 16 people arrested.
Some people were picked up from the sea, Ministry of Defence Police
said.
The Arctic Sunrise, commanded by a former Argentinian naval officer,
meanwhile carried on trying to manoeuvre towards a boom protecting
the nuclear submarines.
It eventually dropped anchor just outside the boom, with its crew
refusing a series of police requests to move.
Around 20 officers armed with battering rams eventually clambered on
board, smashing their way into the bridge and seizing control of the
boat. A total of 29 people were arrested when the boat landed and
were remanded in custody until Monday.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
31 The Hindu: Position on nuke testing not to hinder deal - U. S.
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 24, 2007
Washington: The United States has said fuel assurances and the issue
of nuclear testing will not come in the way of the civilian nuclear
deal with India, which it hoped, would be implemented by this year
end.
"There is no problem with fuel assurances. President [George W.]
Bush provided assurances personally to the Prime Minister of India
on the provision of fuel. We had actually codified this ? there is
no disagreement between India and the United States on fuel
assurances that I am aware of," Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
On the issue of India's position on nuclear testing, he said, "we
have a right to our respective positions. I don't think this is
going to conflict with our ability to complete the 123 agreement."
On finalisation of the bilateral 123 agreement that is under
negotiation to operationalise the deal, Mr. Burns said, "the big
issues have been resolved and we have crossed the highest marks in
these negotiations... we have crossed the biggest issues and they
have been decided.
"We will complete the 123 Agreement. India will go on and for sure
complete the IAEA safeguards agreement and we will take that to the
Nuclear Suppliers' Group [NSG]... " ? PTI
Copyright © 2007, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
32 SBR&J: Approval Process Underway For Two New Nuclear Reactors at
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:08:06 -0800
The Savannah Business Report & Journal
http://www.savannahbusiness.com/main.asp?SectionID=29&articleid=6714
Feb 19, 2007
David vs. Goliath (and his attorneys)
Approval Process Underway For Two New Nuclear Reactors
By Strother Blair
TBR Staff
[PHOTO] Environmental laywer Larry Sanders (right) and Southern
Nuclear Company¹s legal team (left) argued Tuesday over the plan
to add two nuclear reactors to a Savannah River facility.
A three-judge panel heard oral arguments Tuesday over Southern
Nuclear Company's application to add two nuclear reactors to the
Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which sits 40 miles
north of Effingham County on the Savannah River.
A coalition of five local groups - the Savannah Riverkeeper,
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Atlanta Women's Action for
New Directions, Center for a Sustainable Coast and Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League - oppose Southern Nuclear Company's
application for an early site permit to expand Vogtle's
facilities, where two nuclear reactors currently operate.
Volunteering his services, Larry Sanders, staff attorney for
Emory University's Turner Environmental Law Clinic, presented the
petitioners' seven contentions Tuesday at a pre-conference
hearing before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board in Waynesboro.
Sanders was to be helped during the pre-conference hearing by
Diane Curran, a leading anti-nuclear power lawyer in Washington,
D.C., the coalition had pooled money to hire, but Curran came
down with the flu the previous night and was unable to appear.
It was a rough day for Sanders, who, sitting amid boxes of files
and stacks of binders, confessed to the panel he had never worked
on a nuclear power case before. "I'm a neophyte at this," he told
the judges as he apologized for a lack of clarity in some of the
petition's language.
Meanwhile, the six-person legal team for Southern Nuclear sat in
a tight row, tapping on sleek laptops and aggressively rebutting
each contention. Southern Nuclear, the plant's operator, and
Georgia Power, the majority owner of the plant, are both wholly
owned subsidiaries of Southern Company.
The NRC's legal counsel, headed by staff attorney Brooke D.
Poole, also addressed the judges Tuesday. The NRC recommended to
the board that the petitioners' standing be found valid to
intervene in the application. It also supported two of the filed
contentions while dismissing the rest.
The two contentions that received the NRC's endorsement were that
the environmental report filed by Southern Nuclear failed to
establish the baseline conditions at the site, and that Southern
Nuclear failed to evaluate potential impacts of two additional
reactors would have on local water quality and aquatic life.
Sanders argued that no specific site had been defined in the
application and no field studies had been performed by the
applicant. Rather, Southern Nuclear's environmental report
conveyed only general conclusions drawn from external studies
conducted in the broad vicinity of "middle Savannah River" and
also failed to include specific data from the studies.
"At some point, the environmental report has to include
information, not just cite others' (conclusions)," said Sanders.
Southern Nuclear's lead attorney Stan Blanton, of the
Birmingham-based firm Balch & Bingham, rejoined that to do so was
neither required nor feasible in the already 600-plus-page
report.
The NRC staff had requested additional material regarding
environmental conditions from Southern Nuclear since the citizen
groups filed their petition in December. Though the NRC has since
received supplemental material from Southern Nuclear, itr still
seconded the petitioners' contention that necessary data had been
omitted from the original report.
"We didn't see site-specific data," said the NRC's Poole.
"Without that information, it's difficult for us to predict what
will be the structural impacts."
Poole also pointed out that one study included in Southern
Nuclear's environmental report was conducted in the 1980s.
Another study cited in the document and brought forward by
Blanton as evidence of the research's geographic thoroughness
actually tested only water samples and did not evaluate aquatic
species.
One of the judges, Nicholas G. Trikouros, indicated agreement
with the NRC's conclusion that the 1980's data was stale by
turning to Sanders and asking if the petitioners might be more
satisfied with data collected "in this century."
Most of the petitioners' contentions did not receive such
official support, including those addressing environmental
justice, waste confidence and consideration of alternative energy
sources. After five hours of questioning, even Sander's position
appeared to waver. "I'm tired, maybe we should just go on," the
attorney said, interrupting his own line of argument.
Throughout the hearing, Southern Nuclear's representation
maintained that the petitioners had failed to supply proof that
the early site permit application was incomplete or incorrect.
Southern Company spokeswoman Elizabeth Thomas said the day was
simply part of the necessary legal process that is involved in
the early site permitting, however, Thomas added: "We do oppose
each of the contentions, because we do not think they are based
on fact or law related to the (early site permit) process."
After the hearing closed, Sara Barczak, safe energy director with
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, who sat alongside Sanders
throughout the day, called the event a "battle of David and
Goliath."
"Our organizations have limited resources," said Barczack, "but
we did our best to voice the serious public health and
environmental impacts the proposed nuclear expansion at Plant
Vogtle will have on our communities, both now and in the future."
The early site permit is the first step in Southern Nuclear's
effort to obtain approval for the additional reactors. Southern
Nuclear will also pursue a combined construction and operating
license (COL) with the NRC. At that time, issues of security
threats and evacuation plans will be addressed. It has filed an
Integrated Resource Plan with the Georgia Public Service
Commission for state approval.
All three applications must pass muster before ground can be
broken. However, if this site permit is approved, Southern
Company can use it at any time in the next 20 years with future
applications at the Vogtle Plant.
The panel is required to arrive at a decision on the validity of
the petitioners' standing and contentions by mid-March.
*****************************************************************
33 AZ Republic: Federal nuke regulator visits troubled Palo Verde
Associated Press
Feb. 23, 2007 12:23 PM
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman on Friday toured the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station and met with its operators,
a day after the federal agency downgraded the safety rating of
the nation's largest nuclear plant.
The NRC's downgrade of Palo Verde followed a series of problems -
most recently the discovery in September that an emergency diesel
generator had been broken for 18 days. Emergency generators at
nuclear reactors provide electricity to pumps, valves and control
rooms if the main electrical supply fails.
Workers previously have found leaking oil seals in reactor coolant
pumps and potential problems with a so-called dry pipe that could
have disrupted the flow of water to the emergency core-cooling
system. Federal inspectors also have said engineers and staff
haven't always followed technical requirements when restarting the
reactors.
The NRC said Thursday it will step up its inspections of Palo Verde
and require APS to develop a plan identifying Palo Verde's safety
deficiencies and setting a course to fix the shortfalls.
Only FirstEnergy Corp.'s Perry nuclear plant in Ohio now has a
safety rating as bad as Palo Verde's, Dricks said Thursday.
Arizona Public Service Co., the plant's operator and a subsidiary of
Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital Corp., responded to the
downgrade by saying it would not appeal the ruling and plans to
guide Palo Verde "to a state of excellence."
APS spokesman Jim McDonald said the company's top nuclear official,
Randy Edington, was reviewing an improvement plan drafted by
previous management and will draft a new version in consultation
with NRC officials.
Edington was hired in January to oversee operations after the
company's former chief nuclear engineer retired.
The uranium-fueled three-reactor plant is located approximately 50
miles west of downtown Phoenix. It is owned by utilities in Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Texas.
Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
34 Guardian Unlimited: Darling delays energy white paper but still keen on nuclear
Special Reports |
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Friday February 23, 2007
The government yesterday postponed next month's energy white
paper after admitting it failed to consult properly over the
future development of nuclear power. The move follows last week's
court victory by Greenpeace over lack of consultation.
Alistair Darling, the trade and industry secretary, told
parliament he would not appeal the ruling by Mr Justice Sullivan,
who condemned the consultation process as "misleading" and
"seriously flawed". The white paper has been postponed until May
and a decision on whether to build a new generation of nuclear
power stations put back from July until the autumn.
In his written parliamentary statement Mr Darling said: "We
continue to believe, subject of course to consultation, there is
a case for having new nuclear power stations as one of the
options companies should consider because of their potentially
significant contribution to security of supply and reducing
carbon emissions. Last week's court judgment does not undermine
this view."
Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Emma Gibson said: "This gives them
less than six months to run the fullest consultation, consider all
the evidence and reach an informed conclusion. Meanwhile Blair says
that his attitude to nuclear power hasn't changed. This strongly
suggests that, yet again, they've already made their mind up before
rushing into another sham consultation.
"The government should go back to their findings in the 2003 energy
white paper; that rejected nuclear power and backed energy
efficiency and renewables. If the government had followed its 2003
words with effective actions we'd have made much more progress in
tackling climate change today." The Liberal Democrat environment
spokesman, Chris Huhne, said the government must disclose details of
costs in line with the findings of the judge. "This should include
the decommissioning programme, particularly the cost of storing and
disposing of nuclear waste." The one new nuclear plant in Finland
cited by the government as a commercial success was being heavily
subsidised, he said.
David Miliband, the environment secretary, announced yesterday that
the government's proposed climate change bill was to be issued as a
draft only - delaying the measure for a year, which Mr Huhne
attacked as "a total shambles".
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
35 AZ Republic: Palo Verde safety grade slips
Downgrade by regulators means more oversight for nuclear plant
Mark Shaffer The Arizona Republic
Feb. 23, 2007 12:00 AM
Federal regulators on Thursday downgraded Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station into the category of most-regulated nuclear
plant in the country.
The decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to place the
plant in Category 4 means the nation's largest nuclear plant will
face much more rigorous oversight and up to 2,500 additional
hours of federal inspections annually for at least two years.
Officials at Palo Verde, 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, will
have to develop a detailed performance improvement plan so "we can
determine the scope of the problems," said Victor Dricks, a
spokesman for the NRC in Arlington, Texas.
Jim McDonald, an Arizona Public Service Co. spokesman, said, "We
want to work with the regulators, we want to improve the plant and
we want to safely generate electricity for Arizona and the
Southwest."
How much money the downgrade will cost APS and other utilities
vested in the plant, as well as how it might affect APS' bond rating
or possibly affect rates, remained unclear Thursday.
The NRC has five categories for ranking the performance of the
nation's nuclear power plants. A ranking of five means the plant is
shut down until corrective actions are taken. Only one of the
nation's more than 60 nuclear power plants has ever been listed in
that category.
NRC Chairman Dale Klein today will visit Palo Verde, the largest
producer of electricity in the state, to meet with workers about
oversight issues and tour portions of the three reactors.
After a series of problems at the plant, the final straws for the
NRC were electrical relays in an emergency diesel generator that did
not function during tests in July and September. Regulators said
problems in the electrical relays made the generator inoperable for
about 18 days last year.
The agency issued a finding of white, or low to moderate safety
significance, for the violation.
But, coupled with other past problems, the finding means Palo Verde
will be relegated to the most-heavily monitored plant in the country.
Jeff Hatch-Miller, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission,
said he was "very disappointed in Palo Verde and APS for allowing
this to happen."
"Early next week, we are going to call APS in (before the
commission) and get a complete explanation and what they are going
to do to fix it," Hatch-Miller said.
Commissioner Kris Mayes said an ongoing review of Palo Verde's
unplanned outage costs in 2006 should be extended through this year
to include costs caused by the NRC downgrade, with possible refunds
to ratepayers.
"APS became complacent starting in the late 1990s in operating Palo
Verde, and now the chickens have come home to roost," Mayes said.
Federal regulators charge inspection rates of $250 an hour, and any
problems encountered with the increased oversight also would have to
be repaired and paid for by the utilities.
Randy Edington, a longtime troubleshooter in the nuclear power
industry who was hired last month by APS to oversee Palo Verde, also
managed Cooper Nuclear Station in Nebraska after it was downgraded
to Category 4 four years ago.
"It cost well over $100 million there but that involved huge
equipment rebuilds," Edington said.
"I don't see the need for huge infrastructure changes here. I'm not
seeing the large number of dollars needed here but that's subject to
change," he said.
The problems for Palo Verde began in 2004 when a so-called dry pipe
that could have disrupted the flow of water to the emergency
core-cooling system was found.
APS repaired that problem, but federal inspectors discovered other
issues during investigations afterward, most of them not directly
tied to safety.
In a letter sent to Palo Verde management in August, agency
officials noted 24 minor violations over a six-month period,
including issues with decision-making systems, not always following
technical requirements during nuclear reactor restarts, ineffective
communication and poor interaction between engineering and
operations workers.
Then, after that letter, a problem was found in the plant's
chemistry-control program in its emergency spray ponds. A bad
chemical mix had been used since 1994 to try to solve problems of
corrosion, and it had affected heat transfer within the system.
Reach the reporter at mark.shaffer@arizonarepublic .com or (602)
444-8057.
Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
36 FresnoBee.com: Speaker backs nukes in Fresno
By Jeff St. John / The Fresno Bee
02/23/07 04:10:43
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace turned nuclear power
advocate, spoke Thursday in Fresno in support of a group that hopes
to make Fresno the site of the state's first new nuclear plant in
more than 30 years.
Facing an audience of about 200 people -- some of them vocal
opponents of nuclear power -- at Warnors Theater, Moore said
nuclear power is an important piece of the world's energy future.
"Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting energy source
that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global
demand," Moore told the audience near the end of an hourlong speech
interrupted several times by catcalls from the audience.
Moore was invited to speak by the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, a
group of prominent Fresno businesspeople who announced in December
they had signed a letter of intent with a major power-plant
developer to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear plant in
Fresno.
John Hutson, president and chief executive of Fresno Nuclear Energy
Group, said a nuclear power plant could bring thousands of
high-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue
to the region.
"Why should it be in Fresno? Because we have the water, we have the
location, and we have the economic need for it," Hutson said before
Moore's speech.
But anti-nuclear activists point out several roadblocks to a nuclear
plant being built in Fresno or anywhere in California. The state has
banned the construction of nuclear power plants until the federal
government comes up with a plan to permanently store or recycle
spent nuclear fuel.
But plans for a permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
face an uncertain future in Congress, where new Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been a long-time opponent.
One way to get around that problem, Moore said, is to lift a
30-year-old ban on recycling spent fuel in the United States.
Originally meant as an anti-nuclear proliferation measure, the ban
"was a very wrong-headed policy," he said, suggesting that Congress
is prepared to take another look at the issue.
But David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the San Luis
Obispo-based watchdog group Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility,
said he doubted Congress was eager to change the policy, given fears
of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.
Another barrier to recycling fuel could be economic. In a 2005
report, the California Energy Commission concluded that recycling
spent fuel was "still substantially more expensive than waste
storage."
To Weisman and other anti-nuclear activists, even if it could be
built, a Fresno nuclear power plant is a bad idea.
"To continue to throw money down the nuclear hole is to squander
resources that could better develop energy solutions that won't
saddle future generations with stockpiles of highly radioactive
waste," Weisman said.
Michael Becker of Fresno agreed as he stood in protest outside
Warnors Theater on Thursday.
With solar power, "we can provide more power that will be clean and
safe," he said.
Protesters also questioned Moore's environmental credentials, noting
that he has spoken in support of the chemical and mining industries
in the past and last year became co-chairman of the nuclear
industry-funded Clean and Safe Coalition to promote nuclear power's
environmental friendliness.
In his speech, Moore agreed that solar, wind, biomass and other
renewable energy sources are also critical.
But renewables can't meet all future power needs, and nuclear power,
with very low greenhouse gas emissions, is better than coal- or
gas-fired power, he said.
The reporter can be reached at jeffstjohn@fresnobee.com or (559)
441-6637.
* © Copyright 2007 The Fresno Bee
*****************************************************************
37 RIA Novosti: Namibia, Russia discuss nuclear cooperation -
13:14 | 23/ 02/ 2007
WINDHOEK, February 23 (RIA Novosti) - Namibia and Russia are
discussing the possible use of Russian nuclear technology to make up
for Namibia's energy deficit, Namibia's prime minister said Friday.
Namibia expects a reduction in energy supplies from South Africa in
the next three years and forecasts an energy deficit of 300
megawatts.
"The Russian side said there are a number of available technologies,
one of them being nuclear," Nahas Angula told journalists after a
meeting with the Russian delegation.
Angula said the environmental and economic expediency of using
nuclear technology in bilateral cooperation should be assessed,
adding that Namibia produces uranium.
The Namibian premier said he discussed with Russia's natural
resources minister, Yury Trutnev, and nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko
cooperation prospects.
Angula also said one of urgent problems was to help south African
countries, including Namibia, satisfy their energy needs.
In January, Renova Group and Techsnabexport, Russia's state-run
nuclear exporter, signed a cooperation agreement to set up joint
ventures as part of a joint investment project to prospect and
develop uranium deposits in Africa and Asia.
Techsnabexport and Russia's leading asset management company, headed
by tycoon Viktor Vekselberg, plan to set up joint ventures in South
Africa, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the company
said in a statement.
RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: NRC Re-Schedules Public Meeting to Discuss Revisions, Additions
to Physical Security Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants
News Release - 2007-07-024 -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail:
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rescheduled a public
meeting for March 9, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. to discuss a
proposed rule amending its security regulations related to the
physical protection of nuclear power reactors. The originally
scheduled meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather.
The meeting will be held in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room,
at NRC headquarters, in the One White Flint North building, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. Registration will begin at 8 a.m. A
telephone bridge line will also be available. To pre-register for
the bridge, call 301-415-2589 or send an e-mail to ljr2@nrc.gov by
March 6.
The proposed rule enhances requirements for access controls, event
reporting, security personnel training, safety and security activity
coordination, contingency planning and radiological sabotage
protection. It would also add requirements related to background
checks for firearms users and authorization for enhanced weapons to
fulfill certain provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register last year
inviting the public to submit comments. The comment period ends
today. In order to allow all stakeholders time to understand the
rule and ensure the NRC has a full understanding of stakeholder
issues, the comment period will be reopened until March 26. The
entire proposed rule along with information on how to submit
comments can be found on the NRC’s eRulemaking Portal at .
More information about security requirements for NRC licensees can
be found on the NRC’s Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/safety-secur
ity.html
NRC news releases are available through a free list server
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page
at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News &
Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when
news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.
Friday, February 23, 2007
*****************************************************************
39 Platts: US FERC approves $380 mil Palisades nuclear plant sale to Entergy
Washington (Platts)--22Feb2007
The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave Consumers Energy
the go-ahead Wednesday to sell its 798-MW Palisades nuclear plant
to Entergy Nuclear Palisades as long as Entergy agrees not to
raise wholesale rates for Edison Sault Electric through the end
of 2007.
If Entergy does not agree to that condition, FERC will
conduct a full-fledged hearing of the transaction's rate effects
on the utility.
FERC also approved a market-rate tariff for Entergy
Palisades, which effectively would make it a merchant plant
instead of a utility rate-based facility. As part of the sales
agreement, Entergy will sell all the plant's output to Consumers
under a 15-year contract that Consumers has estimated will save
its customers $200 million over the life of the deal.
Edison Sault is one of the Palisades plant's two wholesale
requirements customers. The other is Alpena Power, whose rates
will not be affected, according to FERC's order. Edison Sault's
contract expires December 31 and FERC said the parties would
negotiate on rates for the ensuing period.
FERC said the price negotiation and an option for either
Palisades or Edison Sault to terminate the contract if they reach
an impasse constitute an "open season," which the commission has
found in other cases to be acceptable protection for ratepayers.
As it does in many cases, FERC urged the companies to reach a
settlement early, for which FERC will name a settlement judge.
Other than the issue of impacts on that Edison Sault's
rates, FERC said, the $380-million sale of the plant to Entergy
raises no significant questions of market power or other matters
that FERC concerns itself with when judging mergers and
acquisitions. The commission approved Entergy Palisades'
market-based-rate tariff for the company's wholesale sales into
the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator region.
The transaction is still under review by the Michigan Public
Service Commission, where conflicts about retail rate issues
should properly be handled, FERC said. Some groups, including the
Michigan Environmental Council and Public Interest Research Group
in Michigan, objected that having Palisades output sold at
wholesale under market-based rates, instead of at retail
cost-based rates under state jurisdiction, is contrary to the
public interest unless protected measures are adopted.
--Kathy Larsen, kathy_larsen@platts.com
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
40 Platts: US NRC to increase its oversight of Palo Verde nuclear facility
Washington (Platts)--22Feb2007
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday downgraded the
status of the Palo Verde nuclear facility, classifying it as one
of the poorer performing plants in the US and subjecting it to an
even higher degree of agency oversight.
The commission downgraded the plant when it issued a
so-called "white finding" for an emergency diesel generator
problem last year at the three-reactor station. While a white
finding reflects a low-to-moderate safety significance, NRC
Region IV Administrator Bruce Mallet said the problem "was caused
by performance deficiencies similar to others noted by NRC at
Palo Verde since 2004."
He added in a statement that the agency "will determine the
appropriate follow-up actions to ensure performance improvements
at Palo Verde," which was once considered a stellar nuclear
plant.
Arizona Public Service spokesman Jim McDonald said the
utility will not appeal the downgrading. All three units joined
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating's Perry reactor in NRC's
multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone category, or column 4.
Only the category of unacceptable performance is lower. APS
operates the plant.
It can take a utility several years to demonstrate a
sufficient improvement in its reactor performance in order to
return to a normal level of NRC oversight. Palo Verde, the
largest nuclear power plant in the US, is located outside Phoenix
and has been grappling with equipment problems and forced outages
during the last two years.
--Elaine Hiruo, elaine_hiruo@platts.com
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
41 Platts: Spurgeon: US likely to need nuclear for future energy demands
Washington (Platts)--21Feb2007
It's doubtful the US can meet projected electricity demand
increase without new power reactors, according to DOE Assistant
Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon. Speaking at a
meeting of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee
February 21 in Idaho Falls, Idaho, Spurgeon said the US will need
to generate 50% more electricity in the next 25 years to meet
demand. Coal-fired generation can be increased by 50%, but what
happens if generating companies are required to sequester carbon?
Spurgeon asked. He added that neither natural gas, a substantial
portion of which is imported, nor hydroelectric dams could
generate 50% more electricity. The amount of wind power could be
increased but even if the amount were doubled or tripled, it
would barely put a dent in the amount needed, he said. Spurgeon
told the advisory panel that he believes there is "a much greater
appreciation" in Congress now of nuclear's role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: NRC Completes Web Site Redesign
News Release - 2007-025 -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail:
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today completed the second
and final phase of its new Web site, building upon the new look
given to the site in December. Finished ahead of schedule, the
second phase reduces the number of buttons that appear at the top
of each page and helps make it easier to find information at the
NRC site.
Additionally, the final series of changes features menus at the
top of most pages and continues to provide the agency’s new
Google© search engine atop each page, making it easier for site
visitors to find NRC documents and Web information. The format
changes highlight key agency programs, including new About NRC
and Nuclear Security categories.
The target date for completion was just before the
NRC’s Regulatory Information Conference in early March, and
the agency’s Office of Information Services was able to
complete the task three weeks early.
“We’ve gotten good reviews from several focus groups
and reporters on the redesign and many comments on how it makes
navigation easier for members of the public. We’re pleased
the Office of Information Services was able to accomplish the
next step faster than planned,” said Eliot Brenner,
director of the Office of Public Affairs.
The following table is designed to help users during the
transition to find information that is no longer available from
its previous location on the home page. It is available on the
Web at: http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/where-did-it-go.html. Web
questions or problems should be directed to Jeffrey Main at
WEBWORK@nrc.gov or 301-415-6845. Previous Home Page Link December
15, 2006 Redesign Phase I February 23, 2007 Redesign Phase II Who
We Are Who We Are About NRC What We Do What We Do About NRC
Nuclear Security What We Do Nuclear Security (Added to main Menu
Bar) Facility Info Finder Facility Info Finder Facility Info
(Relocated to top of page) Electronic Reading Room (Renamed NRC
Documents & Publications) Electronic Reading Room NRC Documents &
Publications
Radiation Protection What We Do About NRC
Contracting with NRC Business with NRC Business with NRC FOIA
Requests Business with NRC Business with NRC License Fees
Business with NRC Business with NRC & added to Our Licensing Web
Page NRC Forms Business with NRC Business with NRC Electronic
Submittals (including HLW Filings) (Renamed - Electronic
Submittals) Business with NRC Business with NRC Subscribe to
E-mail Notices (Renamed - Subscribe to News) News & Information
News & Information Commission Documents News & Information News &
Information Public Meetings Public Involvement Public Involvement
Current Rulemakings Public Involvement Public Involvement Hearing
Opportunities Public Involvement Public Involvement News & Info
(Renamed - Media Resources) News & Information News & Information
For the Record News & Information News & Information New at Our
Web Site (Renamed - New on Our Site) News & Information News &
Information Fact Sheets and Brochures News & Information News &
Information Electronic Hearing Docket - High-Level Waste
Electronic Reading Room N RC Documents & Publications Electronic
Hearing Docket - Reactors, Materials, Other Electronic Reading
Room NRC Documents & Publications 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report Plans, Budget, and Performance Plans,
Budget, and Performance Information Digest, 2006-2007 Edition
News & Information News & Information
NRC news releases are available through a free list server
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.
February 23, 2007
*****************************************************************
43 toledoblade.com: Flawed Fermi 2 test baffles experts; defective
process eluded utility, NRC for 2 decades
Article published Friday, February 23, 2007
MICHIGAN NUCLEAR PLANT
Fermi 2 in Newport, Michigan.
By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER
NEWPORT, Mich. - For 20 years, Detroit Edison Co. unknowingly
relied on a certain amount of luck in calculating the reliability
of its main source of backup power at its Fermi 2 nuclear plant.
But even after an extensive probe of public records, the
Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists concluded in a
report issued yesterday it's still unclear why a flawed testing
procedure for the plant's massive emergency diesel generators
went undiagnosed for so long.
Equally as baffling, according to David Lochbaum, the group's
nuclear safety project director, is how fundamental oversight of
such important safety devices eluded Nuclear Regulatory
Commission inspectors.
"You can't blame it on any one person," Mr. Lochbaum said,
explaining that both the utility and the regulator had multiple
opportunities over 20 years to catch a low-voltage testing
procedure that was out of kilter.
"I can't figure out how [multiple engineers over a 20-year
period] missed this over and over. I think the company and the
NRC need to look back and figure out what happened. Everyone was
sincerely trying to do it right," he said.
Here's the situation: In 1986, Detroit Edison correctly diagnosed
a design flaw in the plant's undervoltage relay setpoints for the
Division 1 electrical system.
But, according to NRC findings issued in December, the utility
never followed through with a commitment it made on Aug. 22,
1986, to bring its testing criteria into sync once the physical
changes were made.
The utility and the NRC carried on for two decades, oblivious to
the discrepancy.
Government inspectors reopened the issue July 30, 2003, then
closed it July 27, 2004, with the understanding the problem was
about to be fixed. A special inspection team reopened the issue
again after being dispatched to Fermi 2 in November, 2005, the
NRC has said.
The procedure was corrected a few months ago. Tests now performed
are considered accurate, the NRC has said.
Detroit Edison had little to say, both yesterday and when the NRC
issued its findings in December.
"We do recognize the minimum voltage criteria should have been
changed," spokesman John Austerberry said. "We don't know why, at
this point, that hadn't been caught before."
Spokesmen for both the NRC's headquarters in suburban Washington
and the agency's Midwest regional office near Chicago said they
were not prepared to comment on Mr. Lochbaum's follow-up report.
Michael Keegan, a Monroe activist and spokesman for Coalition for
a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, said the consequences "could have
been an accident on the scale of Chernobyl" if backup power ever
failed during a serious accident.
He said the region cannot be lulled into a false sense of
security, especially now that Detroit Edison's parent, DTE
Energy, has announced plans to apply for a license to build
another reactor at the Fermi site.
Mr. Austerberry noted that the diesel generators worked when
called upon for backup power in two real-life incidents recently:
The blackout of August, 2003, and when a main transformer failed
last summer.
© 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 ,
(419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
44 Detroit Free Press: Nuclear plants: Safe enough yet?
FREEP.COM
* Opinion
* Letters to the Editor
FROM OUR READERS
February 23, 2007
In response to the Feb. 18 column by Don Williams ("Power up new
nuclear plants"): Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor
cost-effective. When the costs of decommissioning nuclear power
plants and the costs of disposing of nuclear waste are incorporated
into cost calculations, it is clear that nuclear power has no
economic future. Nuclear waste is so toxic -- a half-life of 24,000
years -- we cannot agree on how or where to store it.
Nuclear power and fossil fuels have feasted on decades of subsidies,
and in most cases continue to receive far more subsidies than
renewable energy, creating an uneven playing field.
With a fraction as much potential in wind and solar power as the
United States, Germany has created a new multibillion-dollar
industry and tens of thousands of new jobs. It is time that our
government and our press got on board with renewable energy.
Nancy Adadow Gray
Northville
Plants are safe
My son was trained in nuclear power by the Navy. He's never had an
injury from radiation and has worked in almost every plant in this
country since 1979. He's a senior health physics technician, one who
makes sure our plants are safe for people inside and out. Thousands
like him are maintaining the existing plants, and will be servicing
the new ones.
Why be stuck in the last century energy-wise? We have the ability to
build dependable plants across this land.
Vivian DeMorrow
Central Lake
Get beyond nuclear phobia
The Feb. 2 article "Turn up Michigan power potential" was a good
example of Michigan's business problems. A nuclear plant was nearly
online when fearful politicians ordered it dismantled at the expense
of investors. This government now expects utilities to compete with
each other for the opportunity to be poked in the purse again.
Regulators believe customers (voters) should not be expected to
share the cost by a price increase.
Coal is plentiful, but dirty. Wind, solar and hydro sources are
environmentally friendly but ineffective for large quantities.
Nuclear power is not being considered. The rest of America and many
foreign countries have matured beyond this phobia. Michigan cannot
be restored as an industrial leader as long as government
micromanages science, investment and even financing.
Hank Borgman
Farmington
Save Lake Erie fish
It is great that the DTE Monroe facility is getting scrubbers to
reduce emissions, which will cost about $1 billion. Besides
emissions, the DTE Monroe plant also draws nearly 2 billion gallons
of water a day from the River Raisin and Lake Erie's warmest,
shallowest waters. DTE uses the water for thermal-cooling purposes.
Lake Erie is once again experiencing a lot more algae and dead zones.
Drawing 2 billion gallons of water a day in the DTE Monroe intakes
kills millions of small fish annually, as well as billions of fish
larvae and eggs.
DTE should also invest in a cooling tower at the Monroe plant, which
would significantly reduce the fish kills and the warm-water
discharge.
Sandy Bihn
Western Lake Erie Waterkeeper
Oregon, Ohio
.
and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005. © Copyright 2007
Freep.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
45 HSE: HSE publishes THORP leak report
E006:07 23 February 2007
Operational Note
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has today published a
report on its investigation into a leak of radioactive liquid
within the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant facility, part of
the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. The investigation,
carried out by HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII),
culminated in a prosecution of the site licensee, British Nuclear
Group Sellafield Ltd (BNGSL), which concluded in October
2006.  The report is on HSE’s website at:
www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/thorp.htm
The report describes in detail how the leak occurred, how it was
discovered and why it was not detected earlier, together with
background information on the plant. It outlines 55
recommendations and actions arising from the investigation and
discusses lessons for BNGSL and the wider nuclear industry.
Also available on HSE’s website is a report describing NII's
assessment of BNGSL's application for consent to restart THORP,
which includes consideration of BNGSL’s response to the 55
recommendations. The decision to grant consent (announced on 9
January 2007) was made once BNGSL had satisfactorily addressed all
the recommendations from HSE’s investigation and completed
modifications necessary to ensure safety.
Background
* The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield
reprocesses nuclear fuel from overseas and UK second-generation
commercial reactors.
* On 20 April 2005, BNGSL discovered a leak from a pipe supplying
highly radioactive liquid to a tank inside a shielded cell within
THORP.
* Following a detailed investigation by NII, HSE brought a
prosecution against BNGSL. Â On 8 June 2006, BNGSL pleaded guilty
before Whitehaven Magistrates to charges of breaching three
conditions attached to the Sellafield site licence granted under
the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended). Â On 16 October
2006, BNGSL was fined £500,000 plus costs of over £67,000 at
Carlisle Crown Court (see HSE news release at
www.hse.gov.uk/press/2006/e06103.htm)
* The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 provides for the licensing
and inspection of sites used for operating nuclear reactors;
manufacturing, storing and reprocessing fuel and related
activities. No site may be used for operating a nuclear
installation without a licence granted by HSE.
* The licence for each site contains a standard set of 36
conditions, dealing with a variety of safety requirements.
Contravention of any condition constitutes an offence under the
Act.
* BNGSL shut down THORP in April 2005, when the leak was
discovered and reported to HSE. Following the shutdown, HSE
undertook a substantial amount of assessment and inspection work
before issuing consent to allow the safe restart of the plant in
January2007 (see HSE news release at
www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/e07001.htm).
* The actual date for restart of reprocessing new fuel at THORP is
a matter for BNGSL.
Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905
Out of hours 020 7928 8382
Public enquiries
HSE's InfoLine 0845 3450055
Caerphilly Business Park
Caerphilly
CF83 3GG
HSE information and news releases can be accessed on the Internet:
www.hse.gov.uk/
*****************************************************************
46 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Plant's Safety Rating Takes Hit
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 8:31 AM
By CHRIS KAHN
AP Business Writer
PHOENIX (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday
downgraded the safety rating of the nation's largest nuclear
plant, subjecting it to a level of scrutiny shared by just one
other plant in the nation.
The NRC made the announcement following three years of problems
in various safety systems at the Palo Verde nuclear plant west of
Phoenix.
Inspectors in September found that one of its emergency
diesel generators had been broken for 18 days. Emergency
generators are critically important at nuclear reactors,
providing electricity to pumps, valves and control rooms if the
main electrical supply fails.
Only FirstEnergy Corp.'s Perry nuclear plant in Ohio has a
safety rating as bad as Palo Verde's, NRC spokesman Victor Dricks
said.
Dricks said the agency will require plant operator Arizona
Public Service Co. to develop a plan that identifies Palo Verde's
safety deficiencies.
The regulatory agency also may ask Palo Verde to promise to
adhere to an improvement plan and could hold quarterly meetings
in the Phoenix area to keep the public informed, Dricks said.
Depending on how plant officials respond, Dricks said the
agency could recommend up to 2,500 hours of additional inspection
time at Palo Verde, to be completed over an unspecified time
frame.
That means NRC would send additional teams of inspectors to
work with the two full-time regulators already at the plant, Palo
Verde officials said.
APS, a subsidiary of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital Corp.,
said it will not appeal the ruling.
``It is important to know that despite the operational
difficulties over the last few years, at no time was the safety
of the public or our employees at risk,'' APS chief executive
Jack Davis said on the company Web site.
Palo Verde can provide enough electricity for nearly 4 million
homes and is owned by a consortium of utilities in Arizona,
Texas, California and New Mexico.
Pinnacle stock fell 15 cents, less than 1 percent, to $47.93
in Thursday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
^---
On the Net:
Arizona Public Service: www.aps.com
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
47 UPI: Palo Verde plant issued white finding
United Press International - Energy -
2/23/2007 6:00:00 PM -0500
PHOENIX, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. nuclear regulators issued the lowest
of a tiered safety significance finding for the Palo Verde nuclear
plant in Arizona.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the finding Thursday,
after inspections and reviews of the plant's faulty backup generator.
NRC inspectors found an electrical relay wasn't working and the
emergency diesel generator that relied on it was unusable numerous
times in the past three years, including for 18 days last year,
according to an NRC release.
"This finding was caused by performance deficiencies similar to
others noted by NRC at Palo Verde since 2004," Bruce Mallett, NRC's
Region IV administrator, said in the release. "The NRC will
determine the appropriate follow-up actions to ensure performance
improvements at Palo Verde."
Palo Verde is west of Phoenix.
The backup generator is used to keep the nuclear reactor safe when
there is a power outage or other generating issues at the plant.
"Diesel generators are critical components of every nuclear power
plant's defense in depth and are relied upon to supply power to key
safety systems during an emergency should the need arise," Mallet
said. He said the Arizona Public Service Co., Palo Verde's
operators, failed in maintaining the generator, the latest in other
safety issues the NRC has identified at the plant in recent years.
The white finding is the second lowest of the four-tiered
color-coded system.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
48 Business Report: Russians determined to supply nuclear units to SA
- and world
February 23, 2007
By NTEBO MMOPE
Johannesburg - Russian firms were hoping to win the tender to
build the next conventional nuclear plant in the Western Cape,
the Russian minister of natural resources, Yury Trutnev, said
yesterday.
Trutnev was speaking at the sixth session of the South
Africa-Russia Joint Intergovernmental Committee on Trade and
Economic Co-operation in Pretoria.
Trutnev said Russia was determined to increase its number of
nuclear units across the world from 40 to 60 in the next 20
years.
Last year Russia announced a $60 billion (R424 billion)
project to raise the proportion of its energy that was
nuclear-generated from 16 percent to 25 percent by 2030 and to
build at least 40 new reactors.
Trutnev said the Russian firms would invest as much money as
was needed for a nuclear power station. The nuclear power station
expected to be built near Koeberg could cost about R70 billion.
Eskom spokesperson Fanie Zulu said the new plant, the
country's second, would produce baseload power of about 3 000
megawatts. Koeberg currently contributes about 1 800MW.
The expression of Russian interest in the government's
nuclear energy programme follows a report in Business Report this
week that French companies were eyeing involvement in the same
nuclear plant in the Western Cape.
Areva, the French firm that built Koeberg, has also shown
interest in taking part in the development of the
fourth-generation pebble bed modular reactor programme in
exchange for the contract to build the second conventional
nuclear plant.
Rival French firm Alstom was also said to be interested in
South African technology for developing mini nuclear reactors.
The foreign affairs minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma,
welcomed the Russian interest in the nuclear programme.
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of minerals and energy, who
attended the session, said South Africa had agreed to create a
subcommittee to control the energy business between Russia and
South Africa.
Dlamini-Zuma said no agreements had been signed between the
two governments for nuclear fuel enrichment but there were
agreements signed between mining companies. "Renova and Harmony
Gold have signed an agreement to expand the nuclear energy
industry."
Renova, a Russian mining group, signed a memorandum of
understanding with Harmony to explore opportunities of extracting
gold and uranium within both companies for further development
and business profitability.
"The Russians are welcome to participate in the open tender
for the second power plant," said Dlamini-Zuma.
Speculation is that Russia wants closer co-operation and
consultation between the two governments to keep close contact
with the department of minerals and energy.
©2007 Business Report & Independent Online (Pty) Ltd. All rights
*****************************************************************
49 UPI: Uncertain U.S. nuclear economics
United Press International - Energy - Analysis:
2/23/2007 6:07:00 PM -0500
By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- The first application in three decades
to build a new nuclear reactor could be submitted to U.S. nuclear
regulators this year, but the economics of constructing the
multibillion dollar reactors are not secured yet.
"From what we've seen in numbers from companies, the numbers appear
to work," Caren Byrd, executive director of Morgan Stanley's global
power and utility group, said this week at a National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners' meeting in Washington.
Byrd was a panelist at a NARUC electricity committee session titled
"Myth or Reality: Is new nuclear generation a cost-effective method
for meeting anticipated future load?"
"In all honesty, they still need to be convinced," Byrd said of
investors wary of actually forking over dollars for new but never
built plants.
No nuclear reactors have been licensed in the United States since
1978 or come online since 1996, though the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission expects to receive this year the first batch of more than
30 new applications.
Christopher Paine, senior analyst at the Natural Resources Defense
Council and deputy director of its nuclear program, said nuclear
reactors (like coal or any resource intensive sources) are unviable
after factoring in the total lifecycle costs of building and
operating -- economical, environmental and societal.
At present, 103 nuclear reactors operate at 65 plants in 31 states,
delivering about 20 percent of U.S. electricity demand. The Energy
Information Administration, the data arm of the Energy Department,
estimates U.S. electricity demand will grow 1.4 percent a year
through 2030.
Nuclear is "not on the immediate investment horizon," Byrd said. A
new nuclear reactor would cost between $3 billion and $4 billion, a
large price tag for nuclear companies with relatively low market
value compared to oil and natural-gas companies.
Natural gas became the go-to energy source in the 1990s, spurred by
the cheap supply. While the price has spiked and stayed volatile,
natural gas plants can be built quicker than nuclear plants, keeping
it the new build of choice.
"I wish there was an easy answer to this," Byrd said, adding
investors view nuclear power as an efficient source of power
generation that "have performed well in the market" compared to
non-nuclear energy companies, though they still remember the big
losses in the proposed but never realized nuclear boom of the 1980s
and 1990s.
But, Byrd said, plenty of factors are playing right for new nuclear:
there is a need for new generating capacity, oil and gas costs are
high and volatile and those, plus coal, are being targeted for their
emissions. Plus federal energy legislation in the 1990s streamlined
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission application process and in 2005
created incentives for new nuclear reactors to be built.
New designs for nuclear plants may make them easier for the NRC to
approve and cheaper to build and operate as well. And while there is
no solution to the national problem of storing the waste the plants
produce, Byrd said what is also important is sustaining positive
public opinion of new nuclear plants.
A UPI/Zogby Interactive of 6,909 U.S. adults Jan. 16-18 found the
vast majority think nuclear power is safe, more plants should be
built and would support one in their community. The survey had a 1.2
percent margin of error.
"Investors are saying 'it looks good on paper but it's still
untested," Byrd said, a sentiment shared by senior EIA economist
James Hewlett.
"Until a couple of them get built...it's still an open question," he
said at the NARUC session. He said capital costs will need to be
brought down to between $1,500 and $1,600 a kilowatt, no small feat
compared to the $3,000 per kw the "better" plants in operation today
were built. New technology -- including a reduction of on-site labor
costs by increased prefabrication -- is supposed to help that.
"Whether they can actually get these costs down to these levels
remains to be seen," Hewlett said.
Production tax credits and loan guarantees, highly touted yet
somewhat unclear incentives of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, would
reduce costs by 10 percent each, Hewlett said.
"They're important," he said in a follow-up interview with UPI,
"that affects the economics."
There's a growing buzz in Congress to regulate the polluting
emissions of industries like coal and other fossil plants, either
with an outright tax or cap and trade system. That would increase
the costs of coal plants, nuclear's chief base load generation
competitor.
Both Byrd and the NRDC's Paine said the price of building a plant
isn't a constant either. It takes at least eight years to license
and build a reactor, and the longer the time span the less stable
the costs for labor and materials.
Paine urges a wider view of costs, beyond just the price to build
the plant and the rates consumers pay for the electricity it
generations, including mining and processing uranium and disposing
of the spent fuel and building, operating and decommissioning the
plant.
"If you did price things properly, based on their net societal
costs, not just the costs of generating or burning the fuel...and
with all the environmental externalities in place including the
costs to the atmosphere, global warming effects, the public health
effects," nuclear power would be seen as having an incalculable
price, Paine said.
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
50 UPI: GCC, IAEA agree to study nuclear power
United Press International - Energy -
2/23/2007 6:01:00 PM -0500
VIENNA, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- Persian Gulf states meeting in Vienna said
they would work with international regulators on a new nuclear
program it pledged would be for energy not weapons.
The Gulf Cooperating Council and the International Atomic Energy
Agency have been meeting on the proposed program and Thursday a top
GCC official said the two will conduct a feasibility study.
"We agreed that a team of agency experts and experts in the fields
of nuclear power and electrical planning...will draw up the general
framework and the terms of reference of such a study," Abdullah
Hamad Al Attiyah, GCC secretary general and Qatari deputy prime
minister and energy minister, told Al Jazeera.
The GCC is made up of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, Oman and Kuwait.
Last year the group decided to explore nuclear power as an option
for meeting increased energy demand. The Gulf Daily News reports it
also may be a power play against Iran, which is moving forward on a
nuclear program it claims is for energy purposes but a U.S.-led
coalition claims is for weapons.
Attiyah talked to the press after meeting with Mohammed ElBaradei,
the IAEA's chief.
"We are not competing with any party, be it Iran or others," he
said, insisting the GCC nuclear program would be for energy and
water desalination only.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
51 Hampton Union: Work at nuke plant
February 23, 2007
By Susan Morse smorse@seacoastonline.com
SEABROOK -- FPL Energy Seabrook Station will bring two to three
large pieces of equipment by barge to the nuclear power plant on
Seabrook Harbor, the Board of Selectmen said Wednesday.
The pieces will be the dry cask storage to house spent fuel rods on
site, according to Seabrook Station spokesman David Barr. The
earliest they will be brought in is this fall, he said.
Spent fuel rods are being stored on site at nuclear power plants
nationwide as the central federal depository planned at Yucca
Mountain is held up by lawsuits.
Seabrook Station has excavated an area the size of a football field
down to bedrock for the casks, Barr said. By next year, the site
will be a concrete slab to hold the pre-cast concrete modules coming
in by barge. Each piece is about the size of a small garage, he said.
The move will be similar to the removal of four large steam
generators from Seabrook Station 10 years ago, Barr said. The
generators were taken out because a second reactor never went online.
One of the companies handling transportation for the dry casks was
involved in moving the steam generators, Barr said.
Before the barges can come in, selectmen need to give permission for
the contractors to remove 50 to 60 feet of new fence at the Yankee
Fisherman's Cooperative on Seabrook Harbor.
Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Media Group.
Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
52 Lehigh Valley News: Nuclear weapons expert to speak in Valley
Posted by Alyssa Young February 23, 2007 17:45PM
Three talks about national policy are planned Sunday and Monday in
the Lehigh Valley, a news release from the Lehigh-Pocono Committee
of Concern says. Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate at the
World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center in New York
City, will speak. Her talks are open to the public.
Berrigan will present "Whose Future? Reversing Bush's Nuclear
Renaissance" at 6:45 p.m. Sunday. A potluck dinner beings 6 p.m. at
the Lehigh Valley Friends Meeting House on Route 512 in Hanover
Township.
She will present "The Road Out of Guantanamo: Resisting the War on
Terror" at noon and 4 p.m. Monday. The noon talk in Easton is at
http://www.lafayette.edu/community/campusmap/index.html">Lafayette
College's Linberg Theater in the Farinon Student Center. The 4 p.m.
speech in Bethlehem is in Room 101 of Lehigh University's Maginees
Hall.
For more information, call the LEPOCO Peace Center at 610-691-8730.
©2007 pennlive.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index
*****************************************************************
53 csmonitor.com: Where Bush would steer energy R&D |
from the February 23, 2007 edition
Some critics question proposed federal spending hikes for nuclear
research.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
If new technology is a key answer to global warming and America's
addiction to oil, then President Bush's proposal to boost federal
spending on energy R&D – by no less than 30 percent in fiscal 2008
– would seem a welcome step.
In the new $2.7 billion budget plan, R&D dollars allotted to the US
Department of Energy (DOE) continue a transition toward research
that will help cut greenhouse gases.
But overall federal spending on energy research in real dollars is
only one-third what it was at its 1978 peak, according to a Harvard
University analysis. Some also question the administration's
emphasis on nuclear research, saying other promising technologies
could be applied sooner to climate and energy-security issues.
"The new DOE budget doesn't reflect the big increase in public
concern about greenhouse gases," says energy expert Richard Newell,
formerly a senior economist on the President's Council of Economic
Advisers, now at Duke University in North Carolina.
Because the federal government remains the largest investor in
energy R&D, its spending priorities are of keen interest to
scientists, environmentalists, energy entrepreneurs, utilities, and
the general public – especially as concerns rise about both
climate change and energy security. As might be expected, the new
budget proposal has a host of critics. Among the concerns:
•Next year's budget request would boost funding for biofuel,
clean-coal, battery, and solar technologies. But it eliminates
research for hydropower and geo-thermal, two renewable energy
sources.
•Spending on energy-efficiency programs, which in the past led to
low-power refrigerators and energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs,
would drop.
•There would be a fourfold increase from 2006 in spending for
nuclear-fuel reprocessing, a practice that many experts say does
little to replace oil and remains years from commercialization.
Taken together, the budget request breaks little new ground in terms
of fighting global warming or the nation's reliance on foreign oil,
many experts say.
"There simply is no new sense of urgency in this energy R&D budget,"
says Kelly Gallagher, director of the Energy Technology Innovation
Project at Harvard University. "Growth for solar, biofuels, and
clean-coal research is positive. But overall funding is not nearly
equal to the challenge."
Resources devoted to climate change and energy security "are
largely anemic," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the
National Commission on Energy Policy, a group of energy experts
that recommends doubling federal energy-research funding.
Energy Department officials disagree.
"This year's budget request supports the president's energy
initiative to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy
technology, such as biomass, hydrogen, and solar energy," says
Megan Barnett, a DOE spokeswoman. The budget "builds on our
commitment to strengthen global energy security by making
investment to diversify our energy resources, expand our nation's
scientific know-how, and continue to invest in energy that can
reduce our carbon footprint," she says.
Is R&D government's job?
The overall decline in federal research dollars since the late
1970s is troubling to many, but not to everyone. Some argue that
government is best left out of the energy research business
because it's no good at picking winning technologies. The nation
has received little in return for its massive investment in
energy-technology research since 1978, these analysts say.
"If the utility industry wants clean coal, they can figure out
themselves how to have cleaner coal," says Myron Ebell of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "We
don't think government-sponsored technology has a very good track
record. Markets work better."
Others cite studies that indicate benefits to government
involvement. A 2004 National Research Council (NRC) study
calculated a historically good return on several categories of
energy technology investment. Energy efficiency, for instance,
showed a $30 billion return on investment of $7 billion - or $4
for every $1 invested in it since 1978, according to the report.
Innovations flowing from federal research include compact
fluorescent light bulbs and refrigerators that use only one-third
the electricity of earlier models. These and other gains have
helped slash America's "energy intensity," the amount of energy
spending per dollar of economic output, economists say.
Funding for energy-efficiency technology at DOE has seen a
"substantial decline" during the Bush years, says Ms. Gallagher.
Even renewable-energy funding has been only about flat, after
inflation is considered, she says. She and others question
whether funding for nuclear technology is robbing efficiency and
renewable research budgets - and even funds for "clean" coal.
'Clean' coal's future
The ability to capture carbon dioxide (the major gas tied to
global warming) from future coal-fired power plants and store it
underground is critical to the future of using massive US coal
reserves. If research doesn't reveal how CO2 can be held
underground, then those reserves are at risk, experts say.
Even so, funding for "carbon sequestration" research is up a
modest 7 percent since last year to $79 million. That's dwarfed
by a $395 million budget request for nuclear-fuel reprocessing -
a 400 percent jump from 2006. The request for nuclear-fusion
research is up 34 percent from this year, to $428 million.
"There's no way fusion is going to be commercial even in decades
- and we should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul," says Carol
Werner of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute in
Washington. "We should be deploying technology that can delivered
now and over the next 15 years. Fusion is not one of those."
Still, she's glad to see clean-coal research getting more
funding. DOE plans to build an almost-emissions-free "FutureGen"
plant, a $1 billion coal-fired power plant, in Texas or Illinois
by 2012. It would capture carbon dioxide - a precursor to storing
the gas underground.
FutureGen would get $109 million, double last year's request.
Likewise, funding for biomass research, which includes ethanol
made from switchgrass and crops other than corn, would double
since 2006, and solar funding would rise 80 percent. It's good,
but it's not enough, say experts.
Federal R&D funding is vital for pilot projects for noncorn-based
ethanol and carbon sequestration, in particular, says Robert
Nordhaus, an expert on energy technology research at Van Ness
Feldman, a Washington law firm. "We're ... betting on carbon
sequestration for keeping coal going without really moving
quickly ahead on the sequestration project," he says.
A major problem has been that priorities and funding levels
change continually, "which makes it difficult to have a coherent
technology program," Mr. Nordhaus says.
A report last week by the Electric Power Research Institute, the
industry's research arm, cited the urgency of energy research to
addressing global warming. CO2 emissions from the coal-burning US
electric-utility sector could be cut to 1990 levels within 25
years, the report said. But that can happen only with
"accelerated investment in electric technology R&D and aggressive
deployment of the resulting technologies," the EPRI report
states.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor.
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
54 AFP: Sweden restarts nuclear reactors
Fri Feb 23, 3:13 PM ET
STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Two of three Swedish nuclear reactors shut down
this month following minor incidents were restarted this week,
the Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) said on Friday.
"Ringhals 2 and Forsmark 2 were restarted this week," SKI
spokesman Anders Joerle told AFP.
The Ringhals 2 reactor, on the west coast south of Gothenburg,
was stopped on February 16 due to a "small leak" in its primary
cooling system.
The Forsmark 1 and 2 reactors, north of Stockholm on the east
coast, were halted on February 3 after a fault was found in
rubber panels in the Forsmark 1 reactor's housing.
On Friday, Forsmark 1 was the only one of Sweden's 10 reactors
that was out of service.
Sweden said earlier this month that it would ask the
International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Forsmark plant,
after a slew of incidents there.
Nuclear power accounts for nearly half of Sweden's electricity
production.
The country has shut two of its 12 nuclear reactors since 1999 as
part of a plan to phase out nuclear power over the next 30 or so
years, or when the reactors' lifespan expires.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
55 Security UN To Step Up Action To Keep Deadliest Weapons Away From Terrorists
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:00:44 -0500
SECURITY COUNCIL TO STEP UP ACTION TO KEEP DEADLIEST WEAPONS AWAY FROM TERRORISTS
New York, Feb 23 2007 7:00PM
The United Nations Security Council will intensify its efforts to
bring together concerned organizations working to keep weapons of
mass destruction from falling into terrorist hands, the president
of the 15-member body said today following a daylong <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/sc8964.doc.htm">debate
on the issue.
“The Security Council affirms its determination to promote increased
multilateral co-operation as an important means of enhancing
States’ implementation of resolution 1540,” Peter Burian of Slovakia
said, referring to the measure adopted in 2004 aimed at preventing
countries from supplying any forms of support to operatives
that “attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport,
transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their
means of delivery.”
In a formal statement read out at the end of the meeting, which saw
the participation of over two dozen speakers, he also called for
States to comply with that resolution and related measures.
The statement lauded the activities of international organizations
with expertise in the field of non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons and their means of delivery, particularly
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
At the same time, the president acknowledged that more must be done
to tackle the problem. “The Security Council is mindful of the
need further to explore with international, regional and sub-regional
organizations experience-sharing and lessons learned in the
areas covered by resolution 1540 (2004), and the availability of
programmes which might facilitate” its implementation, he said.
So far, 135 United Nations Member States and one organization have
submitted their first national reports to the Committee set up
to monitor compliance with resolution 1540, which Slovakia chairs.
Eighty-five States have provided additional information at the
request of the Committee. But according to a letter Ambassador
Burian submitted to the Council in advance of today’s debate, 58
States have yet to submit their first report.
2007-02-23 00:00:00.000
___________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
_______________________________
*****************************************************************
56 Alert: Demand radiation standards that use precautionary principle
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:17:20 -0800
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Alert: Demand radiation standards that use precautionary
principle
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:08:46 -0500
From: Michael Mariotte
To:
*ALERT: Demand radiation standards that follow the precautionary principle*
* *
*Comment and sign-on letter by March 14, 2007*
A radiation exposure-setting body, the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), is poised to release their report,
/Recommendations/, to allow more and higher radiation exposures to
people, animals and the environment. ICRP says it is accepting comments
on their document /Draft ICRP Recommendations/, but they are not issuing
an official comment period. Further, /Recommendations/ is missing its
abstract, editorial and summary. Since these are the portions that many
of the public and press will read, it should go without saying they need
to be included for comment /before/ this document is approved and
finalized.
Go to http://www.icrp.org/draft_progress.asp for further detail.
Click
http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP_Draft_Recommendations_12_January_2007.pdf
for the document /Draft ICRP/ /Recommendations/.
Click http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/listcomments.asp to read past
comments. (choose “Recommendations” and/or “2005 ICRP Recommendations”
on the /optional/ pull-down menu.)
*PLEASE TAKE ACTION:*
1) *IMMEDIATELY:* *Send comments* asking for an official comment period
of 90 days. Tell ICRP the document must include the abstract, editorial
and summary for public comment. Tell ICRP that they must adopt the
precautionary approach in their standards. Many comments have expressed
a serious concern that* ICRP is making recommendations which ignore
scientific data in favor of more exposure*, essentially ensuring that
national radiation regulators will adopt unprotective radiation
standards. ICRP has tried to justify its positions without actually
addressing the concerns expressed repeatedly by the public. We reiterate
the need for ICRP to take a precautionary approach in their standards.
Send comments by email to Scientific Secretary of ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin
(scient.secretary@ircp.org
2) *MARCH 14, 2007:* *Sign the letter* below which details the many
problems with the ICRP recommendations. Send your name, organization and
address to cindyf@nirs.org . View the letter at
www.nirs.org .
For further information contact Cindy Folkers at cindyf@nirs.org
or call 301-270-6477.
ICRP sign on letter
Dr. Lars Eric Holm:
The undersigned organizations and individuals are writing to denounce
the ICRP’s intended adoption of /Draft/ /Recommendations/ for ionizing
radiation exposure and the lack of a formal comment period. We ask that
people’s comments be reviewed by the ICRP members and added to the
record /before/ the final decision meeting of ICRP beginning on March
19, 2007. Additionally, the /Recommendations/ document is incomplete. It
lacks an abstract, an editorial and the summary of the report. Since
these are the portions that many of the public and press will read, it
should go without saying they need to be included for comment /before/
this document is approved and finalized.
NIRS has written ICRP in the past during formal comment periods as have
many other concerned groups and individuals. NIRS has commented on/
Annexes A & B/ which underlie the /Recommendations/ as well as the
recommendations themselves, urging ICRP adopt a precautionary approach
when recommending radiation exposure standards. We and many others have
expressed a serious concern that* ICRP is making recommendations which
ignore scientific data in favor of more exposure*, essentially ensuring
that national radiation regulators will adopt unprotective radiation
standards.
ICRP has tried to justify its positions without actually addressing the
concerns expressed repeatedly by the public. We reiterate the need for
ICRP to take a precautionary approach in their standards. The need for
such action is obvious and has been shared with ICRP in the past./ Late
lessons from Early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000/
written by the European Environment Agency (EEA) states:
… the risk rate for radiation-induced cancer was perceived (by ICRP) as
four to five times higher in 1990 as compared to 1977. This resulted in
changes in dose limits but was a belated response to mounting
incontrovertible evidence, a situation which has been a recurring theme
in the history of radiation protection…
To our dismay and the public’s detriment, ICRP is about to repeat this
history.
For many diseases and many populations, ICRP concludes that we don’t
know enough about low-doses to predict what damage may occur. Where ICRP
thinks science is unclear, they should have precaution inform their
recommendations. Instead, they are choosing to allow greater exposures
and less protection. While ICRP believes that the linear-no-threshold
model (LNT*) is “the best practical approach to managing radiation
exposure” for lower doses, their recommendations do not reflect this.
The recommendations also do not reflect the conclusions of scientific
research and other recommending bodies: there is no safe dose of
radiation for cancer induction.
*_ICRP must prevent exemption and release of radioactivity_*. Remove all
references to exemption from these recommendations. Despite its own
stated uncertainties and a nod to the validity of Linear-No-Threshold
model (LNT)*, ICRP is still willing to allow release of radioactivity,
leading to deregulation of radioactive waste and its use in consumer
products.*_ _*ICRP justifies this by claiming “regulatory action is
unwarranted…” when control measures are excessive compared to risk or
when certain exposures “are unamenable to control with regulatory
instruments”. ICRP leaves interpretation of these definitions to
regulatory bodies, which have historically supported release of
radiation and exposure of the public in order to save industry money.
The implementation of this recommendation would clearly lead to
untraceable and irreversible releases of radioactivity into the
environment, work and living spaces without the knowledge or consent of
those exposed. This secret exposure is unpalatable to members of
democratic societies and leaves members of non-democratic societies
extremely vulnerable to avaricious companies and governments. The
world’s regulatory bodies should not be allowed to wash their hands of
human made radioactive trash at the expense of public, worker and
environmental health.
*_ICRP must protect the most vulnerable_* by rejecting gender and age
averaging. By using an average of damage among these groups, ICRP is
building discrimination against women, children and the elderly into its
recommendations. ICRP feels that there are at present insufficient data
for prenatal health so they choose to ignore this damage altogether (see
stillbirths below). These populations are shown to be more susceptible
to radiation damage in several scientific studies including the recent
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report of the
National Academy of Sciences. All government recommendations which
follow ICRP will also be guilty of this discrimination.
* *
*_ICRP must recognize that future generations must be protected_* from
genetic impacts and heritable diseases resulting from radiation
exposure. ICRP should strive for a goal of zero release until we know
the genetic result of long-term, chronic exposures. Instead, ICRP has
lowered its estimated mutation risk from radiation, using exclusively
mouse studies and some very questionable “expert judgment”. Also, in a
depraved indifference to human life, ICRP discounts all radiation damage
from the second generation onward, stating “…the inclusion of risk up to
two generations in the calculations can be justified on the basis that
people are generally interested in the well-being of their children and
grandchildren” as if people don’t care about their great grandchildren.
This is despite, using ICRP’s own model, a clear increasing curve of
heritable disease up to the second generation with chronic exposure to
low dose radiation (Table 6.3 in Recommendations). What happens after
this? ICRP is silent.
Even more reprehensible, ICRP claims that assessing damage to only the
second generation, ignoring all future generations, is reasonable
because many mutations will not be carried over or “recoverable” to the
second generation. This is because these mutations will be so
detrimental to new life, the organisms affected will not survive. In
essence, ICRP is saying we should consider ourselves protected because*
*radiation-induced stillbirths and childhood death will keep our gene
pool pure. They are asking us to accept a man-made increase in still
birth and childhood death as a reasonable alternative to a man-made
increase in future mutation. This contrived and /unnecessary/ choice is
nothing short of premeditated murder. If regulators weren’t allowing
exposures in the first place we wouldn’t have to worry about adding to
our heritable disease burden.
In the instance of heritable disease, the precautionary principle would
provide more protection by preventing the damage in the first place.
Instead, ICRP negligently ignores the data and predictions they do have
in favor of less protection. As a result, the gene pool could grow
increasingly weak from chemical and radiological insults. At some point,
epidemiological data may have to be reevaluated since population
genetics could weaken enough to be even more susceptible to damage from
all radiation sources.
*_ICRP must account for non-cancer diseases_* found among the A-bomb and
Chernobyl survivors such as heart disease, stroke, digestive disorders,
respiratory disease and nerve injuries. While ICRP recognizes radiation
causes most of these diseases, they argue that there may be a threshold
and therefore, no action is warranted on their part to prevent exposure.
*_ICRP must replace its basic principles for radiation exposure
(justification, optimization, limitation of dose) with the precautionary
approach._* Using these three current principles has allowed ICRP to
condone limits that would permit 1 in 3 people to get cancer from 30
years of radiation exposure in certain cases. ICRP must replace their
“bands” of radiation exposures, which allow higher levels of exposure,
with /prevention/ of exposure.
*_ _*
*_ICRP must do its best to account for synergistic effects _*between
radiation and other chemicals and toxic substances released into the
biosystem. This will be difficult. Presently there are few studies on
synergistic effects of radiation and other toxins such as
organochlorides, heavy metals and even common substances. True to form,
ICRP does not account for any of these potential effects. This issue
would be particularly fertile ground for using precaution. There are
some studies on increased damage from synergistic effects of radiation
and common substances such as caffeine, chlorine and bacteria. Much more
research is needed.
*_ICRP needs to adequately account for risks and damage from internally
incorporated radionuclides_* like strontium-90, tritium or cesium-137
from nuclear reactors and other “civilian” and weapons activities.
Currently ICRP relies on the Atomic Bomb survivor data which was mostly
high-dose external exposure. ICRP should learn from the recent poisoning
of the former Russian intelligence officer, Litvenenko. The amount of
polonium 210 which killed him was deemed nearly harmless by the IAEA
radionuclide danger category charts. IAEA says it is considering
reworking these tables (see FT.com at
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a49f6e2e-8a4e-11db-ae27-0000779e2340,_1_email=y.html
for December 13, 2006). [USNRC adopts the IAEA categories wholly and
would thus underestimate the risks as well.]
*_ICRP must account for “new” science in cell biology_*. Unexpected
biological effects such as bystander effect and genomic instability are
not accounted for in the recommendations. ICRP claims that any cell
effects are already accounted for in epidemiological studies used for
protection standards. But since ICRP and other recommending bodies
routinely and selectively ignore evidence in many epidemiological
studies that show current standards aren’t protective enough, the cell
biology impacts continue to be ignored in the ICRP risk estimates
recommended.
*_ICRP needs to be consistent in its use of and recommendations for
collective dose_*. When used correctly, the tool of collective dose can
help assess radiation damage to populations. When used incorrectly, as
it has often been by regulators, it can be used to hide the individual
consequences of radiation exposures. Collective dose is defined as “the
sum of the individual doses received in a given period of time by a
specified population from exposure to a specified source of radiation”
(10 CFR 20.1003, USNRC Regulations). The problem is that industry and
government often make their own assumptions about who is exposed, how
many are exposed, for how long and to what kind of radiation. For
instance, during the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in the United
States, evacuation was recommended only for pregnant women and children
within 5 miles of the reactor, but NRC spread the radiation doses among
the population within a 50 mile radius to calculate their health damage
assessment. In this case, collective dose was misused to dilute or
smooth over higher individual doses by distributing their doses among
others who actually received less. The result was a false claim by NRC
and industry that few people would be harmed. Because the parameters for
collective dose are so malleable, they can be used by industry to derive
preconceived conclusions and justify almost anything.
On the other hand, collective dose is a useful tool for a best estimate
of the true cost of radiation practice by allowing medical researchers
to predict how many cancers are produced from medical CT scans and other
radiological procedures. ICRP argues that collective dose is good for
comparing radiological technologies and protection procedures but NOT
for risk projections related to epidemiological studies because these
studies often investigate the health effects of /_lower_/ doses. ICRP
argues that we don’t know what is happening at these lower doses among
large populations, yet ICRP recognizes the merit of the LNT model (see
above) when it suites them. The LNT model allows exactly this kind of
prediction at low doses. In fact, collective dose is based on LNT.
Predicting damage to large populations from lower doses of radiation
using collective dose and LNT is in keeping with the precautionary
principle since ICRP’s alternative is lesser or no protection.
*_ICRP is recognizing that organisms other than humans are also at
risk_* and we commend them for this in principle. However, ICRP is not
being protective enough and has ignored public entreaties to place
technically qualified public members on this panel to ensure balance. On
the one hand, ICRP feels that radiation protections for the general
public will ensure that the *_biota_* is fully protected in most cases.
However, ICRP admits that a “clearer framework is required in order to
assess…” the consequences of exposure and dose to non-human species. To
address this, ICRP suggests using a small set of reference animals and
reference plants as they have used reference or “standard” man for
humans. The public demands ICRP adopt a precautionary approach that is
geared to prevent exposures and contamination. ICRP should protect the
most vulnerable species, organisms and life stages. The use of standard
man for roughly a half century has historically left more than 50% of
the human population at risk; and this is within /only/ /one/
species—humans. Trying to undertake /cross/ species protections using
this blunt instrument even with a few reference species, will leave most
biota unprotected.
*_ICRP must adopt the precautionary principle into its
recommendations._* Understanding and predicting damage from radiation is
a tangle, but using the precautionary principle will allow for
protection in the scenarios and at the doses where ICRP claims a lack of
scientific clarity. It is negligent for ICRP simply to refuse to address
these “black hole” areas when instituting precaution could account for
this damage and save lives. But ICRP is also unwilling to protect in
areas where science is clearer. Ignoring the impact of radiation on
stillbirths, women, children, and future generations shows a fundamental
lack of understanding about what people value. This disconnect from
humanity makes ICRP, at best, inept at radiation protection. ICRP must
shed its obvious callous indifference to life and health in order to
protect against radiation exposure. We urge the ICRP to officially adopt
the precautionary principle in all its recommendations by instituting
our above suggestions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can support Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) every
time you search on the internet. Just use http://www.goodsearch.com
. When it asks you “who do you goodsearch
for” type in “nuclear” and you’ll see our name pop up. Then, every time
you use goodsearch, you’ll be donating to NIRS! It’s a painless way to
support our work to end nuclear power and build a safe, clean,
sustainable energy future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you
signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition,
or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or
traded with anyone for any reason.
For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to
nirsnet@nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be
on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet@nirs.org
*****************************************************************
57 Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:15:59 -0600 (CST)
February 20, 2007 Global Research, www.globalresearch.ca
Truthout - 2007-02-19
Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing
by Dr. Craig Etchison
I live a few miles from an ATK (Alliant Tech) plant that produces
depleted uranium (DU) tank shells for the military. Tank shells
destroy and kill, and they, along with all military hardware, are
a constant reminder of our failure as a civilization. But DU
weapons and tank shells are only two of many items that raise
questions that even our violence prone society needs to address.
Since shortly after Gulf War I, soldiers and civilians have been
questioning the safety of these weapons which are made of
radioactive material. The more questions raised, the more the
military-industrial complex has hauled out studies showing the
safety of DU munitions. One CEO called DU the "skim milk" of
uranium in an article penned for my local paper. An Air Force
officer is even stalking the internet, trying to intimidate
anyone who suggests DU is anything but benign.
Yet the numbers suggested that something insidious happens when
DU munitions are used. How to explain the exploding rates of
cancer, birth defects, and radiation poisoning among Iraqis in
the Basra region? How to explain a Department of Veterans Affairs
study of 21,000 veterans of the Gulf War that found rates of
birth defects were twice as great for male vets and three times
as great for female vets who served in the Gulf War compared to
vets who did not? How to explain a Washington Post report in
January of 2006 that 518,00 of the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were
on disability, over half on permanent disability. How to explain
over 13,000 dead Gulf War veterans when only 250 were killed and
7,000 injured in the war itself?
Finally, through the work of internationally recognized research
scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, we may have an answer to these
questions. The answer has to do with using an analytical
methodology appropriate to low level radiation, as opposed to
inappropriate methodologies used to date that show DU is
harmless, and, equally important, understanding that DU has both
a radiological component as well as a heavy metal component, and
the two in combination are far more toxic than either is singly.
What is DU and Why Is It a Problem?
Depleted Uranium (DU) is the waste left after the isotope
uranium-235 (used for bombs and nuclear reactors) has been
removed. DU (mostly U-238) makes up the largest amount of
radioactive waste other than uranium mining waste worldwide and
has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. In the United States, DU
can only be handled by persons trained in radiation safety
procedures. DU must also be isolated from the environment.
Much of the scientific evaluation of uranium oxide has come from
analysis of uranium mining and milling, but this ignores a major
fact-that battlefield uranium oxide is very different from
uranium oxide produced at normal temperatures. When a DU shell
hits a hardened target, it bursts into flame and creates an
invisible metal fume, often called an aerosol. (Tests carried out
eight to ten years after Gulf War I found that the DU aerosol
from the battlefield had been carried to Basra and Baghdad,
though no fighting occurred in those areas.)
Aerosolizing DU involves temperatures between 3,000 and 6,000
degrees centigrade, which turn the oxide into a nano-sized
ceramic particle that is insoluble in body fluids. If these nano
particles are inhaled, they provide contact radiation and a
source of heavy metal poisoning. These high temperatures will
also aerosolize other heavy metals in the area such as steel,
nickel, aluminum, and iron, which can be inhaled. Nano-sized
uranium oxide [along with other metals] is roughly the size of a
virus [scientifically: nanometer-sized], invisible, able to
penetrate the lung-blood barrier and can be carried throughout
the body. Nano particles can reach sensitive targets, including
the lymph nodes, spleen, heart, and access to the central nervous
system.
Uranium-238 is an alpha particle emitter. The range of these
alpha particles is only about six cells; therefore, it is highly
localized. Because DU has less radioactivity than natural
uranium, many consider DU to be low-level radiation and not
harmful to people. But research does not bear this view out.
Assessing the Effects of DU
A major problem with most DU assessment is that many effects of
alpha radiation on cell structure, including DNA proteins that
release biochemical signals and important cell metabolic enzymes,
are ignored by nuclear physicists who use dose estimates based on
uranium dust in mines, a completely inappropriate approach for a
battlefield aerosol. Many medical professionals believe the
protein problem is responsible for various neurodegenerative
diseases evidenced by Gulf War veterans.
As Dr. Bertell writes, "Heavy metal exposure (including uranium)
can cause loss of cellular immunity, autoimmune diseases, joint
disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and diseases of the
kidneys, circulatory system, and nervous system.... Decline in
functional mitochondria is most damaging to the heart, kidney,
brain, liver, and skeletal muscle, in that order." Loss of
cellular immunity opens an organism up to viral, bacterial, and
mycoplasmal invasions connected to a variety of diseases.
Equally important, scientists have found that tiny amounts of DU
too small to be toxic and only mildly radioactive seem to
reinforce each other in terms of causing cancers and risk to
offspring. The Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute
has even admitted that DU can cause cancer.
Humans are normally exposed to about 1.9 micrograms of uranium a
day in food and water, with between one and two percent absorbed.
The rest is passed in feces. Humans screen natural uranium quite
effectively. But our screening system won't eliminate nano
particles that are ceramic and enter through the lungs. These
particles won't dissolve and won't lose their radioactivity.
International Condemnation
The special investigator of the UN Sub-Committee on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights has declared DU munitions illegal
under existing humanitarian law. DU weapons also produce a toxic
metal fume that violates the Geneva Protocol on the Use of Gas in
War, which the US signed in 1975.
Why Ignore the Evidence?
We have enough evidence to suggest with considerable certainty
that DU munitions break the four basic laws and customs that
govern modern weapons use: that the weapon is confined to the
battlefield, that it does not kill after a battle is over, that
it doesn't cause inhumane suffering, and that it doesn't have a
negative effect on the natural environment. We certainly have
enough evidence to stop using these weapons until further
research by independent scientists has been done. And yet we
continue to produce, sell, and use DU munitions. How can this be
justified?
Perhaps looking at the paradigm of Agent Orange gives insight.
Our government ignored veterans affected by Agent Orange for
thirty years before admitting Agent Orange was, in fact, the
cause of many physical problems endured by Vietnam veterans. By
then, the most seriously affected veterans were dead. The
government incurred a far smaller financial liability than if the
government had owned up to the problems earlier.
If the government ever admitted what it has done in Iraq-between
1,000 and 2,000 tons of DU ordnance expended according to most
estimates-the financial consequences, not to mention the moral
outrage engendered, is almost beyond imagination. Cleaning up the
DU blanketing Iraq would entail enormous costs. And in a few
years, soldiers who have served in the current debacle-many with
two or three tours-are going to start coming down with the same
diseases that have struck Gulf War I veterans. Some who got good
doses of DU have already seen their lives ruined by multiple
physical problems.
We must also consider the real possibility of Iraq as an
uninhabitable wasteland, with the residue of the DU aerosol
blowing in the wind and flowing in the waters to adjacent lands,
a residue with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Is this outlook
too bleak?
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the Oncology Center at the largest
hospital in Basra said the following in 2003. "Two strange
phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen
before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient....
We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by
cancer.... My wife has nine members of her family with cancer."
He went on to point out that these were families with no history
of cancer. After Gulf War I, the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy
Authority estimated that DU contamination could kill half a
million Iraqis.
Conclusions
I suspect the military-industrial complex will stonewall
admitting the effects of DU for as long as possible to avoid
accepting responsibility, not to mention liability, for their
reckless actions. When John Hanchette, a founding editor of USA
Today tried to publish stories about DU, he received a phone call
from the Pentagon asking him to desist. He was later replaced at
USA Today. The World Health Organization's chief expert on
radiation and health had his report on DU suppressed. Dr. Asaf
Durakovic, then a colonel in the U.S. Army, was asked to lie
about the risks of DU to humans. So the stonewalling will
continue, even as cancers rage among our soldiers and Iraqi
civilians, even as our soldiers die, or commit suicide to escape
the horrific pain, even as birth defects proliferate across Iraq
and among our veterans.
But what of that? DU is a moneymaker for corporations like ATK.
And turning DU into munitions helps the government solve a big
problem-what to do with mountains of DU it must store and, by
law, keep out of the environment. What better solution than
giving it free to the munitions makers, who then sell the
munitions back to Uncle Sam at a handsome profit? Everyone wins.
Unless we continue to fight for the truth, and to cry out for
justice, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians will suffer and die in
increasing numbers. Estimates of how many may die in Iraq are
truly staggering - up to 11% of Iraq's 27 million population.
This is a massive crime against humanity that remains in the
shadows.
--
Much of this article is based on the work of Dr. Rosalie Bertell.
See her article, "Depleted Uranium: All the Questions About DU
and Gulf War Syndrome Are Not Yet Answered," in the International
Journal of Health Services, Volume 36, Number 3, pages 503-520,
2006. E-mail requests for a summary of Dr. Bertell's article can
be sent to cetchison@allegany.edu.
Or get the PDF here:
http://www.motherearth.org/du/bertell.pdf --
Dr. Craig Etchison, Ph.D, is from the Center for Nonviolent
Alternatives, Fort Ashby, West Virginia.
======
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ETC20070220&
articleId=4867
*****************************************************************
58 Dr. Rosalie Bertell - ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT DU AND GULF WAR SYNDROME ARE NOT YET ANSWERED
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:15:54 -0600 (CST)
International Journal of Health Services,
Volume 36,
Number 3,
Pages 503b520, 2006
C2006, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
---
Occupational Hazards of War
DEPLETED URANIUM:
ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT DU AND GULF WAR SYNDROME ARE NOT YET ANSWERED
By
Dr. Rosalie Bertell
For 15 years, the debate about depleted uranium (DU) and its
detrimental effects on the health of veterans of the Gulf War of
1991, on the Iraqi people and military (and subsequently on the
people of Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq during the second war)
has remained unresolved. Meanwhile, the number of Gulf War
veterans who have developed the so-called Gulf War syndrome has
risen to about one-third of the 800,000 U.S. forces deployed, and
unknown proportions of those involved in the subsequent wars.
Uncounte d civilians and personnel of other nations that fought
in Iraq and other wars since 1991 have also been afflicted. The
veterans have suffered from multiple serious physiological
disorders and have received little or no official recognition,
medical relief, or compensation. We need to take another look at
this issue, using a holistic and interactive model for the toxic
matrix of exposures, identifying the major roadblocks to
resolving the scientific questions, and finding a! ppropriate
medical and political responses. This commentary is such an
attempt.
THE PROBLEM
One of the novel exposures of the Gulf War of 1991 was the
depleted uranium (DU) missiles, rockets, and armament. Uranium is
a radioactive heavy metal, one that has no positive biological
use. Exposure to DU during the Gulf War occurred along with
exposure to other heavy metals well known to cause havoc with the
cellular immune system. bDepleted uraniumb is an industry term
for uranium waste from the enrichment of uranium ore, which
concentrates the isotope uranium-235 for use in nuclear bombs or
nuclear po wer reactors. It makes up the largest amount of
radioactive waste globally, related to the nuclear industry
(excluding mining waste). In the United States, DU must be
handled by persons trained in radiation safety and must be
isolated from the biosphere according to strict regulations
Uranium-238 (U-238) is an alpha emitter with rare spontaneous
fission. The alpha half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion (4.5 x109)
years. It decays to thorium-234 (Th-234), which has a half-life
of 24.1 days and is a beta and gamma emitter. Thorium-234 decays
to protactinium-234m (Pa-234m), an isomer of Pa-234, which has a
half-life of 1.17 minutes and is a beta emitter.
Protactinium-234m decays to Pa-234, which has a half-life of 6.7
hours and is an beta emitter. Effectively, in four to six months
after it is d iscarded from the enrichment facility, freshly
produced DU, composed mostly of U-238, through these continuous
radioactive transformations becomes a mixture of U-238, Th-234,
Pa-234m, Pa-234, and U-234 in equilibrium proportions. The first
two decay products, Th and Pa, along with U-238 account for most
of the alpha, beta, and small amount of gamma radioactivity of
the mixture (1, p. 11).
With air friction or impact on a hardened target, uranium bursts
into flame. The temperature of this spontaneous metal fume
produced by DU is between 3000B0C and 6000B0C. This is in
contrast to an Iraqi ambient temperature of 22B0C to 45B0C or the
575B0C fire produced by TNT in other wars. At this high
temperature the uranium oxide becomes ceramic-like, and insoluble
in body fluids (2). For this reason, once inhaled, it provides a
chronic source of uranium heavy metal and contact radiation
poisoning within the body. Other heavy metals, in addition to DU,
especially mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium, were used
extensively in the Gulf War. They were contained in pesticides
and herbicides; in vaccines, including anthrax and botulinum
toxin; in nerve agents: sarin, cyclosarin, tabun, soman, VX,
multiple seven, and novachuks (novichoks); and in chemicals
released from the Kamasiyah toxic chemical depot, which was
destroyed by bombing. Many veterans were also subjected to
petrol! eum products and the horrendous oil well fires (3). Most
had very little training for handling these hazardous materials,
and no protective clothing or respirators.
One focus of the dispute about Gulf War syndrome (GWS) has been
whether or not the use in battle of DU weaponry could be one of
the principal causes of the disabling syndrome. The first
roadblock to clarifying this scientific hypothesis results from
focusing on only one item at a time to which veterans were
exposed in battle and attempting to bproveb that it was or was
not one of the main causes of their serious illness. One could
attempt to do this for each pesticide, vaccine, toxic chemical,
and heavy met al separately, pretending to bproveb for each that
it was not the cause. Such reductionist discourse confuses the
true issues and delays research into treatment and legal
recognition of harm caused. It leads one to the absurd conclusion
that the veterans are not really sickbthat the problems are all
in their imagination.
Influential papers by physicists and several semi-official
governmental organizations have attempted to eliminate DU from
consideration by just such analyses (4b8). These studies are not
really independent, since each follows the guidelines,
methodology, and risk estimates recommended by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (9).
Since the U.S. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteransb
Illnesses has ruled out psychiatric illness as a cause of GWS
(3), it is important to look again. at all the circumstances
associated with the use of DU, including uraniumbs heavy metal as
well as radiological properties, and their combined effects on
the immune, neurological, hormonal, and reproductive systems of
exposed veterans and civilians. A damaged immune system leaves
one vulnerable to all sorts of viral, bacterial, electromagnetic,
ra diological, and toxic metal exposures. The hormonal system
regulates homeostasis, the nocturnal resting cycle (for repair),
and kidney clearance rates of heavy metals. When evaluating DU
use in war, we must do so within this total toxic matrix.
ANALYZING THE RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD
Uranium-238 is radioactive, an alpha emitter with rare
spontaneous fission. As noted above, freshly produced DU,
composed mostly of U-238, becomes a mixture of U-238, Th-234,
Pa-234m, Pa-234 and U-234 in equilibrium proportions within about
six months. The first two decay products, Th and Pa, along with
U-238 account for most of the alpha, beta, and small amount of
gamma radioactivity of the mixture. One microgram (1 x10-6 gram)
of pure U-238 undergoes 12.4 atomic transformations
(submicroscopic explosions ) every second, each giving off one
alpha particle with energy between 4.15 and 4.2 MeV (million
electron volts) in random directions. It only requires 6 to 10 eV
(electron volts) to break the nuclear DNA strand in a cell. In
one day, 1 microgram of pure U-238 would release 1,071,000 alpha
particles, each with more than 4 MeV of energy, into the organ or
tissue where it was lodged. The spherical range of these alpha
particles is about six cells. The radioactivity emitted b! y the
mixture of uranium and its decay products is even greater.
The spontaneous fission half-life for U-238 is estimated to be
8.5 x1017 years, which, although much longer than its alpha decay
half-life, results in approximately two atoms of U-238 in every
milligram of uranium decaying by this process each year. When it
decays by spontaneous fission, U-238 releases approximately 40
times more energy than in nuclear decay (1, p. 6).
The widely accepted scientific causality methodology for
analyzing radiation dose-response includes a mathematical model
predicting damage to the cellular DNA resulting from a
homogeneous spread of ionizing radiation over the critical
organ(s), weighting the organ dose to approximate whole-body
exposure, and using a risk formula to estimate the expected
number of fatal cancers due to that dose. If the calculation
yields only a small expected number of cancer deaths, the
radiological hazard is declared to be trivial. This ICRP
methodology assumes that the affected persons care only about
cancer death, that they have normal physiological health and
intact cellular repair systems, and that no other
life-threatening exposures confound the radiation experience. The
methodology assumes that radiation effects are independent of the
effects of the toxic matrix and can be separately ruled out using
a radiation-exposure-specific mathematical formula recommended by
physicists on the ma! in committee of the ICRP.
Whether an assumption of homogeneous spread of the energy over
the organ in question is reasonable under the circumstances,
whether the estimates of the amount of radiation inhaled are
accurate in the confusion of the battlefield, whether the
cellular repair system is working, whether the clearance rate for
heavy metals by the kidneys is normal, or even whether cancer is
meaningful as the biological endpoint of concern for veteransball
makes no difference. These details seem to be irrelevant when
applying t his bobjectiveb methodology. In this report I will
show that this trusted methodology is especially inappropriate
and misleading in the case of Gulf War syndrome. The mathematical
equation contains no terms for dealing with cellular repair
dysfunction, damage to mitochondrial DNA, and synergistic effects
with a variety of toxic metals, halogens, and complex
nano-debris. Inhalation of airborne nano-debris is especially
difficult to measure, since this debris can theoretical! ly
remain in the air forever by Brownian motion, or can suffer
multiple resuspension events if it does fall to the ground. In
war, the build-up of this airborne debris is cumulative.
ORIGIN AND LIMITATIONS OF THE PHYSICS METHODOLOGY
In 1945, the physicist Erwin SchrC6dinger published what became
one of the most influential monographs of the incipient atomic
age. In What Is Life (10) SchrC6dinger gave the central and
primary informational role in life to the nuclear DNA. He found
it to be the basis of all organic existence, and he explained it
well in terms of fundamental physical and quantum principles.
This was a brilliant thesis, and it was followed in 1953 by
Watson and Crickbs discovery of the method of DNA replication.
DNA was spe ctacular news in the scientific world at this time.
However, nuclear DNA, while central to protein production and
human reproduction, failed to describe the many seemingly
unrelated life-support mechanisms, including the tasks of
mitochondrial DNA, which also go into making the cell functional.
The developing science of radiobiology accepted the thesis that
nuclear DNA was the essential molecule of radiosensitivity, and
this focus continues to strongly influence decisions about the
potential hazard of exposures to ionizing radiation, even in
2006, as nations are called upon to deal with the complex Gulf
War syndrome. We now know that cellular organelles, cell
membranes, and biochemical reactions within the cell are crucial
when assessing the simultaneous damage caused by internal
radiation, heavy metal contamination, and nano-particles. The
radiation dose-response methodology, developed from studies of
high-level radiation, seems to work by masking the low-dose
effects. It is not appropriate for understanding low-dose DU
exposures, because radiation, heavy metals, and other toxic
chemicals can destroy the functionality of the cellular
respiratory system (the mitochondria), disrupt the chemistry of
enzymes and hormones, frustrate normal cellular detoxification
and r! epair, and leave the person alive but chronically ill.
Also at low doses, many other toxic agents become potentially
synergistic or significant confounding variables for any
radiation toxic effect. As I will show, a system approach is more
fruitful, and for the individual, the two most important systems
to examine are the cellular immune system and hormonal system.
Critical for civilization and survival is human reproductive
health.
The ionizing radiation exposure in the first Gulf War included,
in addition to DU, exposure to nuclear debris caused by the
bombing of the Iraqi experimental nuclear reactors and spent fuel
pools, and radiation from the Doha explosions and six-day fire
that consumed DU ordnance stored at the U.S. military depot near
the border with Kuwait. No one single radiation dose would
comprise all these many levels of radiation exposure experienced
by military and civilian personnel. These various exposures would
be c umulative.
TOXIC CHEMICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO CELLS
Depleted uranium powder is pyrophoric, and spontaneously creates
an invisible metal fume (often called an aerosol) when exposed to
air friction or impact on a hardened target. The nano-particles
created in the metal fume, when inhaled, can cross the lung-blood
barrier, penetrate cells, and provide the maximum dose to tissue
(contact dose from a maximized surface area-to-volume particle,
with little self-shielding), creating free radicals and oxidative
stress within cells. Some scientists believe that the ox idative
stress caused by uraniumbs heavy metal properties is even more
damaging than its radiological properties. Total oxidative stress
causes failure of protective enzymes, leaving cells vulnerable to
viruses and mycoplasmas. Damage to the cellular communication
system and the mitochondria; heavy metal replacement of magnesium
in molecules that normally function as antioxidants; and
destruction of the bodybs repair mechanisms, have serious
consequen ces including chronic ! disease and tumorogenesis. Some
cellular mechanisms are of special interest here. For example,
after a protein, sequenced by the DNA, is properly synthesized by
the RNA, it has to undergo a process of folding. This gives it
the proper three-dimensional shape to carry out its functions and
chemical reactions. Biochemists now believe that proteins do not
fold spontaneously into their final, active conformation (11).
Proteins destined to be embedded in the cell membrane or to be
secreted from the cell are synthesized in the endoplasmic
reticulum, where templates, enzymes, and sugars promote some
protein conformations and inhibit others. This is delicate work
with sequential rounds of intricate modifications, overseen by
the cellbs quality-control system. Free radicals can totally
disrupt this process, forming unusual molecules; and in the
presence of heavy metals, the process may use trace amounts of
toxic metals to rep lace the normally used zinc and manganese.
Improperly folded proteins can fail to be routed to the cell
membrane or to a gland where, as hormones, they are needed to
release biochemical signal molecules.
Some diseases caused by misrouted proteins include cystic
fibrosis, diabetes insipidus, and cancer (12). Widespread
misfolding of proteins can lead to cellular stress, clogging of
the system, and an accumulation of imperfect proteins. Many
scientists now believe that accumulation and aggregation of
misfolded proteins is responsible for neurodegenerative diseases,
as well as early-onset Alzheimerbs disease, Parkinsonbs disease,
and diabetes mellitus. In these diseases, proteins or protein
fragments convert f rom normal, soluble conformations to
insoluble, sticky fibers called amyloids.
Amyloids coalesce into fibrillar aggregates that have a
characteristic structure. The insoluble clumps can form either
inside or outside cells. Misfolded proteins are a central
pathogenic mechanism, and Gulf War veterans have manifested many
of the symptoms of these neurodegenerative diseases.
THE PROBLEM OF AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; commonly known as Lou
Gehrigbs disease) is being diagnosed at about twice the expected
rate in young Gulf War veterans relative to veterans who did not
serve in the first Gulf War (confirmed in September 2004 by the
U.S. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteransb
Illnesses). Normally, ALS is diagnosed after the age of 55 years,
but most of these Gulf War veteran patients are younger. In
two-thirds of the 40 cases, the patients are between 20 and 54
years old. ALS i s officially listed as bof unknown cause.
However, it seems clearly related to the failure of
anti-inflammatory and antioxidant enzymes, together with
mitochondrial dysfunction. ALS was thought to be caused by the
death of motor neurons. Recent data suggest, however, that
neurons do not so much die as they are killed by surrounding
cells called glia. The glia usually support and nourish neurons,
but they can become dysfunctional and toxic in certain diseases.
This process ! is called bneuro-inflammation.
Cytokines are small proteins that communicate between neurons
and glia cell types (13). The cytokine signaling is, in turn,
regulated by major lipid metabolic pathways. Recent data suggest
that neuro-inflammation in a mouse model of ALS is caused by
dysregulated cytokine signaling. Michael Vickers (14) has
documented that even microgray doses of ionizing radiation cause
inflammation of the blood vessels and can initiate the
arachidonic cascade, with its well-known sequel of damaging
effects on the body. Ar achidonic acid is the lipid produced when
fatty acids in various states of oxidation mediate inflammatory
reactions in the blood and other cells. This certainly merits
further study, since ALS is a very serious and unexpected outcome
for these Gulf War veterans.
An unusually high incidence of ALS and Parkinsonbs disease in
indigenous populations in Guam and Papua New Guinea suggests a
possible correlation between the diseases and local environmental
conditions, including high levels of aluminum and low levels of
calcium and magnesium in soil and food. As in Alzheimerbs, humans
with these disorders tend to have high levels of aluminum in some
areas of the brain, although it has not been demonstrated that
the presence of aluminum in the brain initiates the onset of t he
diseases. It has been suggested that other possible contributing
factors need to be examined more closely, including the diet of
the Guam populationbin particular, the seeds of the false sago
palm, which contain a toxic amino acid that causes a condition
similar to ALS in monkeysbas well as the possibility that the
dementia is caused by genetic rather than environmental factors
(15). Both potential factorsbthe false sago palm and genetic fact
orsbseem to be absent in the! Gulf War cases, but exposure to
aluminum and depletion of calcium and magnesium were present.
Guam and Papua New Guinea likely received some fallout from U.S.
and U.K. nuclear bomb tests in the Australian and Pacific areas,
which may have introduced unexamined internal radiation exposure
factors that would clarify this mystery.
IMMUNE AND HORMONAL SYSTEMS DAMAGED IN THE GULF WAR
The DNA of mitochondria is 16 times more sensitive to radiation
than is nuclear DNA. This is because mitochondrial DNA has no
protective histone proteins, like those within the cell nucleus
(16). It is well known and well accepted in the scientific
community that ionizing radiation produces free radicals
(molecules with one or more unpaired electrons) in living cells,
which are composed mostly of water. It does this because of its
ionizing energy deposit, which knocks an electron out of orbit,
creating a po sitively charged atom or molecule with at least one
unpaired electron (a positive ion) and a free electron (a
negative ion). Because another molecule can easily pick up the
free electron, causing a chemical reaction, free radicals can
effect dramatic and destructive changes in the cell and in the
intercellular fluid. Karl Z. Morgan, the renowned health
physicist, described this effect as ba mad man in a library.
All cells contain an endogenous antioxidant in the water-soluble
part of the cellular fluid, which normally deals with free
radicals. This antioxidant, called glutathione (GSH), repairs
most cellular structures that are damaged and oxidized by free
radicals. It can also detoxify many electrophilic mutagenic
threats to the cell. This antioxidant function of GSH is normally
credited as having cancer-protective properties, since it
neutralizes free radicals. Cellular repair mechanisms depend
heavily on the pre sence of GSH in cells.
Another function of GSH is to rid cells of toxic heavy metals.
Heavy metals bind with the GSH and are carried out of the cell
and to the gallbladder, for excretion in bile. This process is a
mechanism for depleting the GSH, as well as for ridding the cells
of heavy metals. Hence heavy metals, such as DU, deplete GSH at
the time when it is most needed for its protective cell-repair
and antioxidant work. Individuals may have more or less GSH by
nature or through exposure history. Yet this is one of the main b
iochemicals needed for the repair mechanisms on which the physics
methodology for calculating radiation dose-response depends for
its applicability.
Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is another chemical, an enzyme
produced both by the liver and in the mitochondria of all cells,
which acts as an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant. The body
needs zinc, copper, and manganese to produce sufficient
functional SOD. Toxic metals can replace the manganese, making
the SOD dysfunctional, or the cell can merely run out of SOD
because of overdemand for antioxidants in the mitochondria. This
overdemand can also deplete the manganese needed for protective
enzymes in the cell , leaving it open to viral or bacterial
invasion. SOD also varies in abundance and can be damaged by a
variety of chemicals. Mercury and arsenic are found in pesticides
and fungicides, and in vaccines. Nickel is a component of steel,
which can be vaporized in a DU metal fume. Nickel can deplete the
bodybs zinc stores, compromising the SOD cellular immune system.
These other metals also play parts in the breakdown of cellular
functions. Thus heavy metal exposure causes oxid! ative stress
that weakens the cellular repair mechanism, which would normally
provide some protection against low-dose radiation exposure from
DU.
Disturbance of Thyroid Function
Trace amounts of inhaled or ingested aluminum from inoculations,
aluminum food wrappings, cooking utensils, salt, baking powder,
beer, soft drink cans, or other sources could combine with
fluorides from hydrogen fluoride released from oil well fires,
fluoridated drinking water, soft drinks, toothpaste, or foods
(made with fluoridated U.S. water) to form a pseudo-hormone that
mimics the thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)beven confusing
medical tests for thyroid dysfunction. Hormonal damage to the
thyroid and pituitary glands, which regulate metabolism, has
severe repercussions for every organ system in the body,
including the brain. Aluminum fluoride compounds act like TSH,
which regulates the thyroid hormones T-3 and T-4. When persons
are subject to trace aluminum and fluoride, they exhibit the same
symptoms as in hyperthyroidism. This pseudo-TSH bypasses the
pituitary control of cell metabolism, drives up mitochondrial
activity, and depletes the selenium-GSH in all cells (17! ).
Aluminum fluoride compounds provide another mechanism that
interferes with cellular repair of radiation damage due to DU.
The aluminum fluoride compounds do not clear from the body as
does TSH. The highly electronegative effects of the fluorides
cause long-term (almost permanent) bonding to the TSH receptor
sites of cells. This process greatly disturbs the normal pulse
and amplitude processes of pituitary control by TSH and damages
the cellular nocturnal repair processes, overworking the GSH in
cells. Authe ntic TSH provides for the normal sleep cycle, which
helps the body recover from toxic shock. Sleep deprivation can
lead to many functional problems.
Aluminum fluoride complexes have been widely used in laboratory
investigations for stimulation of various guanine
nucleotidebbinding proteins (called G-proteins). These complexes
can simulate phosphate groups in many biochemical reactions. It
is evident that an aluminum fluoride complex gives false
information, which is then amplified by cellular processes of
signal transmission, influencing the G-proteins that carry
signals from numerous receptors to the cell interior (18).
Serious aluminum fluoride proble ms have been reported at the St.
Regis Akwesasne Indian Reserve on Cornwall Island, New York
State, downwind from the Reynolds Metal Company aluminum smelter.
At Oak Ridge, the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons
facility, illnesses similar to GWS are increasingly encountered.
These illnesses have not been diagnosed and many go untreated.
Aluminum and hydrofluoric acid, as well as DU waste, are part of
the pollution of this and other Department of Energy facilities.
Victims of the environmental disasters at the weapons facilities
report muscular and skeletal problems, nervous system disorders,
anemia, rashes, irritability, high blood pressure, and thyroid p
roblems (19, 20).
Heavy metal exposure (including uranium) can cause loss of
cellular immunity, autoimmune diseases, joint diseases such as
rheumatoid arthritis, and diseases of the kidneys, circulatory
system, and nervous system. Heavy metals supplant the normal
calcium and other minerals in enzymes, and cause these molecules
to lose their important functions in the body. Peroxynitrite, a
toxic product of the free radicals nitric oxide and superoxide,
can also degrade the functions of respiratory enzymes (21) and
inactivate the manganese-SOD enzyme (22). Decline in functional
mitochondria is most damaging to those organs that have the
highest energy demands per gram of tissuebnamely, the heart,
kidney, brain, liver, and skeletal muscle, in that order (16,
23). These organs become poorly protected against irradiation
from circulating uranium particles, as well as various other
pathogens.
Mycoplasmal Invasion Related to Depleted Uranium Exposure
Failure of cellular immunity leaves an organism vulnerable to
viral, bacterial, and mycoplasmal invasion. Mycoplasmas are small
bacterial organisms. Lacking cell walls, they are capable of
invading several types of human cells and are associated with a
wide variety of human diseases.
Several separate laboratories in the United States (e.g., Dr. See
at the University of California, Irvine, and Dr. Lesko of Del
Mar, California) have identified mycoplasmal organisms in
patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and Gulf War syndrome. The
percentage of positive findings for mycoplasma ranged from 60 to
80 percent of patients examined. Research by Drs. Garth and Nancy
Nicolson of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
resulted in the discovery of Mycoplasma incognitus as one cause o
f the symptoms of GWS. Their daughter had returned from the Gulf
with the syndrome. Normal laboratory blood tests do not detect M.
incognitus. The only way to detect this mycoplasma is to use a
sensitive genetic marker analysis. Even with this method it is
difficult to detect, because unlike conventional bacteria, the
mycoplasma is found mainly inside cells and not in body fluids
(24). Mycoplasma incognitus causes chronic fatigue, recurring f
ever, night sweats, joint pain,! stomach upsets, stomach cramps,
headaches, skin rashes, heart pain, kidney pain, thyroid
problems, and, in extreme cases, autoimmune-like disorders.
Certainly there was nothing normal about the metabolic responses
of Gulf War veterans to the radiation injuries from DU. While it
is credible that uranium was not responsible for all the sickness
experienced by the veterans, it clearly was not as minimal a
component as would be indicated by the mathematical approach used
in physics. The mathematical approach cannot predict what DU
exposure would cause in this situation, since the chemical and
biological reactions are interdependent and find no accommodation
in the mathematical formula.
DEPLETED URANIUM IN BATTLE VERSUS URANIUM OXIDE IN MINES OR MILLS
Uranium oxide, as found in uranium mining and milling, has
provided much of the information used for the official
understanding and evaluation of exposures to DU in the first Gulf
War (5). DU exposure in war differs, however, in that uranium
oxide in the mining and milling situation is dustbvisible
particles of, on average, 5 microns aerodynamic diameter. Some of
the inhaled uranium in war will be similar to this mine dust, but
the aerosolized uranium oxide from a metal fume, produced through
air friction o r impact on a hardened target, is invisible, with
an aerodynamic diameter between 1 nanometer and 2.5 microns. Size
is an important factor for inhalation. Particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns can penetrate into the
deep lung alveoli. When the aerodynamic diameters are in the
nanometer range, particles easily penetrate the lung-blood
barrier and are carried throughout the body. The aerosolized
molecule may well be a crystal with a different number of! oxygen
atoms than the uranium oxide in mines.
Another difference between the two situations is that mine
uranium is contaminated with radium and radon, whereas these have
been virtually eliminated in DU. Mine dust is produced at ambient
temperatures, while the metal fume is produced at temperatures
between 3000B0C and 6000B0C. Subjecting uranium oxide to more
than 3000B0C produces what the U.K. National Radiation Protection
Board (NRPB) refers to as ceramic uranium oxide, which is highly
insoluble in body fluids (2). These high temperatures also sublim
ate all other metals and materials that happen to be nearby,
caught in the powdered uranium fire: steel, nickel, aluminum,
iron, and so forth. This other debris will also aerosolize and
produce nanometer-size debris, which can be inhaled (25).
The small size of these particles facilitates uptake into cells
and transit across epithelial and endothelial cells into the
blood and lymph circulation, thus reaching potentially sensitive
targets. These targets include lymph nodes, spleen, and heart.
Access to the central nervous system and ganglia via
translocation among axons and dendrites of neurons has also been
observed. The greater surface area per volume, compared with
larger particles, renders nano-particles more biologically
active.
Uranium miners must assume simultaneous exposure to radium and
radon, while DU used in battle eliminates these exposures but
involves a complex toxic matrix of other exposures. The
differences in health effects in the receptor or host in the
mining versus the battlefield environment are major.
HUMAN ABILITY TO SCREEN OUT URANIUM
The human body is normally exposed to uranium in food and water
at a rate of about 1.9 micrograms a day, but only about 1 to 2
percentb between 0.019 and 0.038 micrograms (19 to 38
nanograms)bis absorbed through the intestines. The output of
natural uranium in feces is 1.862 to 1.881 micrograms daily.
Physiologists consider the entire gastrointestinal tract to be
external to the body (like the hole in a donut), so this fraction
of ingested uranium in water and food is not considered internal
contamination. The 19 to 38 nanograms of natural uranium that is
absorbed through the intestinal wall is considered to be internal
to the body. It passes through the hepatic portal system and is
screened by the liver, then either sent directly to the kidneys
to be excreted in urine or circulated in the blood. Circulating
uranium is usually stored in bone, to be excreted at a later
time. These outcomes vary according to the solubility of the
uranium compounds in food and water. However, t! hese estimates
are typical for natural uranium The human body has an excellent
screening system for natural uranium reducing the ambient average
environmental concentration of 1 part per million to less than 38
parts per billion internally.
However, this gastrointestinal and liver screening system does
not operate to screen out the uranium or other metals that enter
the body through the lungs, are ceramic, and have an aerodynamic
diameter in the nanometer range. Gulf War exposures to inhaled DU
were likely well above the normal 19 to 38 nanograms per day and
added considerable stress to the body, regardless of the other
stresses present in this toxic war. Nano-particles (whether
uranium, steel, iron, or aluminum) pose an especially difficult p
roblem for the bodybs screening and filtering ability. They pass
through the lung-blood barrier, the blood-brain barrier, and the
placenta, and they are too small to be filtered out by the
kidneys and excreted from the body (26). They take a long time to
dissolve in the body fluid, and only the dissolved portion can be
chemically active or eliminated in urine. Because of the variable
times needed for dissolving the ceramic forms, the negative
effect of the radioactive heav! y metal is ongoing. Ceramic
uranium may never dissolve, and it does not lose its radioactive
properties.
CARCINOGENIC PROPERTIES OF URANIUM
While the neurological, immunological, and reproductive damage
are the first problems to surface for veterans and civilians
exposed to DU, the long-term effect of greatest concern, other
than intergenerational genetic deterioration, is likely to be
cancer. Note also that early cancers, which have at times been
attributed to DU, are most likely secondary to the immunological
effect. A depressed immune system often changes the status of a
subclinical cancer, with which the individual is coping, into a
clinica lly diagnosable cancer. There is no doubt about the
ability of radiation to initiate cancer and also to promote
cancers initiated by other carcinogens. The work of Peter Nowell
(27) has recently been extended by research into
radiation-induced genomic instability. According to W. F. Morgan
and colleagues, bThe loss of stability of the genome is becoming
accepted as one of the most important aspects of carcinogenesis
(28). The Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute! has
now admitted that DU can cause cancer (29). Miller and colleagues
have also found that tiny amounts of DU, too small to be toxic
and only mildly radioactive, cause more cytogenetic damage in
cells than either the toxicity or radiation alone could explain.
Their latest results (30) corroborate a tentative report by the
Royal Society (7), which suggests that the toxicity and
radioactivity of DU reinforce one another in an unknown way, to
the ext ent that more than eight times as many cells suffer
cytogen etic damage than predicted. Thus the carcinogenic and
genotoxic health risk of DU could be grossly underestimated by
current theories.
There is also serious discussion among radiobiologists about the
inadequacy of the ICRP model for dose and dose-response, based on
the physics model. There is growing agreement that this model is
inappropriate for application to internal alpha emitters (31).
Both NATO (32) and the Institut de Radioprotection et de SC;retC)
NuclC)aire (33), the official French radiation protection
organization, have found the ICRP methodology to be faulty. The
question of DU carcinogenicity is actually much larger than the q
uestions raised by Gulf War syndrome; it involves the actual
cause of the excess cancers at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and
Chernobyl, where burning uranium fuel particulates may have
played a much larger part in the observed cancers than atomic
bomb or International Atom Energy Agency research has projected.
Since no internal dose estimates were ever attempted at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (34), and the dose estimates around Chernobyl were
focused on c esium-137 and iodine-131 (35), ! the effect of
uranium and plutonium fuel aerosol was neglected. By assuming
that the DU in war would act like uranium dust in mines, the
experts made the mistake of assuming that the signature of this
exposure would be uranium storage in bone and damage to the
kidney tubules. Because these effects were not dominantbthough
they did occurbDU was dismissed as a cause of GWS. With what is
now known about the physical form of the DU, with the
complication of ceramic nanoparticle formation, this was not a
realis tic assumption.
The cancers may be expected to appear over the next 20 to 50
years. The latency period will probably be longer than expected
for these cancers because of the chronic low-dose effect.
Moreover, many Gulf War veterans will die before expression of
the cancers, because of competing causes of death.
TERATOGENIC TOXICITY
Soluble uranium oxide and all nano-particles can cross the
placenta, and these are particularly toxic to the rapidly
developing embryo or fetus. At low doses, they damage the fetal
brain, causing behavioral problems, such as aggressiveness and
hyperactivity, and mental retardation. Other teratogenic effects
are congenital malformations and diseases. The underdeveloped
immune and hormonal systems of the fetus are more easily
compromised than in a fully mature adult.
One official epidemiological study did look at the health of the
offspring of Gulf War veterans. This was a study of veterans in
general and was not limited to those either with GWS or with
known exposure to DU. This study of birth defects in the children
of veterans in the United States, undertaken by Han Kang of the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (36), focused on the first
pregnancy after returning home from the Gulf War. Slightly less
than 21,000 veterans, from all four branches, active and retired,
were included in the study (about 70% of those to whom
questionnaires were sent). Male Gulf War veterans were twice as
likely, and female veterans almost three times as likely, to
report children with birth defects than their counterparts who
did not serve in the first Gulf War. Birth defects included
webbed fingers and toes, heart murmurs, chromosomal
abnormalities, and brain tumors. The researchers excluded
developmental disorders, perinat al complications, and pediatric!
disorders from the study.
Male veterans reported miscarriages more often, and the increase,
1.62 times, was statistically significant. Female veterans also
reported more miscarriages, but the sample size of female
veterans was too small to reach statistical significance. No
attempt was made to relate these findings to DU or any other Gulf
War exposure (36).
The studies of veterans with embedded shrapnel, done at the
Baltimore, Maryland, Veteransb Hospital, reported finding DU in
seminal fluid, indicating expected reproductive problems related
to the genotoxic agent (37).
This information should have led the Gulf War veteran
reproductive research to zero in on those veterans known to have
been exposed to DU. Unfortunately, this opportunity to clarify
the science in the large Gulf War study of reproduction has been
lost.
EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
Hari Sharma (38), professor emeritus from the University of
Waterloo, tested some U.S., Canadian, and U.K. veterans, and
Iraqi civilians from Basra and Baghdad, for urine DU about eight
to ten years after the 1991 war. His findings, when DU was
estimated from an isotopic analysis of the uranium present in a
24-hour urine sample, ranged from 81 to 1,340 nanograms of DU.
This was surprising to those who trust the ICRP guidelines
predicting a three-year biological half-life for insoluble
uranium oxide. It was eight to nine years since the veteransb
exposure to DU had terminatedbapproximately three biological
half-lives of uranium oxide. Either the biological half-life
estimate was wrong or the initial contamination exceeded any
known credible estimate. Of the three Iraqi residents of Basra
included in the study, the first had urine with 147 nanograms of
DU, the second had no DU, and the third had 426 nanograms of DU.
Of the five residents of Baghdad, the first had urine with ur!
anium that was 20 percent DU; the second, 64 percent DU. The
other three had all natural uranium in the urine (38). Microgram
content could not be calculated for some samples. However, it is
clear that the DU aerosol from the battlefield was transported to
Basra and Baghdad, although there was no fighting there.
SUMMARY
In this prolonged and complex exposure picture, one cannot assume
that cellular repair systems and hormonal systems will remain
intact and function satisfactorily. Failing repair, radiation
damage will increase, and cancer may well follow. When the
biological half-life for a radioactive compound is wrong by such
a large factor, as detailed here, the dose and cancer death risk
calculations, based on old science, are unreliable. Much of the
uranium oxide was in the nanoparticle size range and ceramic
oxide fo rm. The ceramic form would be expected to resist
dissolution in body fluid, prolonging the biological half-time.
Moreover, the dose from nano-particles cannot be estimated using
the physics methodology described above. For one thing, these
ceramic nano-particles cannot spread homogeneously in an organ,
and for another, the contact dose is increased because of
maximized surface area (for volume) and reduced self-screening.
These particles remain point sources of internal (c! ontact) dose
until (if ever) they dissolve in body fluid. Ceramic
nano-particles may well stay in the body for a lifetime.
The portion of DU excreted in urine may not correctly predict
either the original internal contamination or the residual amount
still stored in the body, as based on outdated formulas. Ceramic
particles most likely do not bind to bone but continue to
circulate in blood and lymph fluid, irradiating blood and lymph
vessels and surrounding tissues. Nano-particles can even bhide
within cells, disrupting biochemical, activities. If the ceramic
DU does dissolve, it can bind to the phosphate in DNA or can be
store d in bone, irradiating the stem cells involved in blood
formation. DU can easily penetrate the blood-brain and
reproductive barriers, contaminating brain tissue, seminal fluid,
or the uterus, damaging the developing embryo or fetus. Because
of their small size, DU particles resist filtering out by the
kidneys.
The observed DU in urine eight or nine years after exposure may
well be only the tip of the iceberg. Damage to the individual
will occur not only from the inhaled DU aerosol but also from all
the other toxic debris generated by the DU metal fume. Metal
debris in the body, like debris from deteriorating hip implants,
dental amalgams, or breast implants, has been shown to be
detrimental. Hence the variety of symptoms reported by Gulf War
veterans derives partially from the complexity, variety, and
persistence of the foreign body invasions from their battlefield
environment, not least of which was the DU-caused metal fume. Use
of DU in battle is certainly a major contributor to this medical
disaster that has affected at least one-third of U.S. Gulf War
veterans.
CONCLUSION
The problems of Gulf War syndrome are too complex for a
reductionist methodology that extracts the toxic effect of a
single component, even depleted uranium. Increased free radicals,
heavy metal toxicity, the complexity and sensitivity of disrupted
cellular reactions, damaged organelles, dysfunctional enzymes and
hormones, and mycoplasmal invasionball occurring simultaneously
within vital organsbpose monumental problems for function and
survival. The mathematical methodology used by physicists is
inappropri ate for an insoluble nano-particle such as the ceramic
DU internally deposited along with this toxic soup.
The standard mathematical calculation of the radiation risk of
cancer death is likely misleading, because of the many other
carcinogenic mechanisms, cellular repair dysfunction, and complex
biochemical reactions not incorporated into the mathematics. For
those veterans with illnesses resulting from internal radioactive
contamination and multiple cellular dysfunction problems, who are
trying to live normally and work to support their families, the
radiation physics prediction of low radiation-related cancer
death risk is likely both wrong and irrelevant. However,
regulators will take the mathematical prediction very seriously
when awarding compensation.
Veterans, and the medical personnel helping them, need to
understand what happened in this war and what can be done to
improve veteransb situations. They need medical, financial, and
political help. I hope that some remedies will soon be found but,
while waiting, I would suggest naturebs own detoxifying method.
Nature cleanses the soil with distilled water, evaporated by the
sun and condensed in the clouds, falling as rain. Using distilled
water for drinking could provide some relief to Gulf War
veterans, a s it did for many atomic veterans in the 1950s and
1960s. (See 39 for the successful use of distilled drinking and
cooking water for children with iron-deficiency anemia caused by
a uranium-contaminated environment.) Re-supplying the bodybs
protein and mineral loss would also be helpful. Undenatured
(organic) whey products can be taken to replace proteins, and
stressing zinc, calcium, and magnesium products in the diet would
also help.
Serious questions about the legality of DU, as used in war, also
need answers. These cannot be provided by an isolated
mathematical calculation of the DU exposure risk of
radiation-related cancer death. In other words, the btrivial
number of calculated cancer deaths thought to have been caused
will not make this weapon acceptable to the Geneva Protocols, or
to ordinary people using common sense.
Individuals from many countries have joined their efforts to
bring this issue to the Human Rights Tribunal of the United
Nations (which consists of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,
and the U.N. Sub-Committee on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights) and have formed global organizations to support
victims of DU and work toward a ban on its use. The special
investigator of the Sub-Committee on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights has found that the use of DU is illegal under
existing Humani tarian Law. Yet millions of dollars have been
spent on sending out fact-finding teams of experts from respected
international agencies, all using the same ICRP outmoded
guidelines and methodology, and all coming to similar irrelevant
conclusions.
It is not disputable that DU powder produces an invisible metal
fume. This alone is a violation of the Geneva Protocol on the Use
of Gas (metal fumes constitute a gas) in War (Geneva, 1925),
which was ultimately signed, with reservation (i.e., use for
crowd control), by President Ford for the United States on
January 22, 1975, and was proclaimed in the United States on
April 29, 1975. The United Kingdom signed the protocol on April
9, 1930.
The commitment to this Geneva Protocol was clearly known by the
United States and United Kingdom before the 1991 war against Iraq
(40). The illegality arguments can be left to lawyers. However,
disruption of biochemical processes, not an isolated mathematical
estimate of DU radiation-related cancer deaths, must be the
foundation of the legal claim of harm. Clearly, depleted uranium
is at least partially responsible for a series of biochemical
events that are significantly harmful to human beings. The damag
e is indiscriminate, caring not for national affiliation, age,
gender, or status as combatant or civilian. In other words, DU is
a weapon that destroys onebs own military and the generally
exposed civilian population, as well as enemy combatants. It
renders the postwar civilian environment hazardous for many years
to comebmuch like land mines, which are now banned.
---
Acknowledgment b Personal financial support was given by the Grey
Nuns of the Sacred Heart of Yardley, Pennsylvania.
Note b Portions of this article were posted on the website of the
International Institute of Concern for Public Health,
www.iicph.org. The author is the retired president of this
organization.
---
REFERENCES:
1. Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World
Health Organization. Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and
Health Effects. WHO/SDE/PHE/01.1. Geneva, April 2001.
2. Stradling, G. N., et al.. The metabolism of ceramic and
non-ceramic forms of uranium dioxide after deposition in the rat
lung. Hum. Toxicol. 7(2):133b139, 1988.
3. U.S. Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veteransb
Illnesses. Scientific Progress in Understanding Gulf War
Veteransb Illnesses: Report and Recommendations. Washington, DC,
September 2004.
4. Fetter, S., and Von Hipple, F. The hazard posed by depleted
uranium munitions. Science and Global Security 8:125b161, 2000.
5. Harley, N. H., et al. A Review of the Scientific Literature as
It Pertains to Gulf War Illness, Depleted Uranium, vol. 7. RAND,
Santa Monica, CA, 1999.
6. U.S. National Academy of Science. Gulf War and Health:
Depleted Uranium, Sarin, Pyridostigmine, Bromide, Vaccines, vol.
1. Washington, DC, September 2000.
7. Royal Society (U.K.). The Health Effects of Depleted Uranium
Munitions, Parts I and II. London, May 2001 and March 2002.
8. United Nations Environment Program. The Potential Effects on
Human Health and the Environment Arising from Possible Use of
Depleted Uranium during the 1999 Kosovo Conflict. Geneva, October
1999.
9. Bertell, R. Avoidable tragedy post-Chernobyl. Humanitarian
Med. 2(3):21b28, 2002.
10. SchrC6dinger, E. What Is Life? Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1945.
11. Conn, P. M., and Janovick, J. A. A new understanding of
protein mutation folds. Am. Sci. 93:314b321, 2005.
12. Castro-Fernandez, C., Maya-Nunez, G., and Conn, P. M. Beyond
the signaling sequence: Protein routing in health and disease.
Endocr. Rev. 26(3), 2005.
13. Hensley, K. Neuroinflammatory aberrations of arachidonate
pathway in ALS. Neuroscience, 2004.
14. Vickers, M. G. Radiosensitivity mechanisms at low doses:
Inflammatory responses to microgray radiation levels in human
blood. Int. Perspect. Public Health 9:4b20, 1993.
15. Health Canada. Health Canada Fact Sheet: Aluminum. Ottawa,
2003.
16. Best, B. Mechanisms of Aging.
www.benbest.com/lifeext/aging.html.
17. Luft, R., and Landau, B. R. Mitochondrial medicine. J.
Intern. Med. 238:405b421, 1995.
18. Somlyo, A. P., and Somlyo, A. V. Signal transduction by
G-proteins, Rho-kinase and protein phosphatase to smooth muscle
and non-muscle myosin II. J. Physiol. 522(2):177b185, 2000.
19. Slavin, E. A., Jr. Persistence may pay off for sick workers.
Tennessean Online, May 29, 2000.
20. An investigation into illness around the nationbs nuclear
weapon sites, third of a series on the Nuclear Weapon Site
Workers and citizens from the surrounding communities. Tennessean
Online, August 1997. www.tennessean.com/special/oakridge/part3/.
21. Hooper, D. C. et al. Uric acid, a peroxynitrite scavenger,
inhibits CNS inflammation, blood-CNS barrier permeability
changes, and tissue damage in a mouse model of multiple
sclerosis. FASEB J. 14:691b698, 2000.
22. MacMillan-Crow, L. A. Nitration and inactivation of manganese
superoxide dismutase in chronic rejection of human renal
allografts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(21):11853b11858, 1996.
23. Best, B. Mechanisms of aging. J. Intern. Med. 238:405b421,
1995.
24. Nicolson, G. L., et al. Progress on Persian Gulf War
illnessbReality and hypothesis. Int. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol.
4(3): 365b370, 1995.
25. Gatti, A. M., and Montanari, S. So-called Balkan syndrome: A
Bioengineering Approach. Laboratory of Biomaterials of the
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, February 11, 2004.
26. Oberdorster, G., Oberdorster, E., and Oberdorster, J.
Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of
ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 113(7), 2005.
27. Nowell, P. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations.
Science, October 1976.
28. Morgan, W. F., et al. Genome instability and ionizing
radiation. Radiat. Res. 146: 247b254, 1996.
29. Miller, A. C., et al. Observation of radiation-specific
damage in human cells exposed to depleted uranium: Dicentric
frequency and neoplastic transformation as endpoints. Radiol.
Protection Dosimetry 99(1b4):275b278, 2002.
30. Miller, A. C., et al. Potential late health effects of
depleted uranium and tungsten used in armor-piercing munitions:
Comparison of neoplastic transformation and genotoxicity with the
known carcinogen nickel. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Low-Level Radiation Injury and Medical
Countermeasures, ed. T. M. Blakely et al. Bethesda, MD, November
8b10, 1999; reported in Military Med. 167(2): 120b122, 2002.
31. European committee on Radiation Risk. 2003 Recommendations of
the European Committee on Radiation Risk, ed. C. Busby.
Regulatorbs Editione, Brussels, 2003.
32. NATO Report, August 1992, submitted to Defense Ministry,
Paris, June 29, 2005; made public by France, July 1, 2005.
33. Institute de Radioprotection et de SC;retC) NuclC)aire.
Response to ECCR: Health Consequences of Chronic Internal
Contamination by Radionuclides. DRPH/2005-20. Paris, 2005.
34. Roesch, W. C. (ed.). US-Japan Joint Reassessment of Atomic
Bomb Radiation Dosimetry. Radiation Effects Research Foundation,
Hiroshima, 1987.
35. Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, vol. II:
Effects, Annex J, pp. 451b566. UNSCEAR, 2000.
36. Kang, H. Questionnaire study of about 21,000 veterans,
conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ann. Epidemiol.,
October 2001.
37. McDiarmid, M., et al. Biological monitoring and medical
surveillance results of depleted uranium exposed Gulf War
veterans. In Program and Abstract Block, Conference on Federally
Sponsored Gulf War Veteransb Illness Research, June 17b19, 1998.
38. Sharma, H. D. Investigations of Environmental Impacts from
the Deployment of Depleted Uranium-Based Munitions, Part I:
Report and Tables. Military Toxics Project, Lewiston, ME,
December 2003.
39. Bertell, R. Internal bone seeking radionuclides and monocyte
counts. Int. Perspect. Public Health 9:21b27, 1993.
40. Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other
Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva Protocol.
Geneva, June 17, 1925. Direct reprint requests to: Dr. Rosalie
Bertell 1750 Quarry Road Yardley, PA 19067-3910 e-mail:
rosaliebertell@greynun.org
========
In PDF Format: http://www.motherearth.org/du/bertell.pdf
========
*****************************************************************
59 [du-list] Uranium weapons health effects - Dr. Craig Etchison
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:18:15 -0800
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [du-list] Uranium weapons health effects - Dr. Craig Etchison
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:44:38 -0000
From: dominouglias
Reply-To: du-list@yahoogroups.com
To: du-list@yahoogroups.com
Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing
by Dr. Craig Etchison
Global Research, February 20, 2007
Truthout - 2007-02-19
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
I live a few miles from an ATK (Alliant Tech) plant that produces
depleted uranium (DU) tank shells for the military. Tank shells
destroy and kill, and they, along with all military hardware, are a
constant reminder of our failure as a civilization. But DU weapons
and tank shells are only two of many items that raise questions that
even our violence prone society needs to address. Since shortly after
Gulf War I, soldiers and civilians have been questioning the safety
of these weapons which are made of radioactive material. The more
questions raised, the more the military-industrial complex has hauled
out studies showing the safety of DU munitions. One CEO called DU
the "skim milk" of uranium in an article penned for my local paper.
An Air Force officer is even stalking the internet, trying to
intimidate anyone who suggests DU is anything but benign.
Yet the numbers suggested that something insidious happens when DU
munitions are used. How to explain the exploding rates of cancer,
birth defects, and radiation poisoning among Iraqis in the Basra
region? How to explain a Department of Veterans Affairs study of
21,000 veterans of the Gulf War that found rates of birth defects
were twice as great for male vets and three times as great for female
vets who served in the Gulf War compared to vets who did not? How to
explain a Washington Post report in January of 2006 that 518,00 of
the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were on disability, over half on
permanent disability. How to explain over 13,000 dead Gulf War
veterans when only 250 were killed and 7,000 injured in the war
itself?
Finally, through the work of internationally recognized research
scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, we may have an answer to these
questions. The answer has to do with using an analytical methodology
appropriate to low level radiation, as opposed to inappropriate
methodologies used to date that show DU is harmless, and, equally
important, understanding that DU has both a radiological component as
well as a heavy metal component, and the two in combination are far
more toxic than either is singly.
What is DU and Why Is It a Problem?
Depleted Uranium (DU) is the waste left after the isotope uranium-235
(used for bombs and nuclear reactors) has been removed. DU (mostly U-
238) makes up the largest amount of radioactive waste other than
uranium mining waste worldwide and has a half-life of 4.5 billion
years. In the United States, DU can only be handled by persons
trained in radiation safety procedures. DU must also be isolated from
the environment.
Much of the scientific evaluation of uranium oxide has come from
analysis of uranium mining and milling, but this ignores a major fact-
that battlefield uranium oxide is very different from uranium oxide
produced at normal temperatures. When a DU shell hits a hardened
target, it bursts into flame and creates an invisible metal fume,
often called an aerosol. (Tests carried out eight to ten years after
Gulf War I found that the DU aerosol from the battlefield had been
carried to Basra and Baghdad, though no fighting occurred in those
areas.)
Aerosolizing DU involves temperatures between 3,000 and 6,000 degrees
centigrade, which turn the oxide into a nano-sized ceramic particle
that is insoluble in body fluids. If these nano particles are
inhaled, they provide contact radiation and a source of heavy metal
poisoning. These high temperatures will also aerosolize other heavy
metals in the area such as steel, nickel, aluminum, and iron, which
can be inhaled. Nano-sized uranium oxide [along with other metals] is
roughly the size of a virus [scientifically: nanometer-sized],
invisible, able to penetrate the lung-blood barrier and can be
carried throughout the body. Nano particles can reach sensitive
targets, including the lymph nodes, spleen, heart, and access to the
central nervous system.
Uranium-238 is an alpha particle emitter. The range of these alpha
particles is only about six cells; therefore, it is highly localized.
Because DU has less radioactivity than natural uranium, many consider
DU to be low-level radiation and not harmful to people. But research
does not bear this view out.
Assessing the Effects of DU
A major problem with most DU assessment is that many effects of alpha
radiation on cell structure, including DNA proteins that release
biochemical signals and important cell metabolic enzymes, are ignored
by nuclear physicists who use dose estimates based on uranium dust in
mines, a completely inappropriate approach for a battlefield aerosol.
Many medical professionals believe the protein problem is responsible
for various neurodegenerative diseases evidenced by Gulf War veterans.
As Dr. Bertell writes, "Heavy metal exposure (including uranium) can
cause loss of cellular immunity, autoimmune diseases, joint disease
such as rheumatoid arthritis, and diseases of the kidneys,
circulatory system, and nervous system.... Decline in functional
mitochondria is most damaging to the heart, kidney, brain, liver, and
skeletal muscle, in that order." Loss of cellular immunity opens an
organism up to viral, bacterial, and mycoplasmal invasions connected
to a variety of diseases.
Equally important, scientists have found that tiny amounts of DU too
small to be toxic and only mildly radioactive seem to reinforce each
other in terms of causing cancers and risk to offspring. The Armed
Forces Radiobiological Research Institute has even admitted that DU
can cause cancer.
Humans are normally exposed to about 1.9 micrograms of uranium a day
in food and water, with between one and two percent absorbed. The
rest is passed in feces. Humans screen natural uranium quite
effectively. But our screening system won't eliminate nano particles
that are ceramic and enter through the lungs. These particles won't
dissolve and won't lose their radioactivity.
International Condemnation
The special investigator of the UN Sub-Committee on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights has declared DU munitions illegal under
existing humanitarian law. DU weapons also produce a toxic metal fume
that violates the Geneva Protocol on the Use of Gas in War, which the
US signed in 1975.
Why Ignore the Evidence?
We have enough evidence to suggest with considerable certainty that
DU munitions break the four basic laws and customs that govern modern
weapons use: that the weapon is confined to the battlefield, that it
does not kill after a battle is over, that it doesn't cause inhumane
suffering, and that it doesn't have a negative effect on the natural
environment. We certainly have enough evidence to stop using these
weapons until further research by independent scientists has been
done. And yet we continue to produce, sell, and use DU munitions. How
can this be justified?
Perhaps looking at the paradigm of Agent Orange gives insight. Our
government ignored veterans affected by Agent Orange for thirty years
before admitting Agent Orange was, in fact, the cause of many
physical problems endured by Vietnam veterans. By then, the most
seriously affected veterans were dead. The government incurred a far
smaller financial liability than if the government had owned up to
the problems earlier.
If the government ever admitted what it has done in Iraq-between
1,000 and 2,000 tons of DU ordnance expended according to most
estimates-the financial consequences, not to mention the moral
outrage engendered, is almost beyond imagination. Cleaning up the DU
blanketing Iraq would entail enormous costs. And in a few years,
soldiers who have served in the current debacle-many with two or
three tours-are going to start coming down with the same diseases
that have struck Gulf War I veterans. Some who got good doses of DU
have already seen their lives ruined by multiple physical problems.
We must also consider the real possibility of Iraq as an
uninhabitable wasteland, with the residue of the DU aerosol blowing
in the wind and flowing in the waters to adjacent lands, a residue
with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Is this outlook too bleak?
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the Oncology Center at the largest
hospital in Basra said the following in 2003. "Two strange phenomena
have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is
double and triple cancers in one patient.... We have 58 families here
with more than one person affected by cancer.... My wife has nine
members of her family with cancer." He went on to point out that
these were families with no history of cancer. After Gulf War I, the
United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority estimated that DU
contamination could kill half a million Iraqis.
Conclusions
I suspect the military-industrial complex will stonewall admitting
the effects of DU for as long as possible to avoid accepting
responsibility, not to mention liability, for their reckless actions.
When John Hanchette, a founding editor of USA Today tried to publish
stories about DU, he received a phone call from the Pentagon asking
him to desist. He was later replaced at USA Today. The World Health
Organization's chief expert on radiation and health had his report on
DU suppressed. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then a colonel in the U.S. Army,
was asked to lie about the risks of DU to humans. So the stonewalling
will continue, even as cancers rage among our soldiers and Iraqi
civilians, even as our soldiers die, or commit suicide to escape the
horrific pain, even as birth defects proliferate across Iraq and
among our veterans.
But what of that? DU is a moneymaker for corporations like ATK. And
turning DU into munitions helps the government solve a big problem-
what to do with mountains of DU it must store and, by law, keep out
of the environment. What better solution than giving it free to the
munitions makers, who then sell the munitions back to Uncle Sam at a
handsome profit? Everyone wins.
Unless we continue to fight for the truth, and to cry out for
justice, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians will suffer and die in
increasing numbers. Estimates of how many may die in Iraq are truly
staggering - up to 11% of Iraq's 27 million population. This is a
massive crime against humanity that remains in the shadows.
Much of this article is based on the work of Dr. Rosalie Bertell. See
her article, "Depleted Uranium: All the Questions About DU and Gulf
War Syndrome Are Not Yet Answered," in the International Journal of
Health Services, Volume 36, Number 3, pages 503-520, 2006. E-mail
requests for a summary of Dr. Bertell's article can be sent to
cetchison@allegany.edu .
Dr. Craig Etchison, Ph.D, is from the Center for Nonviolent
Alternatives, Fort Ashby, West Virginia.
Global Research Articles by Craig Etchison
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are
not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available to our readers under the
provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better
understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and
educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for
purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Craig Etchison, Truthout, 2007
*****************************************************************
60 Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Abandons Big Bomb Test
From the Associated Press
Friday February 23, 2007 9:01 AM
AP Photo UTDP101
By JENNIFER TALHELM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing stiff opposition from two Western
states, the Pentagon on Thursday scrapped plans for a 700-ton
non-nuclear test blast that would have produced the first
mushroom cloud of dust over the Nevada desert in decades.
The Defense Department said it would find other ways to test
the nation's ability to penetrate underground bunkers that
produce and store weapons of mass destruction.
The cloud may have reached an altitude of 10,000 feet over the
site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, an eerie echo of
long-ago open-air nuclear testing.
Originally scheduled for last June 2, the test blast - called
Divine Strake - had been postponed indefinitely until the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency finally canceled it.
``I have become convinced that it's time to look at
alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of
large-scale test,'' he said in a statement.
The decision was not based on any technical information that
indicated the test would harm workers, the public or the
environment, according to James Tegnelia, director of the
Pentagon unit that works on technical aspects of how to destroy
deeply buried enemy weapons.
It was in March 2006 that he had likened the spectacle of a
test explosion to a mushroom cloud.
``I don't want to sound glib here, but it is the first time
in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since
we stopped testing nuclear weapons,'' Tegnelia said at the time
to reporters.
The United States stopped conducting aboveground nuclear tests
in 1963.
In Nevada and Utah, there was concern that the blast would
scatter decades-old radioactive material from previous Cold
War-era tests. Other critics contended the explosion would mark a
step toward new tests to develop ``bunker buster'' nuclear
weapons.
Two months ago, the agency released a new environmental report
that confirmed there is radioactive material about a mile from
the blast site. Officials insisted any harm would be ``extremely
unlikely.''
The agency said in a statement it would develop other ways to
gather the kind of data that Divine Strake would have provided.
``Such methods to assess capabilities to defeat underground
facilities do not currently exist,'' it said.
The agency is committed ``to help develop non-nuclear means
to defeat underground targets. I am optimistic that we will
succeed,'' Tegnelia said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other lawmakers
said they understood the need for tests to develop defense
strategies.
But, Reid said, ``there were still many questions left
unanswered, including the possible environmental effects.''
The loudest critics said the plan revived bitter memories of
government ``lies'' during Cold War-era tests, when officials
said there would be no danger.
Thousands of people who lived near the Nevada Test Site -
called downwinders - were exposed to cancer-causing radiation
from weapons tests.
Residents feared Divine Strake would spread more radioactive
material or lead to further nuclear experiments there.
``If this announcement truly signals the end of Divine Strake,
my hope is that DTRA would instead spend time and money on
developing a conventional weapon that would actually be useful to
our military in destroying deeply buried terrorist targets,''
said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah.
John Wells, a Las Vegas carpenter and regional representative to
the Western Shoshone National Council, said the blast would
``compound wrongs'' for the American Indian tribe.
The tribe fought the test in court and long has contested the
government over the test site, now contaminated from years of
nuclear tests.
---
Associated Press Writer Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to
this report.
On the Net: Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
http://www.dtra.mil/
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
61 reviewjournal.com: TEST SITE EXPLOSION: Divine Strake blast dead
Feb. 23, 2007
Opposition to bunker-buster experiment strong
REVIEW-JOURNAL
Graphic by Mike Johnson.
Fears that a mushroom cloud from the massive non-nuclear Divine
Strake blast would carry dust laced with radioactive particles
off the Nevada Test Site were laid to rest Thursday when a
Pentagon agency canceled its plans for the bunker-buster
experiment amid opposition from downwinders, politicians and
environmentalists.
Members of Nevada's congressional delegation who were contacted
by the Review-Journal said they were relieved that the blast was
finally canceled. They said Defense Department planners failed to
quell fears expressed by Nevadans and their neighbors in Utah and
Idaho.
"I think we should be grateful that it was canceled," Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., said after a meeting with educators in Las Vegas. "It
could have been the safest thing in the world, (but) they did
nothing to alleviate the fears of the people of Nevada."
The blast was to be the last and largest in a series of
bunker-buster experiments using conventional chemical explosives
designed to crush tunnels deep in limestone where an enemy could
store weapons of mass destruction.
Miners had dug a 36-foot-deep pit near the top of Syncline Ridge at
the test site, 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to hold an explosive
slurry that when detonated would send shock waves through a
100-foot-thick block of bedded limestone to crumble a tunnel in the
ridge.
A lawsuit filed by Reno attorney Robert Hager representing
downwinders and Western Shoshones from the Winnemucca Indian Colony
and concerns voiced by some elected officials in Nevada and Utah
prompted a series of postponements of the test originally scheduled
for June 2, 2006.
Tegnelia apologized last year for saying the blast from a 700-ton
slurry of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil would send a "mushroom cloud
over Las Vegas." But his statement Thursday stopped short of saying
public outcry and thousands of comments made at public meetings
opposing the Divine Strake detonation convinced him to cancel the
test.
Instead, an amended statement issued two hours after the first one
from the agency's headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Va., adds the
sentence: "This decision was not based on any technical information
that indicates the test would produce harm to workers, the general
public, or the environment."
Asked what did convince Tegnelia to cancel the test, agency
spokesman Don Kerr said, "As for his reasoning, I don't have
anything more."
Kerr said delays spurred by a lawsuit and the need to prepare an
environmental assessment added $2 million to $3 million more to the
initial cost of $23 million for the proposed Divine Strake
experiment.
The agency's statement concludes there is "a national consensus on
the need to improve conventional capabilities to defeat underground
targets that pose a threat to the United States."
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency "will attempt to develop
alternative scientific means for obtaining the important data that
this experiment would have provided," the statement reads, adding
that "confirmatory experiments at a much smaller scale" will be
conducted.
Instead of conventional explosives, the U.S. military could use a
nuclear earth-penetrator bomb to destroy a deeply buried cache of
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but more than a million
people would be killed or seriously injured from fallout, radiation
and the blast itself, a National Academy of Sciences report
concluded in 2005.
Hager said his lawsuit dealt the final blow to Divine Strake and
stopped it from spreading contamination left from historic nuclear
blasts at the test site.
"Absolutely. There is no doubt that litigation killed this
boondoggle," he said by telephone. "This was an ill-conceived idea
from the beginning. There is no way that you can safely detonate a
huge bomb on the surface of the Nevada Test Site and not spread
deadly radioactivity for hundreds or thousands of miles."
Despite the lack of a judge's final decision, Hager said, the
lawsuit was successful because "this bomb will never be detonated.
And the big news is we have finally evolved as a society to the
point where we can stop our own government from nuking its own
citizens.
"Obviously, that was not the case in the '50s and '60s. If it had
been, tens of thousands of families would have been saved of the
horrible effects of fallout that were perpetrated on them by our
government by atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site," he said.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., agreed that Divine Strake was felled
by public outcry. Another likely factor, she said, was an inability
by the Pentagon to guarantee there would be no health dangers from
the test.
"They could not provide to the appropriate state agencies the
information on environmental safeguards," she said.
Berkley said she was not notified by the Defense Department the test
was being shelved, nor given a reason for the cancellation.
"We were never told they were going to do it, and they never told us
when they weren't going to do it; but we sure made their lives
miserable in the meantime," she said.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he is glad the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency chose not to set off the Divine Strake blast but
part of the agency's job is to "send a message to the terrorists and
rogue nations that we have this type of equipment."
Porter said he thinks the agency should continue developing a
conventional bunker-buster bomb for deeply buried targets.
"I would prefer they try it in Iraq and not Nevada," he said prior
to meeting with reporters at the Review-Journal.
Nevada Environmental Protection Division scientists had asked the
National Nuclear Security Administration, which was hosting the
experiment, to show that the blast would comply with the test site's
air permit.
Specifically, calculations must demonstrate that the blast's
mushroom-shaped dust cloud would not carry off any radioactive or
toxic contaminants from the soil as the cloud rose 10,000 feet into
the atmosphere.
NNSA spokesman Darwin Morgan said with the cancellation "we have
stopped all activities associated with the environmental assessment."
Porter said the Divine Strake cancellation is another example of how
the community can get involved and express opposition in hopes of
thwarting a project such as the government's effort to entomb deadly
nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The Yucca Mountain program is plagued by "multiple broken systems,"
Porter said. "It's the biggest waste of money in the history of the
country."
Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a statewide
environmental group, said Defense Threat Reduction Agency officials
should admit that the thousands of comments opposing Divine Strake
made by residents in Nevada, Utah and Idaho "means there is a level
of concern out there that they can't ignore."
"I think our government needs to acknowledge that," Maze Johnson
said. "Between people saying Yucca Mountain is dead and with Divine
Strake being canceled, I'm going to Disneyland."
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Stephens Media | Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
62 Pahrump Valley Times: DIVINE STRAKE: Feds cancel detonation
Feb. 23, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has decided
to cancel the proposed Divine Strake experiment at the Nevada Test
Site.
"I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative
methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test,"
said DTRA Director Dr. James A. Tegnelia.
Divine Strake was a scientific experiment designed to significantly
advance the nation's ability to defeat underground facilities that
produce and store weapons of mass destruction.
The experiment would have entailed detonating roughly 700 tons of
non-nuclear high explosives over an existing tunnel at the Nevada
Test Site. It was to be the largest in a series of experiments that
relied on the specific geology at that location.
The plans, revealed a year ago, were met with a firestorm of
criticism from opponents who worried that the intensity of the
explosion could stir up radioactive soils and send them downwind to
some distance.
DTRA will attempt to develop alternative scientific means for
obtaining the important data that this experiment would have
provided. Such methods to assess capabilities to defeat underground
facilities do not currently exist, DTRA said in a prepared statement
Thursday.
The agency will develop advanced analysis techniques and conduct
confirmatory experiments at a much smaller scale to assist in
developing new capabilities to defeat underground facilities.
There is a national consensus on the need to improve conventional
capabilities to defeat underground targets that pose a threat to the
United States, according to DTRA.
Such "bunker-busting" capability is seen by some as critical in case
the need arises in which the United States has to assault targets
that are buried far underground or heavily armored or both.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 -
*****************************************************************
63 KUAM: Celestial submits evidence supporting nuclear testing claimants
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Friday, February 23, 2007
A public hearing was held this afternoon on Resolution Five, which
was introduced by Speaker Mark Forbes (R). The resolution would
request Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo to amend the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act to include Guam in the list of affected
areas with respect to which claims relating to atmospheric nuclear
testing shall be allowed.
President of the Pacific Association of Radiation Survivors Robert
Celestial testified and gave a PowerPoint presentation of some of
the research he's done that he says proves the island was exposed to
radioactive fallout. Celestial says according to the National
Research Council, survivors who lived on Guam between 1946-1962 may
qualify for compensation.
Copyright © 2000-2007 by Pacific Telestations, Inc. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
64 BBC NEWS: Litvinenko inquiry 'nearing end'
Last Updated: Friday, 23 February 2007, 22:35 GMT
Mr Litvinenko was a known critic of Russia's security services
The British envoy in Russia says that he expects the probe into
the poisoning of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko to end
within weeks.
Anthony Brenton told the BBC the UK government would push for any
Russians charged over the case to be extradited.
Meanwhile, one of the chief suspects, Andrei Lugovoi, told a
Moscow radio station he was a witness not a suspect.
Mr Lugovoi, who is also formerly of the KGB, and two other Russians
met Mr Litvinenko on 1 November, the day he fell ill.
Traces of polonium-210 have been found in a several places Mr
Lugovoi visited in London.
Possible extradition
"Our position is that we want to catch the person who committed this
crime and see them punished," Mr Brenton told the BBC.
Mr Lugovoi has denied being involved in the poisoning
"We will do everything that we need to do to achieve that result.
And if that involves extraditing someone from Russia then we will
try to achieve that."
But, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow, it could be a long
battle. Russian prosecutors have already said they will reject any
extradition request.
Mr Lugovoi, meanwhile, told the radio station that he planned to ask
British officials for more information about the progress of the
case.
He also expressed concern that media coverage of the case in the UK
meant that he would not be fairly treated.
"If you conducted a survey, 99% would say that we carried out this
killing," he said. "So it's necessary to determine: Is it worth
meeting with people who from the start are inclined to treat us
unfairly?"
Mr Litvinenko, a critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the
Russian security services, was granted asylum in the UK in 2000.
* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
65 Salt Lake Tribune: Utahns praised for halting Nevada explosion
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/23/2007 12:57:44 AM MST
WASHINGTON - Utah residents deserve the credit for derailing Divine
Strake, state leaders said Thursday after the Pentagon announced it
was scrapping plans for the giant explosion in Nevada.
"I think the decision is the result of thousands of Utahns who
stood firm to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past,"
said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency said the decision was not
prompted by any potential risk to the public from the test, but
would not elaborate on what changed the agency's mind.
"I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative
methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test,"
DTRA Director James Tegnelia said Thursday.
The detonation of 700 tons of explosives at the test site was
supposed to help measure the ground shaking caused by such a blast
and damage done to an underground tunnel so the agency could build
computer programs to model different blasts. The agency said it
would look for other ways to gather the computer data.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who organized public hearings where
Utahns for the most part spoke in opposition to the test, said the
clarity of the message the state sent "would have been unavoidable
in the halls of Washington."
"This is really a time to thank the thousands and thousands of
people who were willing to participate," Huntsman
said. "This is a very instructive example of how the voice of the
people does still matter in the political process."
Also key to the effort was a lawsuit filed by Nevada attorney
Robert Hager on behalf of American Indian tribes in Nevada and a
group of Utah Downwinders, individuals suffering illnesses as a
result of exposure to fallout from Cold War atomic tests. Steve
Erickson, a Downwinder activist and one of the plaintiffs in a
lawsuit seeking to stop the blast, said the lawsuit put the brakes
on a test and forced the government to take another look.
"It put the test on hold, allowed for a more in-depth review and
it allowed the public to organize an opposition to Divine Strake,
and people did a fine job of making their heartfelt feelings known,"
he said.
Hatch also made clear to the Pentagon that nominees to prominent
positions, such as Michael Burns' selection as assistant secretary
for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, may face a
hard road to Senate confirmation if plans for the test proceeded.
"This is a welcome relief for the thousands of Utahns with
serious concerns about Divine Strake," said Sen. Bob Bennett,
R-Utah. "When I asked the Pentagon to move this test out of southern
Nevada, I also suggested that they explore other methods - besides
testing - to obtain the needed data. I am pleased they now plan to
go that route."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said tests like
Divine Strake are important from a military standpoint, but the
Pentagon failed to do the work to show the project was safe.
"There were still many questions left unanswered, including the
possible environmental effects. Taking these factors into
consideration, I support the Defense Department decision to play it
safe by canceling Divine Strake," Reid said.
---
* JUDY FAHYS contributed to this story.
Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map
*****************************************************************
66 Salt Lake Tribune: Feds pull plug on desert blast
Public outcry derails Pentagon's planned test
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/23/2007 02:43:35 AM MST
WASHINGTON - Divine Strake was promised to blow a hole in the earth
and create a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert.
Instead, it blew open old wounds for Utahns who had been
promised Cold War atomic tests would be safe, and the hurt, betrayal
and rage that poured out left the Pentagon with little choice but to
announce Thursday it was scrapping the test.
Michelle Thomas spent the day in tears.
"I've cried all day long. I just can't yet grasp it," said
Thomas, a St. George Downwinder who opposed Divine Strake. She has
had cancer and suffers an immune deficiency she blames on exposure
to radiation.
"I just felt such an overwhelming relief," she said. "You just
think, 'Oh my gosh. We matter.' "
The memories of Utahns helped fuel an unprecedented flood of
resistance to the test, the ignition of 700 tons of explosives
planned for the Nevada Test Site from which radiation spread from
atomic tests into Utah and other states downwind.
"This wasn't run-of-the-mill public opposition. This was a
heartfelt and broad-based public expression, so much so that it
would have been impossible for anyone to neglect," said Utah Gov.
Jon Huntsman Jr. "I can't remember the last time we had an issue
that had this kind of unified public response. . . . Memories are
very much alive and well."
More than 500 people turned out to public meetings by federal
agencies in Salt Lake City and St. George. More than 10,000
submitted comments regarding the test, the overwhelming majority
in opposition. Hundreds more attended public hearings sponsored
by the governor, and the Utah Legislature and members of the
state's congressional delegation joined the opposition.
"I was amazed at the emotional reaction," said Robert Hager, a
Reno lawyer who sued to stop the test on behalf of Nevada Indian
tribes and Downwinders. "It brought back the suffering that they
experienced in the '50s and '60s like it was happening today and it
was incredible to me that these agencies were totally insensitive."
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which was to conduct the
blast, assured in repeated studies that the test was safe. If wind
did carry radioactive material off the test site, it would be in
such small doses that it would not pose a risk to the public.
For Utahns, it was a familiar refrain, and one not to be trusted.
"How do you convince people who have been through the hell of
the radiation exposure cases that they can rely on the government?
I'm not sure you could," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who wrote
legislation years ago to compensate Downwinders for their illnesses.
To date, the government has paid 10,696 Downwinder claims.
Expert witnesses in Hager's lawsuit said, if the test went as
planned, it could create a new generation of Downwinders. The blast,
they said, would spread radioactive debris over hundreds, possibly
thousands of miles, causing birth defects and cancer cases in the
downwind population.
Had it not been for an off-hand comment in a briefing of
reporters, the test may very well have gone ahead without fanfare
last June.
"I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in
Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we
stopped testing nuclear weapons," Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Director James Tegnelia said last March.
When he made the comment, the environmental studies had been
done, approval for the test had been given and plans were going
ahead to prepare the site for the test. But the "mushroom cloud"
image resonated enough to make it into brief stories about the
meeting, and the opposition started to build.
Early planning documents also said the test was intended to help
"improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest
proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities
while minimizing collateral damage." The Pentagon later said the
reference to nuclear yield was in error, and it would help with
conventional weaponry as well.
"From the time last spring when I first learned about the
so-called 'Divine Strake' experiment, I have opposed it based on
both its purpose and its potential ill effects," said Rep. Jim
Matheson, whose own father, former Gov. Scott Matheson, died from
cancer as a result of the atomic testing. "The prospect of even a
non-nuclear 'mushroom cloud' over the Nevada Test Site brings back
bitter memories of how the government lied when it said that there
was no danger."
Today, a massive hole, about 32-feet in diameter and 36-feet
deep sits on Area 16, where it was waiting to be filled with 700
tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. It's the same explosive
combination that blew apart the Oklahoma City federal building, only
Divine Strake would have been 280 times larger.
''We really do live in a democracy, where people get to say, to
our government, 'No,' '' said Thomas. ''In this case, on this day,
the system the way we learned it in school, worked.''
Divine Strake timeline
* December 2005: National Nuclear Security Administration finds
Divine Strake could be done safely.
* January 2006: NNSA approves test.
* March 2006: Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director James
Tegnelia says Divine Strake would create a mushroom cloud over the
test site for the first time since the U.S. ceased nuclear tests.
* April 2006: Rep. Jim Matheson and Sen. Orrin Hatch express
concerns about the safety of the test and the Winnemucca Indian
Colony and a group of Downwinders sue to stop the test.
* June 9, 2006: NNSA withdraws its authorization, pending
further environmental studies.
* Dec. 22, 2006: NNSA's revised environmental analysis finds
that tiny amounts of radiation could be carried off the site, but
didn't pose a health risk.
* Jan. 9-11: Public meetings held to provide information.
* Feb. 7: Public comment period on test ends.
* Thursday: DTRA announces cancellation of Divine Strake.
© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune
*****************************************************************
67 Spectrum: Strake canceled
www.thespectrum.com -The Spectrum, St. George, UT
Friday, February 23, 2007
By PATRICE ST. GERMAIN patrices@thespectrum.com
ST. GEORGE - After a telephone call from Congressman Jim
Matheson's office, St. George resident and Downwinder Michelle
Thomas was at a loss for words, instead resorting to crying tears
of joy after hearing that the proposed Divine Strake test was
canceled.
The announcement came just before noon Thursday by Defense Threat
Reduction Agency Director James A. Tegnelia, who said in a press
release that he "has become convinced that it's time to look at
alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of
large-scale test."
Tegnelia further stated that the decision was not based on any
technical information that indicates the test would produce harm
to workers, the general public or the environment. Thomas didn't
care what the reason was behind canceling the 700-ton fuel oil
and ammonium nitrate bomb, which was to be detonated at the
Nevada Test Site only a mile from where nuclear bombs were tested
beginning in the early 1950s.
"I don't care why they say they are not going to do it," Thomas
said. "I'm just so thrilled that the future of this area doesn't
have this hanging over our heads - figuratively and literally."
When asked why DTRA canceled the explosion, which opponents said
could have raised radioactive dust in a mushroom cloud up to 10,000
feet in the air, Don Kerr, a DTRA public affairs specialist, said at
this time, the agency is not releasing any further information.
"Besides the director's quote, that's the best that I can do right
now," Kerr said. "The information in the news release is all we are
prepared to answer to at this time."
The test had an estimated $23 million price tag plus a few million
extra for delays. As of Thursday afternoon, Kerr didn't have figures
on how much the program has spent.
When asked if the test would take place elsewhere, Kerr replied that
Divine Strake has been canceled and no further information on future
tests was available.
Utah politicians from Gov. Jon Huntsman to Sens. Robert Bennett and
Orrin Hatch and Matheson hailed the cancellation of the test as a
victory for Utah.
"This is an expression of the will of the people and a huge victory
for all Utahns," Huntsman said in a press release. "This isn't a
political achievement as much as a reflection of democracy at work.
The people of Utah made their voices heard and those in Washington
listened. It's an extremely consequential outcome and a great day
for Utahns."
Bennett said the cancellation of the test was a welcome relief for
the thousands of Utahns with serious concerns about Divine Strake.
Hatch said canceling Divine Strake was a great victory for Utah
because the government listened.
"That decision is the result of thousands of Utahns standing firm,"
Hatch said. "No testing - nuclear or conventional - should threaten
human life."
While DTRA canceled Divine Strake, Hatch said it is important to
know the agency is still looking at ways to get the data it needs.
"We still have to be vigilant to make sure that whatever they (DTRA)
plan to do in the future is going to be safe," Hatch said.
Matheson was not available Thursday afternoon but said in a press
release that since the test was proposed last spring, he has been
opposed to the test based on both its purpose and its potential ill
effects.
"The prospect of even a non-nuclear 'mushroom cloud' over the Nevada
Test Site brings back bitter memories of how the government lied
when it said that there was no danger," said Matheson in the press
release.
Reno attorney Robert Hager, who was representing two Western
Shoshone tribes and individually named Western Shoshone and
downwinders from Nevada and Utah in the Divine Strake lawsuit, said
he was pleased that the test was canceled.
"I am pleased that the agencies have finally reached the right
conclusion and sent this to boondoggle heaven where it always
belonged," Hager said. "There was no way that a huge bomb being
detonated at the Nevada Test Site would be safe to downwinders."
Hager said he was disappointed that Nevada officials did not come to
bat like officials in Utah and said the grassroots efforts to fight
the test were impressive.
"Times have changed. This is not the '50s and '60s," Hager said.
Copyright ©2007 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
68 lamonitor.com: Divine Strake test scratched
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) said it is canceling
plans to proceed with its embattled Divine Strake experiment at the
Nevada Test Site.
"I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative
methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test,"
said DTRA Director James A. Tegnelia in an announcement Thursday.
"This decision was not based on any technical information that
indicates the test would produce harm to workers, the general
public, or the environment," he said.
The decision follows a previous cancellation, a new environmental
report that partly acknowledged concerns about stirring up old
radioactive materials and a recent series of public meetings in
which intense opposition was expressed in both Nevada and Utah.
Organized critics saw the experiment as an extension of the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator, an effort by the Bush Administration to
harden existing nuclear weapons to be used against buried targets,
such as those thought to hold nuclear facilities in Iran and North
Korea.
Divine Strake was to be a 700-ton blast using an ammonium nitrate
and fuel-oil mixture similar to the explosives used in the Oklahoma
City bombing of 1995. The purpose was to improve weapons codes and
analyze the effect of underground shocks on tunnels and buildings.
A white paper by the Western States Legal Foundation last year cited
congressional documents that tied the tests to efforts "to simulate
a low yield nuclear weapon ground shock environment."
The DOD budget request last year said the test was part of a program
"that will improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the
smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground
facilities while minimizing collateral damage. "
LANL's Earth and Environmental Sciences Division reported the
participation of the three nuclear weapons laboratories and DTRA
contractors in Divine Strake planning meetings in 2004 and 2005.
The DTRA announcement said the defense agency would look at
alternatives to the experiment, including "confirmatory experiments
at a much smaller scale to assist in developing new capabilities to
defeat underground facilities."
"DTRA remains committed to help develop non-nuclear means to defeat
underground targets. I am optimistic that we will succeed," Tegnelia
said.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
69 Reid: REID STATEMENT ON DIVINE STRAKE CANCELLATION
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Las Vegas, NV - U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada issued the
following statement after the Pentagon said they are canceling
plans for the explosion at the Nevada Test Site, called Divine
Strake.
"My highest priority has always been and will always be to
provide for the health and safety of Nevadans. Tests like these
are important projects that could help provide information for
our defense systems to be better prepared to combat the global
war on terror. However the Department of Defense failed to
appropriately consult and work with our communities to
demonstrate that the project is safe and sound. They didn't seek
proper community input in the decision and overall didn't execute
the process properly. There were still many questions left
unanswered, including the possible environmental effects. Taking
these factors into consideration, I support the Defense
Department decision to play it safe by canceling Divine Strake.
We never want to jeopardize the health and safety of Nevadans."
###
Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South,
Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax:
702-388-5030
Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)
*****************************************************************
70 ABC4.com: Matheson calls for Divine Strake federal hearings -
February 23, 2007 - 10:08 PM
Story by: Chris Vanocur chris@abc4.com
Utah Congressman Jim Matheson is now calling for a federal hearing
into Divine Strake.
Thursday, the Department of Defense cancelled the 700 ton bomb test
in the Nevada desert.
This after thousands of Utahns objected to the potential downwind
nuclear fallout.
But Friday, Matheson told ABC 4 News he wants to know exactly who
was behind the test and why.
Matheson says, "I am...on the Energy sub-committee of the House
Energy and Commerce committee which has jurisdiction over the
Department of Energy nuclear weapons program and within that
sub-committee, I want to hold hearings."
And Matheson also says that - if he has to - he will issue
congressional subpoenas.
For our complete coverage on Divine Strake, Click Here.
; 2007 Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. |
*****************************************************************
71 UPI: Bunker-busting 'Strake' test blast is off
United Press International - Security & Terrorism -
2/23/2007 3:01:00 PM -0500
LAS VEGAS, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- A controversial non-nuclear test
explosion known as Divine Strake was canceled this week by the U.S.
Defense Department.
The experiment involved detonating a pit loaded with 700 tons of
explosive ammonium nitrate slurry to see what effect the blast would
have on a tunnel deep beneath the Nevada Test Site, but it raised
concerns about possible clouds of radioactive dirt left behind by
Cold War atomic testing being spread over the region.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency said in a news release late
Thursday it had determined it was time to look at alternatives to
Divine Strake, which was aimed at advancing U.S. "ability to defeat
underground facilities that produce and store weapons of mass
destruction."
The agency lamented that alternative means of accumulating the
needed data currently don't exist, but pledged to develop
smaller-scale experiments that would do the trick. The statement
added the decision to scrub Divine Strake was not based on any
evidence the test would cause any harm to the environment or to
people in the region.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal said Friday that area lawmakers,
including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, opposed the experiment.
Also, lawsuits filed to stop the test had added more than $2 million
to the cost of the $23 million test.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
72 The State: South Carolina's credibility at stake on nuclear dumping
Wed, Feb. 21, 2007
BY ANN TIMBERLAKE Guest columnist
Since the General Assembly convened, nuclear waste lobbyists have
been hard at work to undermine the law that established the
Atlantic Compact between South Carolina, New Jersey and
Connecticut. This law complies with interstate commerce
conventions and is the only way South Carolina can cease being
the nation¹s nuclear dumping ground.
Given the General Assembly¹s record of caving in to the waste
industry in 1992 and again in 1995, this attack on the law was
not unexpected ‹ but the ease with which House members are
embracing it is disturbing, especially given their widespread
support for the Compact when it was adopted into law. The House¹s
buckling under also ignores the overwhelming desire of South
Carolinians to stop being the dumping ground for toxics other
states do not want.
The law passed in 2000 that resulted in the compact was a
compromise between the site operator (then Chem-Nuclear, now
Energy Solutions), waste generators and utilities, the
conservation community and elected officials representing
Barnwell County. In short, the compact law was supported by all
the players. So it¹s vital for citizens from all over the state
to question the rationale for changing course seven years later.
The state-owned Barnwell site was proposed as a modest 10- to
20-acre landfill. Since 1971, it has accepted more commercial
nuclear waste than any other facility in the nation, with 95
percent of waste generated and imported from outside of South
Carolina. More than 27 million cubic feet of radioactive waste,
mostly from nuclear power plants, is now buried under 100 acres
there.
With only 2.5 million of 30 million licensed cubic feet
available, the site is 90 percent full. Beginning in fiscal year
2008, space at the site is guaranteed for South Carolina¹s own
nuclear waste needs for the next 50 years.
As long as South Carolina¹s utilities need a place to dump their
radioactive waste, the Barnwell site is available. Moreover,
Energy Solutions has already filed an operating plan with the
Public Service Commission showing how it can remain open even
with lowered volume levels. There is simply no rationale for
providing space for waste from all over the country.
Legislators included a number of provisions to soften the
economic impact of closing the site to other states, including a
sweetheart deal guaranteeing a 29 percent operating profit for
the site operator. Moreover, New Jersey and Connecticut have paid
$12 million to the Barnwell Economic Development Fund to finance
local projects and infrastructure.
Rep. Billy Witherspoon, chairman of the House Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee, inroduced a bill last week to
essentially gut the provisions of the compact law. His
legislation proposes to change current law and allow 40,000 cubic
feet to be accepted annually from all over the country for the
next 15 years.
But even if some economic reasons could be found for expanding
the site, the Barnwell facility makes terrible sense from an
environmental perspective. The site has already leaked
radioactive tritium into Mary¹s Branch Creek, which feeds into
the Savannah River. And while the Barnwell facility is
categorized as a ³low-level² nuclear waste facility, that
designation still allows it to accept highly radioactive and
long-lived waste, including nuclear reactor filters and
decommissioned reactor components.
During his re-election bid, Gov. Mark Sanford supported
³continued participation in the Atlantic Compact as part of the
existing roadmap for the future of the site.² In addition, the
governor insisted that funds previously diverted from the
Barnwell Extended Care Trust Fund be repaid to allow for future
maintenance and monitoring.
South Carolina¹s willingness time and again to prostitute itself
to the nuclear industry has caused other regional waste compacts
to postpone opening sites elsewhere. We saw this in North
Carolina in 1996, and Gov. David Beasley used this as our state¹s
motivation for withdrawing from the Southeastern Compact.
South Carolina¹s credibility is on the line. We have done our
fair share for the nation. The safest and most predictable course
for protecting our own energy future and the health of our
citizens is to ask elected officials to simply stick to the
current law.
Ms. Timberlake is executive director of Conservation Voters of
South Carolina, www.conservationvotersofsc.org.
Posted: -- Glenn Carroll Coordinator NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH
(formerly GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy) P.O. Box 8574
Atlanta, GA 31106 PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263
atom.girl@mindspring.com
http://www.nonukesyall.org/
*****************************************************************
73 Herald News: Nuke plan unpopular
HeraldNewsOnline.com
PROPONENTS SAY RECYCLING SPENT RODS NEAR MORRIS WOULD ALLEVIATE AN
EXISTING DANGER, BUT
February 23, 2007
By CHRISTINA CHAPMAN Staff Writer
JOLIET -- Grundy County is home to, or within miles of, seven
reactors, and some local residents say these are enough nuclear
threats in their back yards. They say a recycling center for
spent fuel rods is not welcome.
Ken Dagget of Morris expresses his concerns about a nuclear fuel
recycling center proposed for the Morris area Thursday during a
meeting in Joliet.
(KARA BERCHEM/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Daggett was one of about 30 people who spoke, most in opposition,
at the U.S. Department of Energy's "scoping meeting" during which
the public was asked to comment on the environmental impact of a
proposed nuclear fuel recycling operation at General Electric
Co.'s Morris-area facility. More than 100 people attended.
The proposal is part of President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, which seeks to build facilities that will recycle
spent nuclear fuel and destroy its long-lived radioactive
components. The facilities would recover about 95 percent of the
energy available in spent nuclear fuel and reduce radioactive
half-lives.
David Kraft, director of Nuclear Energy Information Service,
summed up the concerns of many speakers. Kraft highlighted
security risks from terrorists, lack of capable emergency
response if a spill was to occur, inadequate roadways to handle
the increased traffic for spent fuel shipment and national policy
concerns.
"We are sending mixed messages by introducing reprocessing and
telling countries like Iran 'don't do as we do, do as we say,'"
Kraft said.
One employee of the nuclear industry broke the trend and supported
the DOE's proposal.
"With all these reactors operating, we need to do something with the
waste," said Scott Ackerman of Braidwood, who works at a nuclear
facility.
Ackerman pointed out that we already have nuclear waste sitting in
pools and on site at nuclear plants because the government's plan to
move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled.
The reprocessing procedure offers a solution, he said, or at least
research for a solution.
How it works
The DOE's proposal is to design, build and operate three facilities:
an advanced fuel cycle research facility, a nuclear fuel recycling
center and an advanced recycling reactor, which would destroy
long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel, while generating
electricity.
In the 1970s, when research in this technology was stopped, it was
because of the fear of terrorists getting a hold of the plutonium
that is left over from processing. Plutonium can be used to make
nuclear weapons. The new procedure no longer isolates plutonium, put
turns it into a material that can be disposed of in a geologic
repository such as Yucca Mountain. The difference is that instead of
storing it in the mountain for thousands of years until the waste
becomes less hazardous, it takes hundreds of years, said Brian
Quirke of the DOE.
GE and Argonne's role
GE would combine with research facilities at Argonne National
Laboratory. The two facilities are among 13 sites in eight states
under consideration for the project. GE was given $1.5 million from
the DOE to conduct a study on the Morris location. A more specific
economic study will be done later.
The DOE is expected to choose one or more sites for the new
technology by June 2008.
GE currently stores spent nuclear fuel rods in pools on site. If the
GE site is chosen, the site's current rods would be put through the
recycling process, which after construction, could take 15 years to
complete, said Tom Rumsey, GE manager of communications and public
affairs.
GE is just southwest of Exelon Nuclear's Dresden Station, also
outside of Morris, where nuclear spent rods are also stored. Rumsey
said GE will state in its application that it would only reprocess
spent fuel from Illinois.
"There is plenty in the state, so we see no reason to bring any in,"
Rumsey said.
Even if the GE site is selected, it will only participate using
Argonne's technology. Argonne is one of two companies that has come
up with technology to reprocess the spent fuel. Argonne proposes to
electronically drive the reprocessing procedure with the waste
ending as a solid. The other method DOE is considering recycles the
fuel chemically and turns the waste into a liquid.
Christina Chapman can be reached at (815) 729-6172 or by e-mail at
cchapman@scn1.com
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group |
*****************************************************************
74 Platts: Uranium prices continue to rise, reaching at least $85/pound
Washington (Platts)--21Feb2007
The spot price of uranium has reached at least $85 a pound U3O8,
market sources said.
The price increased $10/lb this week based on the results of
an auction of 100,000 lb U3O8 February 20 by Texas-based Mestena
Uranium.
Ux Consulting said in its latest weekly report said the
auction "tapped into some pent-up demand, especially on the part
of those that don't want to purchase on a market price basis."
--Mike Knapik, newsdesk@platts.com
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
75 Platts: French, Russians sign MOU to develop uranium deposits in S Africa
London (Platts)--22Feb2007
French and Russian industry wooed South Africa's energy leaders
this week in a bid for access to the country's uranium resources
and potential nuclear plant supply business.
Russian federal nuclear agency Rosatom head Sergey Kirienko said
after talks in Pretoria February 21 that Russia's Renova group
and South Africa's Harmony Gold had signed a memorandum to
develop gold and uranium deposits in South Africa, and that
Russia could extend its enriched uranium supply contract with
South Africa's Eskom until 2020.
Renova, an investment group, is partnering with Rosatom
subsidiary Techsnabexport in the uranium deal. Kirienko said
Russia could share nuclear technology with South Africa as well.
Separately, French industry minister Francois Loos offered French
cooperation in building new nuclear power plants for Eskom. South
Africa's minerals and energy minister Buyelwa Sonjica said her
country ultimately seeks a complete nuclear manufacturing
industry. France's Areva, Russia's Atomstroyexport, and
Westinghouse are said to be candidates to build a new nuclear
plant planned for the Cape region by 2014.
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
76 London Times: Global drive for nuclear power lifts uranium to record high-
February 24, 2007
David Robertson, Business Correspondent
An increasing demand for nuclear power pushed the global price of
uranium to a new high of $85 per pound yesterday, capping another
record week in the commodities sector.
Tin, lead and nickel have also hit record levels in the past three
days, to the benefit of London-listed mining companies, which have
seen their share prices rise on the market.
The increase in uranium prices comes as countries across the world
are seeking to reduce their reliance on oil-and gas-generated
electricity.
Each new reactor requires 600 tonnes of uranium to start the
generating process and then it requires a further 200 tonnes a year.
This increase in demand has not been matched by an increase in
supply because it can take up to a decade to develop and exploit new
mines.
As a result, the price of uranium yellowcake, the raw material used
in reactors, has rocketed. It has quadrupled in the past two years
and rose a further 13 per cent this week to $85 per pound.
Analysts predict that it could reach $100 per pound next week when
Cameco, the Canadian uranium miner, reports on the status of its
Cigar Lake facility.
Flooding at Cigar Lake, which will add 17 per cent to the world’s
uranium supply, threatens to delay the start of production.
The rise in uranium prices has created a rush to develop uranium
mines and a number of new companies are raising money to begin
operations.
Yesterday, UraMin, the Aim-listed miner, announced that it was
intending to raise a further $200 million (£102.4 million) from
investors to help finance a mine in Namibia.
The London Metal Exchange was also setting records this week. The
price of tin hit a high of $13,950 a tonne on Thursday as traders
continue to worry about limited supplies. The price eased slightly
yesterday to $13,300.
Nickel hit its high on Wednesday, reaching $40,250, and then matched
it again yesterday.
Production difficulties at Xstrata’s lead refinery in Aus-tralia
caused the price of the metal to rise this week as it hit new highs
in the past two days. It closed yesterday at $1,930.
Even copper, which has slipped 30 per cent since reaching $8,800 a
tonne last May, has seen a bounce in price. It rose $345 on Thursday
and $175 yesterday, closing at $6,310.
Traders believe that the copper sell-off has reached the end of its
run and speculators are returning to the market. Even at $6,310,
copper is still more than three times the price it was in 2003.
Shares in London-listed miners rose yesterday as commodity prices
surged.
The Times and The Sunday Times.
*****************************************************************
77 Norway Post: Aker Kvaerner JV wins Sellafield contract
Sat, 24.02.2007
British Nuclear Group has awarded the ACKtiv Nuclear Joint
Venture (JV) - consisting of Aker Kvaerner, Atkins and Carillion
- a contract to support a decommissioning project at Sellafield.
/ np
23.02.2007 07:33
The project will provide a new operational export facility within
the First Generation Magnox Storage Pond at Sellafield in the UK.
The project entails stripping out, refurbishing and modifying the
existing inlet building to provide the new facility.
The facility will be used to enable skips of pond inventory, plus
miscellaneous redundant items to be safely placed inside shielded
flasks. The flasks will be exported by means of a flask transporter
for onward processing and long-term safe storage. The scope of this
contract is for the development, detailed design, supply,
installation and in-active commissioning of the new export facility.
The project is scheduled to run until March 2009, with Aker
Kvaerner receiving a 40% share of the JV's GBP 15 million
contract value. The project will contribute significantly to the
post operational clean out of the First Generation Magnox Storage
Ponds, and the ultimate safe decommissioning and site remediation
of this historic waste storage facility.
Dave Ley, President of Aker Kvaerner Engineering Services, says
the ACKtiv Nuclear JV are delighted to be working with British
Nuclear Group on this significant project at Sellafield.
- This is a major strategic project opportunity to extend our
relationship with British Nuclear Group at Sellafield and our
portfolio of Nuclear projects throughout the UK, he says.
ACKtiv Nuclear have previously delivered over GBP 40 million of
similar decommissioning projects over the last three years.
(HUGIN)
Imaker Content Management Systems - © 1996 - 2005 Imaker as
*****************************************************************
78 Daily Herald: Huntsman considers veto on nuclear waste
Friday, February 23, 2007
The Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Jon Huntsman is being urged by voters to veto
a bill that would eliminate his office, the Legislature and local
governments from any role in the expansion of a nuclear-waste
landfill.
Huntsman's office received more than 320 calls Tuesday from people
asking him to veto the bill.
"I'm reviewing it," Huntsman said Wednesday. "I want to make sure
there are no backdoors in terms of volumes of waste (and) in terms
of hotter waste."
Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley said that calls continued to
come in Wednesday and Thursday, although not quite as many as
Tuesday, and the governor was still considering his decision.
Huntsman vetoed a bill last year that would have taken away the need
for his approval on new waste sites and major expansions.
The pending bill passed both the House and the Senate with enough
votes to override a veto.
EngergySolutions, a company that owns a low-level radiation facility
in the desert west of Salt Lake City, has been lobbying lawmakers to
support the bill.
The company has said the state law requiring elected leaders to
weigh in was never intended to apply to its operations, which, if
the bill becomes law, would be free to take five times as much waste
as it already has at its site in Tooele County.
Greg Hopkins, EnergySolutions vice president of public affairs, said
the measure would not change operations.
"The governor has ample information to make a decision, including
the advice of his own Department of Environmental Quality as well as
from the attorney general, who is in favor of this legislation," he
said.
The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah has also been lobbying
legislators to support Huntsman if he rejects the bill.
A new group also took out ads in Salt Lake City newspapers urging
people to call lawmakers and oppose the bill. This story appeared in
The Daily Herald on page A7.
Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
79 Montgomery Newspapers - Adviser: Fuel rod storage may not be 'temporary'
Saturday, February 24
By: Evan Brandt
02/22/2007
"Interim" and "temporary" may be synonyms, but when it comes to
the storage of spent nuclear fuel, they mean very different
things to Don Read.
Read is the chairman of Pottstown's environmental advisory committee.
He told the Borough Council Monday that a change in language by
Exelon Nuclear - from calling its project to store spent nuclear
fuel in dry casks outside the reactor building in Limerick an
"interim solution" to a "temporary solution" - is something to watch.
Had the project been permanent, it might have drawn more scrutiny
from local officials and residents, Read said. But calling it a
"temporary solution" probably convinced many people that it was not
something they needed to worry about, said Read.
The recent change in the party controlling Congress has led to a new
Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has long opposed the
federal government's plan to permanently store the nation's spent
nuclear fuel beneath Yucca Mountain in his home state. That combined
with the cost overruns, scientific conflicts and delays associated
with the project have led many to theorize that the repository at
Yucca Mountain will never open. When these elements are considered
in light of the fact that "Exelon has changed the official
designation of this project to an 'interim solution,'" the project
deserves new scrutiny, Read argued. "Let's face facts, council. For
all intents and purposes, at least for our lifetimes, this is going
to be a permanent storage facility," Read said of the project,
approved in July by the Limerick Board of Supervisors. "If we can't
ship this fuel to Nevada, where is it likely to end up?"
Borough Council President Jack Wolf asked Read. "Most likely we'll
end up with regional depositories around the country; hopefully
Limerick doesn't end up as one of those," Read said. Beth
Rapczynski, a spokeswoman for Exelon, disputed that conclusion. "Our
ultimate goal is to have all our spent fuel taken to the federal
repository at Yucca Mountain," she said.
"Our (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) permit does not allow us to
take fuel from other facilities," Rapczynski added.
Those permits, one for each of the two nuclear reactors, expire in
2024 and 2029.
Also important to consider, Read said, "if this project has been
designed as a 'temporary solution,' what happens when it becomes the
permanent solution? "Nothing man has ever built is 100 percent
reliable, particularly not something that was designed to be
temporary. What we should be doing now is prepare for the time when
it fails," Read said.
Which is why Read said his committee is so disappointed Exelon
rebuffed Pottstown's request for additional radiation and
temperature monitoring outside the casks. The fuel inside them will
remain radioactive for thousands of years.
Read said his group is also "disappointed other municipalities near
the plant didn't have some concerns. You know, it seems that until
someone bangs the gong, there isn't always a lot of support for
people who are trying to make a difference."
In an effort to generate some of that support, Read asked the
Borough Council for permission for the environmental advisory
commission to "send a letter to each municipality in the nuclear
plant's evacuation zone and hopefully solicit some support."
©Montgomery Newspapers 2007
Copyright © 1995 - 2007 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
80 AFP: Military police storm anti-nuclear protest ship
Fri Feb 23, 2:36 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Military police on Friday stormed a Greenpeace
vessel that sailed into a submarine base in Scotland to protest
Britain's plans to modernise its nuclear deterrent, the Royal
Navy said.
About 20 officers with battering rams clambered aboard the
"Arctic Sunrise" at 5:25 pm (1725 GMT) outside the Faslane Naval
Base on the River Clyde, north of Glasgow, which is home to
Britain's Trident fleet of nuclear submarines.
The 164-foot (50-metre) former icebreaker breached the restricted
area of the base early Friday morning as part of an anti-nuclear
protest, eventually dropping anchor just outside a defensive boom at
lunchtime.
Military police were in the process of motoring the ship inside the
naval base to a waiting berth, where the protesters will be dealt
with, the navy spokesman said. There was no resistance from the
protesters, he added.
"We have put a pilot on board and we are manoeuvring the vessel from
its location adjacent to the boom that protects the Trident
submarines.
"We are taking it to a berth inside the base," he said.
About 20 activists on board had earlier refused a series of requests
by Minsitry of Defence (MoD) police to move the vessel, warning
instead they had no intention of leaving.
Police earlier arrested 16 activists who accompanied the "Arcitc
Sunrise" in six rigid hull inflatable boats.
The environmental group aimed to block submarines from exiting the
base but not entering, after hearing that lawmakers from the
governing Labour Party were about to tour the facility.
A navy spokeswoman said members of parliament had been due Thursday
morning to visit Faslane, but that the visit had been cancelled last
week.
Parliament is due to vote in March on whether to support Prime
Minister Tony Blair's plans to modernise the Trident nuclear weapons
system at a cost of about 25 billion pounds (37 billion euros, 46
billion dollars).
The current deterrent consists of four Royal Navy submarines, one of
which is always on patrol, fitted with US-built Trident missiles.
It will become obsolete in the mid-2020s.
Opposition to nuclear weapons was historically a central plank of
Labour Party policy throughout the Cold War, and Blair's proposals
have sparked wide debate and opposition both within parliament and
the media.
Many Labour lawmakers argue that a deterrent is no longer needed
after the end of the Cold War.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
81 Hanford News: Bechtel to add 760 workers
This story was published Friday, February 23rd, 2007
Annette Cary Herald staff writer
Bechtel National is ready to start hiring again now that
earthquake design issues appear close to being resolved and
there's more certainty about funding for themassive radioactive
waste vitrification plant.
The company has posted job openings for 125 positions, mostly
engineers. They'll be doing work to prepare for the restart of
construction on the High Level Waste Facility and then the
Pretreatment Plant.
Bechtel now has 2,340 workers and plans to increase that to 2,700
by the end of this year and to 3,100 by the end of 2008.
That's still down from a peak of about 3,800 workers before problems
surfaced on the huge construction project at the Hanford nuclear
reservation. Bechtel National and the Department of Energy have said
they want to avoid sudden large increases and decreases in staffing.
"It's going to be a slow build-up," said John Britton, Bechtel
National spokesman.
Work was ramped down, then stopped near the beginning of 2006 on key
parts of the plant that will handle high-level radioactive waste
because of technical issues that included a revised design standard
to ensure the plant could withstand a worst-case earthquake. In
addition, the annual budget for the plant was cut from $690 million
to $526 million as Congress questioned management of the project and
needed money for Gulf hurricane relief costs.
But now data from new bore holes drilled on the vitrification plant
site appear to show the revised earthquake standard will stand. The
standard was revised after a small study conducted in 2004.
The current larger study is intended to verify the new standard is
sufficient. Final results of the study are expected this spring and
Bechtel National could have approval of the revised design standard
by early summer.
Bechtel's plans for increasing staffing are based on expected
budgets of $690 million for the 2007 and 2008 budget years. This
month the U.S. Senate followed the U.S. House in approving a fiscal
year 2007 budget resolution giving DOE wide discretion in spending.
Hanford officials are expecting DOE to allocate $690 million to the
vitrification plant.
In addition, the Bush administration's spending request for fiscal
year 2008 released earlier this month asks Congress for a second
year of full funding for construction.
The $12.3 billion plant is being built to turn Hanford's worst waste
now held in underground tanks into a stable glass form for disposal.
Wastes are left from the past production of plutonium for nuclear
weapons.
Bechtel National is beginning to ramp up work at the plant by hiring
engineers over the next several months to prepare for restart of
construction on the High Level Radioactive Waste Facility and the
Pretreatment Facility. They are the two largest buildings at the
plant and the ones affected by the earthquake design standard issue.
Bechtel National now employs 400 construction workers and 1,940
non-manual workers, such as engineers, managers and support staff.
It plans to increase the non-manual staff to 2,150 by the end of the
year. That will include an estimated 150 new engineering hires and
about 60 support and other staff for jobs such as administration,
procurement and contract work.
By the end of 2008, Bechtel National expects a drop in the number of
non-manual workers to 2,050.
Construction hiring is not expected to start until late this year.
But by the end of the year Bechtel National plans to increase
construction jobs from 400 to 550. Construction is expected to
restart on the High Level Waste Facility in the last months of 2007
and work could restart on the Pretreatment Plant in early 2008.
That year should see a large increase in construction workers with
500 hired, bringing the total to 1,050 construction workers.
Bechtel job postings may be found at www.waste2glass.com on the
Internet. Current job openings include positions for many types of
engineers, designers and technicians.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
82 AP Wire: Hanford official retires, top two jobs now open
Washington | kgw.com | News for Oregon and SW Washington
02/23/2007
By SHANNON DININNY / Associated Press
The man who oversees cleanup on half of the Hanford nuclear
reservation announced his retirement Friday, creating a second
vacancy among the top two jobs charged with steering cleanup of the
nation's most contaminated nuclear site.
Keith Klein, who has managed the Department of Energy's Richland
Operations office since 1999, said he has accomplished many of his
goals at the site in eastern Washington state and is ready to move
on to new challenges after a 34-year career with the department.
Klein said he had planned to retire a year ago, but was persuaded to
stay longer. He expects to leave by the end of May.
Last fall, the Energy Department announced it was transferring the
manager of its Office of River Protection, Roy Schepens, to
Washington, D.C., amid escalating costs and construction delays of a
new waste treatment plant. In a news release Friday, the Energy
Department announced that Schepens was instead retiring, effective
Feb. 28.
Together, Klein and Schepens have managed 10,000 employees
responsible for cleaning up waste and contamination left from
decades of plutonium production at the 586-square-mile site. Their
retirements open up two of the most high-profile positions in the
Energy Department's program to clean up former weapons complexes.
"This is an awesome responsibility. It's an awesome trust," Klein
said in a telephone interview from Richland, Wash. "I've learned a
lot, and I've benefited a lot, but it's healthy for the site and
it's healthy for me to have some change."
The federal government established Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. The site
produced the plutonium for the Fat Man bomb that was dropped on
Nagasaki, Japan, and continued to produce plutonium for the nation's
nuclear weapons arsenal through the Cold War.
Cleanup is expected to top $50 billion.
Two of three cleanup tasks identified as urgent risks to public
safety and the environment fell under Klein's purview. Both were
completed during his tenure.
In 2004, workers completed the removal of 2,100 tons of spent
nuclear fuel from leak-prone basins just yards from the Columbia
River. A lack of progress on that project had been the subject of
congressional hearings before Klein's arrival at Hanford.
Workers also stabilized and packaged 12 tons of plutonium in
preparation for long-term storage off the Hanford site.
Klein also cited as a proud accomplishment the start of a project to
begin cleaning up the Columbia River corridor, where workers have
been tearing down buildings, remediating groundwater and digging up
burial grounds of everything from animal carcasses and unexploded
munitions to rail cars and boxes of "unknown-isms."
The general public seems to have the perception that no work ever
gets done at Hanford, Klein said, but that ongoing criticism is
unfair given workers' successes.
"It can be dangerous work. We want to do things right. There's a
risk of doing nothing, and there's a risk of doing something wrong,"
he said. "It can paralyze, but I think we're achieving the right
balance."
The third urgent cleanup task, managed by Schepens, involves
construction of a waste treatment plant to treat 53 million gallons
of waste stored in 177 underground tanks, some have which have
leaked into the groundwater.
Escalating costs, delays and construction problems for the
one-of-a-kind plant have overshadowed the department's successes in
recent months. A recent review pushed the operating date to November
2019, far beyond the original 1999 deadline.
However, during Schepens' five-year tenure, Hanford workers emptied
the first six tanks of waste. They also finally broke ground on the
long-stalled plant and speeded up design and construction.
Tribes have long complained that the federal government has failed
to fully catalog all of the contamination at the site, a step they
argue must be completed for long-term cleanup to be successful.
Environmental groups have long complained about the slow pace of
work, and various groups have raised concerns about worker safety
over the years.
Tom Carpenter, executive director of the nuclear watchdog group
Government Accountability Project, wished both men well.
"I know it's a really hard job," he said. "I couldn't say I'd do any
better than they did."
Carpenter credited Schepens for supporting creation of an
independent council where tank-farm workers could raise safety
concerns. At the same time, he expressed concerns about the ongoing
problems with the waste treatment plant, as well as having new
people assume Hanford's two leadership posts.
"We can't afford to just coast for six, seven months and then get
somebody new who needs a year to get up to speed," he said. "This
project is too big and too important to not take it seriously."
The Energy Department already is evaluating candidates for Schepens'
position and plans to announce a new manager in the coming months,
the news release said. The department plans to initiate a nationwide
search for Klein's successor.
2007 KGW-TV
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************