*****************************************************************
03/05/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.53
*****************************************************************
   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 UPI: Outside View: Iraq worse than Vietnam-2
2 UN Atomic Watchdog Agency Reports Stalemate Over Iran's Nuclear Prog
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's rich architecture and rare treasures thre
4 AFP: Israel urges international community to shun Iranian leader - 
5 Reuters: Air strikes on Iran could backfire - report 
6 Reuters: Saudi defends Gulf Arab atom plans, criticizes Iran 
7 Reuters: Major powers fail to settle Iran differences | 
8 AFP: Attacking Iran could speed up nuclear programme - think tank - 
9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA: Iran May Have Halted Nuke Program 
10 Korea Herald: Kim Jong-il visits China Embassy
11 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Flawed intelligence
12 Digital Chosunilbo: Was There a Backroom Deal with North Korea?
13 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: North Korea's nuclear talks and agreements | 
14 Reuters: FACTBOX: Key facts on North Korea's nuclear capabilities | 
15 UPI: Interview: Pyonyang talks key for peace
16 UPI: Negroponte in Seoul for N.Korea talks
17 Korea Times: Korea Set to OK Nuclear Fusion Energy Project
18 Korea Times: Highly Enriched Uranium Is Self-Inflicted Sticking Poin
19 AFP: UN aid programme suspends operations in North Korea - 
20 UPI: N.Korea seeks to mend ties with China
21 US: Guardian Unlimited: Official report says US CO2 to rise by 20% 
22 US: OpEd News: State Secrets Privilege Was Used to Cover Up Corrupti
23 UPI: Opposition to U.S. missile system grows
24 Wilmington News Journal: WWII atomic bombings topic of Wednesday pro
25 Canada: Gobal Research: “Nuclear Primacy"
26 RIA Novosti: Russia to receive 2 modernized strategic bombers in 200
27 UPI: Analysis: The U.N.'s war on global warming
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
28 [NukeNet] Japan Plutonium Use Plan
29 World Nuclear News: Laguna Verde set for 260 MWe uprate
30 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo Canyon to get ready for the heav
31 FP Passport: Israel seeks civilian nuclear power | 
32 World Nuclear News: Energy Alberta prepare to introduce nuclear
33 BBC NEWS: Firm aims to reopen nuclear plant
34 US: FR: NRC: Mr. Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
35 US: FR: NRC: Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Pro
36 US: FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meetin
37 US: FR: NRC: Notice of Public Meeting for Fuel Cycle Facilities
38 IAEA: Statements of the Director General
39 Independent: Climate Change
40 US: tENNESSEAN: Speak out against flawed plan to jumpstart nuclear p
41 Baltic News: Vilnius signs nuclear plant agreement with Warsaw
42 US: Mid-Hudson News: New siren positions set 
43 The Australian: Aussies embrace nuclear power - poll 
44 AU ABC: Switkowski appointment shows Govt's nuclear plans - Greenpea
45 AU ABC: Nuclear power gaining support - poll. 
46 AU: News Limited: Australians warm to nuclear future | 
47 UK: News Limited: Switkowski appointment criticised | 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Administration posture prompts fear of new bl
49 US: FR: DOL exposure meetings  
50 Global News Service: Tests to reveal levels of depleted uranium in A
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
51 [NukeNet] Japan-Russia Uranium Enrichment
52 US: [NukeNet] Uranium Speculators Drive Up Price - Irking Utilities
53 US: Platts: US Senate energy panel tells budget panel it is split ov
54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions hires senior energy official 
55 KRQE News 13: Uranium plant water plan approved
56 US: UPI: Senators say GNEP funds not assured
 
                           PEACE
 
57 Bulletin Online: A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Prohibition versus Eli
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
58 New U.S. Nuclear Weapons
59 San Jose Mercury News: Livermore lab's design to update warheads
60 DOE: DOE Achieves Goal of 200 Energy Savings Assessments
61 DOE: Two Senior Energy Department Officials to Depart
62 DOE: DOE Awards $5.6 Million to U.S. Universities for Nuclear Resear
63 Tri-City Herald: DOE departures leave Tri-Cities in a lurch
64 Hanford News: Richland native paints picture of life in desert
65 Inside Bay Area: Lawrence Livermore plans new H-bomb
66 SF Chron: Bomb gurus ponder non-nuclear future / New U.S. weapons co
67 UPI: U.S. chooses new 'safe' nuke wepaon design
68 KnoxNews: As warnings grow more dire, Nobelist emerges as leader
69 Hemscott: DOE staffers taking industry jobs
70 KVII Online: Package causes Pantex evacuation 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 UPI: Outside View: Iraq worse than Vietnam-2

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

3/5/2007 11:17:00 AM -0500

By YEVGENY SATANOVSKY UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, March 5 (UPI) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's new surge
"strategy" in Iraq has nothing to do with real strategy, but makes
sense as a tactical step. The Americans will have to redeploy and
withdraw to bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Gulf monarchies.

By establishing control over oil pipelines, terminals and fields, as
well as the embassy district, parliament and the government in
Baghdad, they may go away, while retaining their presence.
Successful redeployment under fire is only possible after preemptive
strikes against the enemy. To do this, it is necessary to increase
the strength of the troops and build reserves for screening the
moving units. These are the ABCs of military art.

What else can the U.S. president do? The civil war in Iraq has
become irreversible. The war started in the name of democracy (if we
forget about Saddam Hussein's fictional nuclear bomb) has brought
neither security nor peace to the Iraqi people. They lived better
under Saddam's dictatorship.

Today, they have electricity for 12 hours a day, and in Baghdad for
six to seven hours. Unemployment has reached 70 percent in some
areas. Iraqis are fleeing from their country. About 500,000 to 1
million Iraqi emigrants are in Syria; 500,000 to 700,000 in Jordan;
and some 100,000 in Egypt. In the official Iraqi estimate, about
100,000 people left the country every month in 2006; the total
number of refugees has surpassed 2 million since 2003. More than
18,000 are doctors, scientists, engineers and teachers. Inside Iraq,
more than 500,000 people left their permanent residences and moved
to their religious communities' abode.

By the beginning of 2007, the Iraqi communities controlled three out
of Iraq's 18 provinces. In 2006, the Iraqi army increased its
strength to 119,000 and the police to 199,000. But the majority of
Iraqi units are unable to resist the insurgents and terrorists
without U.S. army support. The 100,000-strong Peshmerga forces are
under the exclusive command of the Kurd leaders.

The militants of the almost 20,000-strong Mahdi Army led by Shiite
radical Moqtada al-Sadr, are ousting the Sunnis. In 2006 alone, 10
city districts with mixed population became Shiite. The Shiites
prevail in the Baghdad administration. The anti-Shiite opposition
consists of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, New Baath Party, 1920
Revolution Brigades, the Mohammad Army, and about 1,300 foreign
militants.

At the same time, Riyadh and Cairo have called on the United States
not to speed up troop withdrawal from Iraq. Turkish Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan believes that the United States should draft a
schedule for troop withdrawal and reduce the strength of its forces
slowly, all the more so since the Kurd militants are creating
permanent tensions on the Turkish border with Iraqi Kurdistan. The
situation on the border with Iran is not calm either, although
Tehran has established relations with both the predominantly Shiite
government in Baghdad and the Shiite radicals, whom it is helping
train militants and supplying with arms. In 2006, Syria restored
diplomatic relations with Iraq after a break of more than 20 years,
but blocked the border by stationing a 7,500-strong contingent there.

It seems that all possible mistakes in Iraq have already been made.
The U.S. administration and President Bush may still make more
mistakes in Iran and Syria, but they will not generate a regional
disaster because it has already happened. New wars, or awkward
diplomatic moves can only speed it up or slow it down.

Time is the only cure for historic mistakes of this dimension. The
experience of old colonial empires is of great help, and it says
that haste makes waste. There is no sense in rushing troop
withdrawal and losing face. It is necessary to come to terms with
those who are ready to talk and be tough with those who are not; it
is important to forget the cliches of the second half of the 20th
century.

First and foremost, it is essential to part with the illusion that
the world community is capable of effective action. It is no more
than a small group of officials, politicians, journalists and
international bureaucrats who claim the role of the world government
without any grounds.

It is important to monitor the situation and support the stability
of any regional regimes regardless of whether they are democratic or
not. Effective quarantine should be established at Iraqi borders. It
is necessary to gradually build up relations with those who will
take power in Iraq, or the enclaves into which it disintegrates.

This medicine has bitter taste. The reality is unfair, ugly and
offensive. It is very far from the infantile attitudes of messianic
politicians. But there is no other reality.

(Yevgeny Satanovsky is president of the Institute of the Middle East
in Moscow. This article is publuished by permission of the RIA
Novosti news agency. The opinions expressed in this article are
those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of the
RIA Novosti editorial board.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an
open forum, original submissions are invited.)

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 2 UN Atomic Watchdog Agency Reports Stalemate Over Iran's Nuclear Programme
 
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:00:56 -0500

UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG AGENCY REPORTS STALEMATE OVER IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
 
New York, Mar  5 2007 11:00AM
Lacking “the necessary level of transparency and cooperation,” the 
United Nations atomic watchdog agency reiterated yet again today 
that it could not provide assurances that Iran’s nuclear programme 
is solely for the peaceful purpose of generating energy and not 

“The current situation remains somewhat of a stalemate,” UN International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei 
<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n004.html">told 
the agency’s Board of Governors in presenting his 
latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme, noting that the case was 
in a class of its own because of Tehran’s two decades of undeclared 
activities in breach of its obligations under Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty (<"http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html">NPT). 


“The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared 
nuclear material in Iran. However, we continue to be unable to reconstruct 
fully the history of Iran’s nuclear programme and some 
of its components, because we have not been provided with the necessary 
level of transparency and cooperation on the part of Iran,” 
he said. 

“We have not seen concrete proof of the diversion of nuclear material, 
nor the industrial capacity to produce weapon-usable nuclear 
material, which is an important consideration in assessing the 
risk. However, quite a few uncertainties still remain about experiments, 
procurements and other activities relevant to our understanding 
of the scope and nature of Iran’s programme. This renders 
the Agency unable to provide the required assurance about the peaceful 
nature of Iran’s nuclear programme,” he added. 

He termed Iran’s insistence on linking its readiness to resolve IAEA 
concerns to actions by the Security Council, which has already 
imposed sanctions and is considering further measures “difficult 
to understand,” and called for the resumption of negotiations between 
Tehran and all relevant parties. 

“I remain convinced that only through negotiation can a comprehensive 
and durable solution be attained to the Iranian nuclear question 

Iran insists its programme is purely for energy production but many 
other countries maintain it is for making weapons, and in December 
the Council imposed limited sanctions and called on Tehran to 
suspend uranium enrichment. In the IAEA report, Mr. ElBaradei noted 
that despite this Iran had continued enrichment, which can produce 
fuel for generating electricity or, at a much higher level, 
making nuclear bombs. 

It was the discovery in 2003 of Iran’s hidden activities that gave 
rise to the current crisis, as Mr. ElBaradei stressed today. “The 
IAEA’s confidence about the nature of Iran’s programme has been 
shaken because of two decades of undeclared activities,” he said. 


“This confidence will only be restored when Iran takes the long overdue 
decision to explain and answer all the Agency’s questions 
and concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and transparent 
manner. Until that time, the Agency will have no option 
but to reserve its judgment about Iran’s nuclear programme, and as 
a result the international community will continue to express concern.” 

Mr. ElBaradei painted a more positive picture on another area of 
major IAEA concern, the nuclear programme of the Democratic People’s 
Republic of Korea (DPRK), noting the DPRK’s agreement at diplomatic 
talks in Beijing last month to shut down and eventually abandon 
its Yongbyon nuclear facility. 

The agreement envisions the return of IAEA personnel to conduct necessary 
monitoring and verification after they were ordered out 
four years ago when the DPRK withdrew from the NPT. The DPRK also 
<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_dprk.html">invited 
Mr. ElBaradei to visit. 

“I welcome the Beijing agreement, and the invitation to visit the 
DPRK, as positive steps towards the denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula, and towards the normalization of the DPRK’s relationship 
with the Agency,” he said.
 2007-03-05 00:00:00.000 


___________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ 
_______________________________

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's rich architecture and rare treasures threatened 
by possible US strikes | Iran | 

Maev Kennedy
Monday March 5, 2007

Tourists visit Persepolis, which lies within 50 miles of the 
Ardakan and Fasa uranium processing plants. Photograph: Vahid 
Salemi/AP

In his quiet office at the British Museum, among the portraits of
long-dead explorers and copies of 3,000-year-old inscriptions, one
of the greatest experts on the archaeology of the Middle East has a
series of maps of Iranian nuclear installations spread out across
his desk.

John Curtis's maps fill him with foreboding: because they show how
many of Iran's nuclear plants are perilously close to ancient
cultural sites.

Natanz, home to a uranium enrichment plant, is renowned for its
exquisite ceramics; Isfahan, home to a uranium conversion plant, is
also a Unesco world heritage site and was regarded in the 16th
century as the most beautiful city on earth.

Other nuclear installations lie close to Shiraz, dubbed "the city of
roses and nightingales", famous for the tombs of medieval poets;
Persepolis, the great palace of King Darius, whose ruins are still
magnificent; and the 6th century BC tomb of Cyrus the Great, the
Persian ruler who was said to have been buried in a coffin of gold.

Four years ago Dr Curtis was warning that war in Iraq would be a
disaster for some of the oldest and most important sites in the
world. He has since seen his worst fears confirmed: the site of
ancient Babylon became an American military base; thousands of
objects are missing from the national museum at Baghdad; and looted
artefacts have been illicitly excavated and smuggled out of the
country.

Now Dr Curtis dreads seeing history repeated, this time through the
escalating threat from the United States against Iran. "Any kind of
military activity whatever in Iran, whether aerial bombing or land
invasion, would inevitably have the gravest consequences, not only
for its people but for its cultural heritage - which should be a
matter of concern not just to Iranians but to the whole world," he
said.

"The main nuclear bases would seem the most likely targets - which
would directly threaten two major sites, Isfahan and Natanz." The
medieval splendour of those cities, at the height of the power of
Islamic Persia from the 13th to the 17th centuries, was built on a
cultural history which was already thousands of years old. The
history of cities, of writing, of engineering and astronomy began in
the ancient centres of Iran and Iraq.

"The archaeology is so rich there is almost nowhere that you could
say is devoid of interest," Dr Curtis said. "But certainly a list
must be compiled of the sites which need the most consideration."

Unlike the looted and still shuttered national museum in Baghdad, in
Iran the risk is considered less for the national museum in Tehran
than for hundreds of major sites with standing buildings and ruins,
and thousands of known but unexcavated sites. Some of the structures
are in stone, but most are in baked brick with elaborate tile
decorations, a building type particularly vulnerable to blast damage.

Apart from Isfahan and Natanz, other potentially vulnerable sites
cover 3,000 years of the world's history: a stepped stone tomb at
Pasargadae, within 50 miles of one of the nuclear sites once held
the body of Cyrus the Great, the king who enormously expanded the
Persian empire and conquered mighty Babylon in 539 BC. And the ruins
of the great city and palace at Persepolis are among the most
imposing in the Middle East, despite the fact that it was ransacked
by Alexander the Great in 330BC, after the Macedonian defeated the
armies of the Persian emperor Darius. The destruction of the palace
is still regarded as one of the greatest acts of vandalism in
history. Alarm is growing over the potential fate of Iran's
treasures. Professor Harriet Crawford, of the Institute of
Archaeology in London, one of the archaeologists who sounded the
alarm before the Iraq war, said yesterday: "An attack on Iran would
not only cause thousands more avoidable deaths, but would also risk
inflicting untold damage on its heritage, comparable with that seen
in Iraq."

Precious stones

Persepolis

The magnificent palace of Darius, the centrepiece of which is the
Hall of 100 Columns, above, was destroyed by Alexander the Great but
the ruins, including some standing columns, are still imposing. It
lies within 50 miles of the Ardakan and Fasa uranium processing
plants

Isfahan

An ancient site in a fertile river valley, internationally renowned
from the 16th century - "Isfahan is half the world" - as the new
capital of Shah Abbas I. It is adorned with magnificent mosques,
palaces, the second largest square in the world (originally laid out
as a polo ground), gardens, fountains and bridges, including a
33-arch bridge dating from 1602. A World Heritage Site, the historic
centre is only a few miles from the Isfahan uranium conversion plant

Famous for its 13th and 14th century mosques and shrines, now mostly
stripped of their spectacular lustre tiles, which are in museums
across the world. Fragile baked-brick buildings; very close to the
Natanz uranium enrichment plant

Tomb of Cyrus the Great

A well-preserved stone tomb on a stepped platform. According to the
Greek historian Arrian, the king's body lay in a golden coffin under
an inscription reading "Mortal! I am Cyrus, son of Cambyses, who
founded the Persian empire, and was King of Asia. Grudge me not then
my monument." It is situated at Pasargadae, close to Persepolis. The
bracelet below was found there

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 4 AFP: Israel urges international community to shun Iranian leader - 

Mon Mar 5, 4:21 PM ET

BRUSSELS (AFP) - Israel on Monday called on the international
community to shun Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because of
his vision of "wiping Israel off the map."

"I think that a leader who denies the Holocaust, who calls for Jews
to go back to Europe, who speaks about his vision of wiping Israel,
a state, off the map... should not be accepted as a member of the
international community," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told
a press conference in Brussels.

"It is important that he understand that the international community
is not going to live with this kind of statement," she said, in
between sessions of the EU-Israel Association Council.

Ahmadinejad held talks in Riyadh with Saudi King Abdullah on
Saturday, and Livni pointed out that the Iranian leader was also
received at the United Nations last year.

The Israeli minister also stressed the need to prevent Iran from
acquiring the nuclear capacity "to implement these horrific ideas."

UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday his agency is
still unable to verify that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons but
that negotiation remains the key to resolving the crisis.

Meanwhile envoys of six major powers were to discuss in New York on
Monday a new UN Security Council draft resolution that would tighten
sanctions on Iran over its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment,
diplomats said.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the
informal gathering Monday would bring together ambassadors from the
Security Council's five permanent members -- Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.

Earlier on Monday EU foreign ministers urged the international
community to push for further sanctions against Iran for its refusal
to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme.

The ministers, meeting in Brussels, urged "the international
community to act with necessary firmness" in support of a new UN
Security Council resolution against Tehran.

Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders deny that the Nazis
systematically murdered six million Jews, calling it a "myth."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 5 Reuters: Air strikes on Iran could backfire - report 

Sun Mar 4, 2007 7:30PM EST

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Military strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear
ambitions could backfire, increasing Tehran's determination to
obtain atomic weapons and bolstering hostility toward the West, a
report said on Monday.

The report "Would air strikes work?", written by a leading British
weapons scientist, said strikes would probably be unable to hit
enough targets to cause serious damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely it would be possible
to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to
set back Iran's nuclear program for a significant period," said the
report.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum
effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve
this in a relatively short amount of time."

Such a weapon would then be wielded in "an environment of
incalculably greater hostility," said the report, which was
published by the Oxford Research Group and written by Dr Frank
Barnaby, a nuclear physicist and weapons expert.

Barnaby, one of the few remaining people in the world to have
witnessed an above ground nuclear test, urged greater diplomatic
efforts to end a standoff with Tehran.

Iran refused to meet a United Nations deadline last week for halting
uranium enrichment -- a process that can produce nuclear fuel for
use in power plants or weapons.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Reuters: Saudi defends Gulf Arab atom plans, criticizes Iran 

Mon Mar 5, 2007 4:29PM EST

By Souhail Karam

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Monday Iran's nuclear
program was an extra burden for the Middle East, but Gulf Arab
allies had the right to their own atomic ambitions.

The Gulf Arab states' plan to start their own nuclear program has
raised fears of an atomic race with non-Arab Shi'ite Iran. The Gulf
Arabs share Western concerns that Tehran secretly wants to develop a
nuclear bomb, a charge Iran denies.

Arab foreign ministers of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) met in Saudi Arabia to discuss progress in plans agreed in
December for a joint civilian atomic program.

"The nuclear crisis in the region has become an extra burden to
challenges that are already facing us," Saudi Foreign Affairs
Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told the ministers.

"This urges us to deal with the new challenge with full
responsibility ... and adopt diplomatic solutions in a way that
would preserve the right of countries in the region for their own
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

Prince Saud also criticized Israel, which is widely believed to have
the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency standards and measures
should apply to all countries in the region without exceptions,
including Israel."  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Reuters: Major powers fail to settle Iran differences | 

Sun Mar 4, 2007 7:16PM EST

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Major powers failed on Saturday to settle all
their differences over a second U.N. sanctions resolution against
Iran for its nuclear work but remain committed to passing one soon,
the United States said.

"There is still some work to be done on a few outstanding issues,
but all parties remain committed to a second resolution in the near
future," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in a
statement issued after the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and Germany held a conference call to discuss a new
U.N. Security Council resolution against Iran.

The United States and leading European countries suspect Iran is
seeking to build nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian
atomic program. Tehran denies the charge and says its program is for
generating electricity.

The new measures under discussion are a follow-up to a key Security
Council resolution passed on December 23 that imposed trade
sanctions on sensitive nuclear materials and technology as well as
other penalties after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment.
The sanctions would be suspended if Iran complied.

The State Department put a positive gloss on Saturday's discussions
but they appeared to have fallen short of U.S. hopes that the group
-- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as well as
Germany -- would be able to agree on the elements of a resolution
during the conference call.

"GOOD DISCUSSION"

They had a good discussion in keeping with the positive atmosphere
of their conversations last week," Cooper said in a brief written
statement. "Discussions will now move to New York, where our United
Nations permanent representatives (ambassadors) will take up work on
the issue."  Continued...


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Attacking Iran could speed up nuclear programme - think tank - 

by Phil Hazlewood Mon Mar 5, 7:22 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Pre-emptive military strikes on Iran could 
accelerate rather than hinder Tehran's production of atomic 
weapons, a report by a British global security think-tank warned 
Monday.

Backed by the former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix,
the Oxford Research Group said Iran could respond to an attack by
launching a "crash programme" to develop a crude nuclear device
within months.

"If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity it is doing it
relatively slowly, most estimates put it at least five years away,"
said one of the report's authors, leading British nuclear scientist
Frank Barnaby.

"However attacking Iran -- far from setting back their progress
towards a bomb -- would almost certainly lead to a fast-track
programme to develop a small number of nuclear devices as quickly as
possible.

"It would be a bit like deciding to build a car from spare parts
instead of building the entire car factory. Put simply, military
attacks could speed Iran's progress to a nuclear bomb."

The report suggests air strikes, like those reportedly being
considered by the United States and Israel, would harden Iranian
attitudes and political resistance to outside pressure to stop
uranium enrichment.

The Islamic republic would then focus on manufacturing one or two
nuclear devices, leading to a nuclear-armed Iran within one or two
years, it added.

Blix, who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) in Iraq and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), backs the report's assessment.

He wrote in the report's foreword: "Armed attacks on Iran would very
likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid -- the building
of nuclear weapons within a few years."

The report argued that military action would probably result in a
high number of civilian casualties, as a surprise attack would
inevitably catch many people unawares and unprotected.

Air strikes would have to hit many well-protected targets across
Iran, including the Kalaye Electric Company, which produces
components for gas centrifuges used in uranium enrichment.

Other targets would include the Bushehr nuclear reactor, the Arak
heavy water reactor and heavy water production plant, uranium
enrichment facilities at Natanz, uranium mines at Saghand and the
research reactors at Isfahan.

But the report said there was a "real possibility" Iran had built
secret facilities elsewhere as well as "false targets" in
anticipation of air strikes.

"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that it would be
possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets
needed to set back Iran's nuclear programme for a significant
period," it said.

The report suggested that Iran could salvage enough material for a
bomb from the reactor at Bushehr after any attack, or turn to the
black market, where small amounts of uranium or plutonium would be
easy to smuggle.

Alternatively, the Iranians may already have set up clandestine
facilities with centrifuges that could escape an attack.

"It is a mistake to believe that Iran can be deterred from attaining
a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities," the report
said.

"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum
effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve
this in a relatively short amount of time: some months rather than
years."

The group's executive director, John Sloboda, said: "This report
doesn't get into the rights and wrongs of military strikes. It asks
whether they will achieve their objectives...

"The conclusions should be food for thought for even the most
hawkish: military strikes against Iran will simply not work. Indeed
they could even bring a nuclear-armed Iran closer."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA: Iran May Have Halted Nuke Program 

From the Associated Press

Monday March 5, 2007 10:31 PM

By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran seems to have at least temporarily 
halted the uranium-enrichment program at the heart of its 
standoff with the U.N. Security Council, the head of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

 The pause could represent an attempt to de-escalate Iran's 
conflict with the Security Council, which is deliberating a new 
set of harsher sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

    Iran has enriched small quantities of uranium to the low 
level suitable for nuclear fuel generation. The U.S. and its 
allies fear that Iran could build nuclear weapons with larger 
amounts of more highly enriched uranium.

     Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been expected to 
announce last month that Iran had started installing 3,000 
uranium-enriching centrifuges at a facility in the desert outside 
the central city of Natanz, where it has about 500 centrifuges 
above and below ground. But the announcement never materialized, 
an apparent step back that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei appeared 
to confirm Monday.

 ``I do not believe that the number of centrifuges has increased, 
nor do I believe that (new) nuclear material has been introduced 
to the centrifuges at Natanz,'' he said.

    ElBaradei, whose agency has spent more than four years 
probing Tehran's nuclear activities, warned that, despite the new 
bit of positive news, lack of Iranian cooperation left the IAEA 
unable to establish that Tehran's nuclear activities were purely 
peaceful.

 Unless Tehran takes ``the long overdue decision'' to cooperate 
with the IAEA, it ``will have no option but to reserve its 
judgment about Iran's nuclear program,'' he told reporters.

 And a senior Iranian official dashed hopes that any short-term 
pause could translate into Tehran accepting a U.N. Security 
Council demand to freeze its enrichment activities. Ali Ashgar 
Soltanieh, Iran's chief IAEA delegate, said his country would 
``never give up its inalienable right'' to enrich uranium, a 
refrain repeated almost daily by Iranian representatives in the 
standoff.

 Diplomats familiar with the agency's Iran file said Tehran 
continues to refuse IAEA requests to install cameras that would 
give agency monitors a full view of its underground hall at 
Natanz, which Iran says will ultimately house 54,000 enriching 
centrifuges - enough to produce dozens of nuclear weapons a year.

     Iran has produced and stored 250 tons of the gas used as the 
feedstock for enrichment. That would be enough to produce more 
than 40 nuclear bombs.

 Lack of full remote monitoring means the agency cannot keep tabs 
on all activities at the bunker, said one diplomat, who demanded 
anonymity because he was not allowed to discuss the issue. Iran 
continues to assemble individual centrifuges without connecting 
them into the cascade needed to enrich uranium in the hall, he 
said.

   Up for review as early as Tuesday will be a Feb. 22 report 
from ElBaradei finding that Tehran has set up hundreds of 
centrifuges.

 The board was expected to approve last month's decision by 
ElBaradei to suspend nearly half the technical aid his agency 
provides to Iran. Only North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq have 
faced such punishment in the past.

 The United States, its key allies and most European nations have 
in the past been opposed by nonaligned board members who were 
against harsh punishment.

  But the diplomats said that even nations normally backing 
Tehran - including key U.S. critics such as Cuba and Venezuela - 
would likely agree to the suspensions because they were backed by 
the U.N. Security Council.

 The European Union, in a statement made available in advance to 
The Associated Press, said it backed the suspensions, saying it 
``supports the (IAEA) ... views'' on the 18 projects that could 
be suspended.

 The board will also be reviewing North Korea's apparent 
willingness to ultimately dismantle its nuclear arms-making 
capabilities.

    ElBaradei plans to go to Pyongyang on March 13 as part of the 
six-nation agreement under which North Korea agreed to allow a 
return of his agency's experts after more than four years under 
its commitment to eventually scrap its nuclear program in 
exchange for economic aid and security assurances.

                                 ---

   Associated Press writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to 
this report from Vienna.

On the Net:

International Atomic Energy Agency, www.iaea.org

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 Korea Herald: Kim Jong-il visits China Embassy
 
 North Korean leader Kim Jong-il visited the Chinese Embassy in
Pyongyang over the weekend and received a personal message from
Chinese President Hu Jintao, the (North) Korean Central News Agency
reported yesterday.

The content of the message was not revealed.

The reclusive leader visited the embassy building on Sunday on the
occasion of the first full moon day of 2007, a day celebrated by the
two Koreas as well as China.

The visit was made upon the invitation from Chinese Ambassador to
North Korea Liu Xiaoming.

The unusual visit by Kim comes at a time of positive developments
between North Korea and the rest of the six-party talks members.

The chief nuclear negotiators of North Korea and the United States
are to discuss how to normalize their diplomatic relations in New
York this week as part of the nuclear negotiation process.

Kim Jong-il's entourage to the embassy included Kim Ki-nam,
secretary of the Workers' Party, and Kang Sok-ju, first vice
minister of foreign affairs, and Kim Yang-gon, councilor of the
National Defense Commission, the KCNA reported.

Kim's visit may be a gesture to reaffirm the alliance with China
that had been strained last year due to North Korea's boycott of the
nuclear negotiations, July missile tests, and October nuclear device
detonation, observers said.

Sources said Kim may have conveyed his gratitude to the Chinese
government for its mediator role as host of the six-party talks.

The KCNA reported that Kim thanked Ambassador Liu and other embassy
officials and posed for a group photo with them.

The last time Kim visited the Chinese Embassy was in July 2001,
after his first visit in March 2000. In March 2005, Kim visited the
Russian Embassy in Pyongyang to receive a commemorative medal for
the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, sent by Russian
President Vladimir Putin.

(angiely@heraldm.com)

By Lee Joo-hee

2007.03.06
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Flawed intelligence
 
The United States, with its huge intelligence-gathering apparatus
comprising multiple agencies, each employing immense expert manpower
and top technology, is supposed to be able to know everything that
is taking place in the contemporary world. That general belief was
shaken by the mistakes over suspected Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, and it is unfortunate that U.S. officials these days
are admitting another judgmental error half a decade ago that led to
serious consequences on the Korean Peninsula.

On a visit to Pyongyang in October 2002, James Kelly, then U.S.
assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs,
challenged North Korea on its highly enriched uranium program with
an assortment of circumstantial evidence to prove its existence. His
hosts including Kang Sok-ju, then vice foreign minister, responded
with a sort of "no confirm-no deny" attitude, asserting the North
was "entitled" to develop HEU.

Accuracy in the English translation was questioned, but the U.S.
delegation regarded the answer as an admission. The United States
and its allies stopped fuel supplies to the North and suspended the
construction of light-water reactors, which were being provided to
compensate Pyongyang for freezing its nuclear program under the 1994
Geneva Agreed Framework. North Korea retaliated by expelling U.N.
inspectors and resumed its plutonium project, which eventually
progressed to the underground test of a nuclear device last Oct. 9.

Some senior U.S. officials are now reported to be saying that the
current efforts to shut down the North Korean nuclear program would
not be necessary if the North's HEU question had been handled
differently, and with greater flexibility. Washington, undoubtedly
spurred by the hawks who were also pushing for military action
against Iraq for its suspected WMDs at that time, acted rashly,
based chiefly on the scant intelligence regarding Pyongyang's
missiles-for-HEU technology deal with Pakistan.

The U.S. intelligence must have confirmed Pyongyang's purchase of a
certain quantity of centrifuge equipment from Pakistan through Dr.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, who operated an international black market for
uranium enrichment technology. But the critical error was made in
2002 by confusing the North's ambitions with its accomplishments, as
U.S. officials now admit.

A few years before, the U.S. intelligence community was the source
of a leak, deliberate or not, about another suspected
nuclear-related project in the form of huge underground construction
works at Kumchangni, north of Pyongyang. This affected the progress
of the LWR project in Sinpo, but after a site inspection, the State
Department announced in June 1999 that the tunnels were not for any
nuclear function.

It is of no use to complain about trusted ally's flawed intelligence
and recite, "what if they didn't." Now that the United States has
put the North's HEU program at "the mid-confidence level," which
means inconclusive, Seoul authorities will just have to correct
their stand accordingly. But there should at least be a review on
how much South Korea tried to corroborate or refute the U.S.
conclusion with our own intelligence capabilities, although they are
fairly limited, relying mostly on human resources such as defectors.

And our officials should also note the timing of the U.S. admission,
which follows the apparent softening of Washington's stance toward
the North since the beginning of the year. The Feb. 13 agreement
reached at the Beijing six-party talks came on account of U.S.
flexibility which is being exhibited in the handling of the Banco
Delta Asia question and in the invitation of Pyongyang's negotiator
Kim Gye-gwan to the United States. These changes may reflect the
receding influence of the hawkish neocons in Washington, but the
same intelligence-politics nexus is still there and distortion and
manipulation of intelligence is always possible.

2007.03.06
*****************************************************************
 12 Digital Chosunilbo: Was There a Backroom Deal with North Korea?

Updated Mar.5,2007 08:50 KST

Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung, who returned Friday from
inter-Korean ministerial talks, said, ¡°We agreed in principle to
provide the North with 400,000 tons of rice and 300,000 tons of
fertilizer.¡± That raised suspicions of a behind-the-scenes
agreement with North Korea. Lee tried to contain the fallout by
saying it wasn¡¯t an agreement but North Korea¡¯s request, but the
comments failed to quell lingering suspicions.

The South Korean government had proposed the ministerial talks to
North Korea even before the six-party nuclear talks produced an
agreement. At the time, South Korea¡¯s vice unification minister
said, ¡°We were going to hold ministerial talks even if the
six-party talks fail.¡± Even then, it looked almost certain that the
ministerial talks would simply become a venue to arrange rice and
fertilizer aid to North Korea. Questions arose why South Korea was
so anxious to give the aid to North Korea before it could be
confirmed whether the North would implement the Beijing agreement.
Seoul then gave assurances that the aid would be linked to North
Korea¡¯s progress in fulfilling the agreements of the six-party
nuclear talks.

In fact, the joint statement produced by the latest round of
ministerial talks makes no mention of rice and fertilizer aid.
Follow-up talks with the North to discuss specific aid packages
under the six-party agreement were deliberately scheduled after
April 13, the first deadline for North Korea to implement the
initial steps to dismantling its nuclear program. That gives other
countries the choice to decide depending on Pyongyang¡¯s performance.

From the outside, it looks like the South Korean government lived up
to its promise. But less than a day after the talks ended, Lee
specifically said the two sides ¡°agreed¡± on 400,000 tons of rice
and 300,000 tons of fertilizer. The comment embarrassed officials,
prompting one to say nervously, ¡°I thought we were only going to
reveal the amount the North had requested.¡± It appears that the
minister let slip what was supposed to be a classified agreement.

It is only natural to suspect that Seoul had already pledged rice
and fertilizer aid to North Korea but withheld the fact from the
South Korean public. It was strange, after all, that North Korea,
which had been demanding talks about aid packages in March, put up
no resistance to Seoul¡¯s request to postpone them until after the
April 13 deadline. The amount of rice and fertilizer North Korea is
said to have asked for is smaller than in previous years. That¡¯s
why people are predicting there will be a second agreement on rice
and fertilizer shipments in the near future.

A price will have to be paid and sacrifices made to dismantle North
Korea¡¯s nuclear program. The South Korean public knows this. But if
the governments of the two Koreas make back room deals and try to
fool the public, then the public will have to question the true
motive of the South Korean government.

*****************************************************************
 13 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: North Korea's nuclear talks and agreements | 

Mon Mar 5, 2007 5:06PM EST

(Reuters) - U.S. and North Korean negotiators start talks on Monday
aimed at normalizing diplomatic ties as part of a complex agreement
under which Pyongyang has pledged to scrap its nuclear arms programs
for aid.

Here is a chronology of North Korea's nuclear involvement.

October 21, 1994 - President Bill Clinton's U.S. administration
signs a Agreed Framework Agreement with North Korea in Geneva, after
about two years of negotiations. North Korea agrees to freeze and
then dismantle its controversial nuclear program, and the United
States, South Korea and Japan will provide the North with two
light-water reactors.

October 2002 - State Department envoy James Kelly confronts
Pyongyang with evidence Washington says points to a covert uranium
enrichment program. U.S. officials said North Korea acknowledged the
program. But Pyongyang later denies it, says it is entitled to
possess nuclear weapons.

November 2002 - The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization
(KEDO) announces it is suspending heavy fuel oil deliveries, which
are part of the 1994 Agreed Framework, in response to disclosures of
the North's covert enrichment program.

December 2002 - North Korea says it plans to restart Yongbyon
reactor, disables the International Atomic Energy Agency's
surveillance devices at Yongbyon and expels its inspectors.

January 2003 - North Korea quits nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

August 2003 - First round of six-party talks between North and South
Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States in Beijing. North
Korea threatens to test nuclear bomb and test-fire new missile. 

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 Reuters: FACTBOX: Key facts on North Korea's nuclear capabilities | 

Mon Mar 5, 2007 5:08PM EST

(Reuters) - Here are some facts about North Korea's nuclear program.
U.S. and North Korean negotiators start talks on Monday aimed at
normalizing diplomatic ties as part of an agreement under which
Pyongyang has pledged to scrap its nuclear arms programs in exchange
for aid.

THE FACILITY - North Korea's nuclear program dates back to at least
the 1980s, and is centered at Yongbyon, about 60 miles

north of Pyongyang.

- The complex consists of a five-megawatt reactor and a plutonium
reprocessing plant, where weapons-grade material would be extracted
from spent fuel rods.

EXTRACTING FISSILE MATERIAL - Experts and intelligence reports
indicate North Korea had extracted enough fissile material from
Yongbyon to produce one or two nuclear weapons by the early 1990s.

- In October 1994, the United States and North Korea struck a deal
to freeze the Yongbyon complex in exchange for more
proliferation-resistant reactors to be built by an international
consortium. That project has been canceled.

FROM PLUTONIUM TO URANIUM - North Korea's pre-1995 nuclear program
was based on plutonium. According to U.S. officials, Pyongyang in
October 2002 confirmed that it also had a covert weapons program
based on highly enriched uranium, reportedly begun with assistance
from Pakistan in the 1990s. The North has since denied this.

NEW DOUBTS - The United States says it is certain the North made
significant acquisitions of equipment and technology that could only
be used for enrichment. But senior officials recently acknowledged
they are less confident that Pyongyang has a production-scale
program. In 2002, the CIA said the North was building a plant that
could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more bombs
annually by 2005.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 15 UPI: Interview: Pyonyang talks key for peace

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Updated: 03/05/2007 10:26:36 AM -0500 UTC

Interview: Pyonyang talks key for peace

By MICHAEL MARSHALL Editor In Chief

SEOUL, March 5 (UPI) -- Kim Dae-jung, former South Korean president
and Nobel Peace Prize winner, must be feeling a sense of vindication
now that the Bush administration is speaking to "axis of evil"
member North Korea. Kim was the architect of the "sunshine policy"
of engagement with North Korea during his presidency from 1998 to
2002. The high point of this initiative, the 2000 summit meeting
with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang, won Kim Dae-jung
his Nobel Peace Prize.


Until its recent shift in approach, the Bush administration rejected
and criticized engagement with North Korea as a policy based on
wishful thinking, preferring to isolate and pressure the regime
there. In an interview with United Press International, Kim said
that such a policy undercut U.S. long term interests in the
peninsula by driving North Korea more deeply into China's sphere of
influence.


The Bush administration entered office in 2001 deeply mistrustful of
engagement with North Korea. Finding evidence that North Korea was
secretly enriching uranium for nuclear use, in breach of earlier
agreements, it reversed the Clinton administration's policy toward
North Korea and refused direct talks with North Korea until it took
steps to dismantle its nuclear program.


The rejection of engagement became a source of tension between the
U.S. and South Korea. The U.S. believed that engagement was simply a
means for the North to get aid while offering nothing in return.
This position gained support when it was revealed in 2003 that
hundreds of millions of dollars had been channeled secretly to the
North from business supporters of Kim and from the government to
open the path to the 2000 summit.


However, the tougher U.S. policy did not improve North Korean
behavior. After six years the only visible results were that North
Korea had test launched a variety of missiles last July and then
detonated a nuclear device in October. Last month the U.S. shifted
back to a diplomatic strategy and the outlines of a grand bargain
were agreed at the six-party talks in Beijing, the regional
framework for discussing North Korea's nuclear weapons.


While the devil is in the details, which remain to be hashed out,
the agreement would offer the North energy assistance and, from the
U.S., security guarantees and full diplomatic recognition in return
for the verifiable dismantling of their nuclear weapons program.
Successful progress in these areas could culminate in a peace treaty
to replace the current armistice and formally end the Korean War.


Kim Dae-jung applauded these developments, saying that he was
"cautiously optimistic" about their prospects but warning that
"hardliners in the U.S. might stop all improvement" in relations
with North Korea. We met at his residence next to the presidential
library and museum in a room whose walls were hung with awards and
photos, including several Time and Newsweek covers sporting his
image.


Kim, frail in appearance but clear in speech and thought, argued
that dialogue was needed because other approaches had not worked.
The military option was off the table because of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq and the proximity of Seoul to North Korean
missiles.


The result of earlier U.S. rejection of negotiation was that "North
Korea withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors" from their nuclear
facilities, and "abandoned the missile moratorium" of 1999 in which
North Korea declared it would no longer test long-range missiles.


As for sanctions, "they cannot resolve the issue when China is
providing aid to North Korea." In fact, Kim believes that a policy
of sanctions and isolation of North Korea runs counter to long-term
U.S. interests in the region and damages the prospects for Korean
unification. "Already China has advanced deeply into the North
Korean economy," he said and such a policy will only push them
closer to China. South Korea in turn will feel increasing pressure
from a growing Chinese presence in the north and "that is not good
for the U.S."


Engagement, on the other hand, means that "South Korea will advance
into the North Korean economy and this will be an advantage." This
would serve U.S. interests in the region through constraining the
spread of Chinese influence. "North Koreans secretly fear China and
want relations with the south," Kim said.


Kim admitted that one of his biggest concerns about the recent
agreement was that "North Korea will not keep its promises."
However, he believes that North Korea wants such an agreement and
that its implementation does not depend on open-ended trust of North
Korea. During their ten hours of dialogue at the June 2000 summit
Kim Jong Il "clearly wanted to improve relations with the U.S." He
told Kim Dae-jung he was ready to allow direct inspections of his
nuclear sites in return for normalization of relations with the U.S.
and security guarantees.


There is "no excuse for North Korea to reject such an offer if the
U.S. delivers," Kim said. In any case an implementation that
proceeds "step by step and action for action will not allow North
Korea room not to keep its promises," he added.


The other five countries in the six-party talks -- China, Japan,
Russia, and South Korea, together with the U.S. -- should first
agree that they "will take collective countermeasures" if North
Korea does not keep its promises. Kim believes that "China would
work with the U.S. on countermeasures" since "for China, North
Korean nuclear weapons could be a nightmare because of the risk of
proliferation" in the region.


UPI met former President Kim with Gary Spanovich, executive director
of the Oregon-based Wholistic Peace Institute. Spanovich arranged
the meeting to invite Kim to attend the Institute's June conference
in Portland. The Institute has organized peace conferences with a
number of Nobel Peace laureates and develops peace curricula for
schools based on their experiences and insights.

Del.icio.us | Digg it | RSS

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 UPI: Negroponte in Seoul for N.Korea talks

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Updated: 03/05/2007 8:15:53 AM -0500 UTC

SEOUL, March 5 (UPI) -- U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John
Negroponte arrived in South Korea Monday for bilateral military
talks and discussions on North Korea's nuclear drive.


Upon arriving in a Seoul airport, Negroponte met Defense Minister
Kim Jang-soo to discuss security issues, including the planned
relocation of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. He also traveled
to the U.S. Yongsan garrison in central Seoul.


During his three-day stay, Negroponte is scheduled to meet President
Roh Moo-hyun and his key security policy advisor, among others, for
talks focused on following up last month's nuclear agreement on
scrapping North Korea's nuclear programs.


Negroponte's Asia tour, which included stops in Japan and China,
comes after the Feb. 13 deal under which the North agreed to shut
down its plutonium-producing reactor and admit U.N. nuclear
inspectors in return for massive energy aid.


In a diplomatic exchange by senior officials, Seoul's Foreign
Minister Song Min-soon is currently on a trip to the United States
to discuss the North's nuclear issue.

Del.icio.us | Digg it | RSS

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 Korea Times: Korea Set to OK Nuclear Fusion Energy Project

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times

By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter

South Korea is poised to join a global project to build a nuclear
fusion facility, dubbed the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER), near Marseille, France.

The National Assembly is due to discuss the project today, and while
the unicameral parliament is expected to approve the country's
participation _ since a relevant subcommittee already has passed it
_ there are some concerns that the rival political parties may fail
to do so due to conflict over the revision of a contentious Private
School Law.

Today is the last day of the extraordinary session. Should the
Assembly fail to deal with the ITER approval today, the decision
will be delayed to as late as April.

``We expect the Assembly to give a green light to the project today.
Then we will be able to participate in the development of the fusion
energy facility,'' an official at the Ministry of Science and
Technology said.

France, the United States, India, China, Japan and South Korea as
well as other European countries agreed late last year to spend
$12.8 billion to build ITER in France.

Korea will channel a total of 877 billion won ($921 million) into
the ITER programs. The nation also looks to contribute an additional
909 billion won by 2035 and 37 billion won by 2040.

Different from today's nuclear reactors that use nuclear fission to
produce energy when atoms split apart, the new nuclear reactors will
apply nuclear fusion, which releases energy as atoms are combined.

Experts are split into two opposing camps over the fusion technique.
Some hail fusion as a cost-effective, clean and safe alternative to
fission while some are pessimistic about its viability.

The government believes in the potential for fusion research as the
country, which is not endowed with a drop of petroleum, has suffered
from energy challenges.

By contrast, some observers caution that nuclear fusion energy might
be a far-off dream.

``When I started nuclear studies 30 years ago, scientists said it
will take about three decades to commercially launch nuclear fusion
reactors,'' Prof. Hwang Joo-ho at Kyung Hee University said.

``They are still saying it will take another 30 years. Fusion
reactors may not begin producing energy for 40-50 years and actually
they may never do so,'' Hwang said.

voc200@koreatimes.co.kr 03-05-2007 18:08
  
*****************************************************************
 18 Korea Times: Highly Enriched Uranium Is Self-Inflicted Sticking Point for US

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

Tong Kim, a former senior Korean-language interpreter at the U.S.
State Department

U.S. intelligence community and ranking State Department officials
have recently sent mixed signals on North Korea's highly enriched
uranium (HEU) program that triggered the second nuclear crisis in
2002.

Over the past four years, the United States stubbornly claimed that
its intelligence on the North's certain purchases of equipment was
entirely consistent with the HEU program that can produce fuel for
nuclear weapons.

Late last month, however, Christopher Hill, chief U.S. nuclear
negotiator, said the North Korean program would require ``a lot more
equipment than we know that they have actually purchased.''

Speaking at the Brookings Institute, he said the North needs ``some
considerable production techniques that we are not sure whether they
have mastered.''

Hill also said that aluminum tubes Pyongyang purchased for an HEU
program in the past may have gone ``somewhere else.''

A former U.S. official told Reuters that the data gaps cited by Hill
have existed since 2002 when the Bush administration first disclosed
the enrichment program, but this may be the first time they have
been publicly acknowledged.

Last week, Joseph DeTrani, North Korea mission manager for the
Director of National Intelligence even said at the U.S. Senate Armed
Service Committee that Washington has confidence that the HEU
program is in existence ``at the mid-confidence level.''

Intelligence that is not corroborated by other sources is degraded
to the mid-confidence level.

It seems natural that the U.S. Congress is not happy with the
intelligence community's failure in getting reliable intelligence.
On Sunday, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said the lack of
reliability was particularly acute with regard to the secretive
North Korean regime, according to AFP.

``I think the gathering of intelligence with respect to North Korea
has been very difficult,'' she said. ``And the drop in the level of
confidence on the uranium-based development I think is an indication
of that.''

Is it a backpedaling of the U.S. intelligence community? Or was
there any intelligence compromise in an effort to move forward with
the denuclearization process?

Tong Kim, who served as the State Department's senior Korean
language interpreter for 27 years before resigning in 2005, said in
an interview with The Korea Times in Seoul on March 1 that all
policy changes in the United States began with the Republican
Party's election defeat last November.

``The war in Iraq and the defeat in the election drove Bush into a
corner,'' Kim said. ``He had to change the North Korea policy
because he now needs to build a legacy of his presidency.''

But Kim said U.S. negotiators know that the North will never
publicly acknowledge the existence of the HEU program _ an issue
that needs to be ``discussed'' during the 60-day target period set
by a February accord adopted in Beijing on Feb. 13.

``On the other hand, the United States can't leave the HEU issue
undecided because Washington had politicized it too much,'' said
Kim, who participated in most high-level U.S.-North Korea meetings
for more than a decade.

He said Washington will never say that its intelligence on the
uranium program was incorrect either.

``That's why I call it a self-inflicted sticking point for the
United States,'' Kim said.

In a way to get out of this deadlock, he said the United States is
now making ``a kind of concession'' by describing its intelligence
on the HEU program ``at mid-confidence level.''

``I think Washington is now trying to create a favorable atmosphere
for the North so they can explain what happened to the materials and
equipment they purchased in the past,'' he said.

The latest controversy on the credibility of the intelligence began
weeks before a historic meeting between Kim Gye-gwan, North Korea's
chief envoy to the six-party talks, and his U.S. counterpart, Hill,
to start talking about ways to normalize the two states' diplomatic
relations.

In this situation, Kim said that he believes the HEU issue will
never torpedo the six-party process.

``What the United States wants to hear from the North is simply an
explanation such as `yes we bought them, but didn't use them to
develop weapons' and that's the only way the North can secure a safe
way out,'' he said.

Kim, however, underlined that the credibility of the U.S.
intelligence on the HEU program ``was not that poor.''

``Hill and DeTrani have talked only about information that has
already been open to the public,'' he said. ``But there is something
that they are not talking about. That's the level of technology on
the HEU program and the process of obtaining it from a third
country.''

Regarding a haunting question on why the North allegedly
acknowledged the HEU program in 2002, Kim said it was Pyongyang's
``misjudgment.''

``After the North's acknowledgment, Donald Gregg and Don Oberdorfer
visited Pyongyang and I heard from them later that the North might
have hoped to launch another round of negotiations with the United
States by showing the HEU card,'' he said.

But, on the contrary, the United States pushed through with a plan
to terminate a 1994 deal, reached by the former Clinton
administration and the North, on providing two light-water reactors
in return for freezing reactors in Yongbyon.

``The Bush administration had already decided to pressure the North
even before Kelly's visit to Pyongyang in 2002,'' Kim said,
``because Bush had to reflect Republicans' strong opposition to the
Agreed Framework. As I always said, the U.S. foreign policy is
simply an extension of its domestic politics.''

On the second day of his visit to Pyongyang in 2002, James Kelly,
Hill's predecessor, pressed Kang Sok-ju, a ranking North Korean
official, about the uranium enrichment program. In return, Kang said
that Pyongyang was ``bound to produce more powerful weapons than
that.''

The U.S. officials, including Kim, interpreted Kang's remarks as an
acknowledgment of the HEU programs. But now Washington is seeking to
deviate from its previous North Korea policy that is now considered
by many critics as a failure.

im@koreatimes.co.kr 03-05-2007 19:37
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: UN aid programme suspends operations in North Korea - 

Monday March 5, 06:04 AM

SEOUL (AFP) - The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has
suspended operations in North Korea following US claims that its
funds were being diverted to prop up the communist regime.

In January the US delegate to the UN Mark Wallace charged that North
Korea had, since 1998 and with the complicity of UNDP,
"systematically perverted" the aid programme "for the benefit of the
Kim Jong Il regime, rather than the people of North Korea."

The UNDP said in a statement seen Monday on its website: "As of 
March 1, 2007, UNDP has no choice but to suspend its operations 
in North Korea as the necessary conditions set out by the 
executive board on January 25 have not been met."

The agency's measures include ending all payments in hard currency
to Pyongyang and discontinuing sub-contracting of local staff via
government recruitment as of March 1, it said.

The agency said its position "could be reconsidered if these
circumstances change."

Following the US claims, which were angrily denied by the North, UN
chief Ban Ki-moon called for an audit of UN programmes and funding
in countries such as North Korea.

The UNDP had earlier suspended 17.9 million dollars in its 2007-09
budget for its operations in North Korea pending the outcome of the
inquiry and said it would stop paying workers in hard currency from
March 1.

The US House of Representatives introduced a resolution on February
8 calling on the United States to suspend its contributions to UNDP.

In a background report on its website, the UN agency said that over
the past decade, it has funded about three million dollars in
development activities per year in North Korea.

"There has been no concerns raised that UNDP funds have been
diverted to the North Korean nuclear arms programme or otherwise
used for purposes other than those intended," it said.

North Korea in January described the US claims as part of a smear
campaign by hardliners in Washington, designed to torpedo talks on
shutting down its nuclear programme.


AFP
*****************************************************************
 20 UPI: N.Korea seeks to mend ties with China

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

3/5/2007 7:36:00 AM -0500

PYONGYANG, North Korea, March 5 (UPI) -- North Korean leader Kim
Jong Il visited the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang in an apparent bid
to mend ties, the North's official media said Monday.

During the visit Sunday, Kim was given a "verbal personal message"
from Chinese President Hu Jintao, the North's Korean Central News
Agency said, without elaborating on the content of the message.

The visit was made at the invitation of Chinese Ambassador to North
Korea Liu Xiaoming, it said.

Kim was accompanied by a group of senior officials, such as Kim Ki
Nam, secretary of the ruling Workers' Party, and Kang Sok Ju, first
vice foreign minister, the news agency said.

The visit comes amid intense diplomacy to end the communist North's
nuclear standoff. South Korean officials said Kim's visit seems
aimed at improving bilateral ties strained after the North's missile
and nuclear tests last year.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: Official report says US CO2 to rise by 20% 

Ed Pilkington in New York

Monday March 5, 2007

A draft report prepared by the Bush administration admits that 
emissions of greenhouse gases by the United States will rise by 
2020 to 20% above 2000 levels, flying in the face of warnings 
from scientists that drastic action to cut emissions is needed if 
environmental catastrophe is to be averted.

The internal administration report, which has been obtained by 
the Associated Press, should have been handed to the United 
Nations more than a year ago as part of the world body's 
monitoring of climate change, but its publication has been 
delayed. The draft estimates that US emissions of so-called 
greenhouse gases, largely from the burning of oil, coil and 
natural gas, will rise from 7.7bn tons in 2000 to 9.2bn tons in 
2020 - an increase of 19.5%.

The growth is in line with expectations, but underlines how out of
kilter the US government is with world opinion and efforts to tackle
climate change. The Kyoto protocol, which the Bush administration
has refused to ratify partly on the grounds that it would damage the
US economy, demands of most developed countries that they reduce
their 1990 emissions levels by 5% by 2012.

The US produces about a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide and
other gases believed responsible for warming the world's atmosphere.
Environmentalists and green groups say that if irreversible global
warming is to be avoided far more stringent targets should be set
than even those proposed under the Kyoto protocol, which came into
force two years ago. On April 14 campaigners will be demonstrating
in cities across the US to call for 80% cuts by 2050.

The draft report obtained by AP says that how much the
administration can do to cut emissions beyond merely slowing the
rate of increase will become clear "as the science justifies".

It does, however, predict what may happen to the country were global
warming allowed to gather pace, including a sharp reduction in
spring snow coverings in the north-west of the country, which could
exacerbate summer water shortages throughout that region.

The White House council on environmental quality, which is
responsible for the draft report, told AP that its final version
will "show that the president's portfolio of actions and his
financial commitment to addressing climate change are working".

The report's confirmation of the scale of pollution projected for
the US comes a month after climatologists issued their strongest
warning to date of the devastation that global warming could cause
on the planet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written by hundreds
of the most respected climate scientists from around the world, said
that human activity was "very likely" to be behind the phenomenon.

Average temperatures could rise by over 6C (11F) by the end of the
century, the panel said.

The stated policy of the Bush administration is to reduce emissions,
but so far it has set only voluntary targets. In the absence of
binding commitments from the federal government, individual states
have moved independently.

California has led the field by aiming to cut its emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 and to meet the target of 80% below 1990 levels by
2050.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 22 OpEd News: State Secrets Privilege Was Used to Cover Up Corruption and Silence Whistleblowers

Submit Content Table of Contents Groups Rob's Blog 

March 5, 2007 at 13:17:15

by sibel edmonds

Two FBI Whistleblowers Confirm Illegal Wiretapping of Government
Officials and Misuse of FISA

By Sibel Edmonds and Bill Weaver

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained
a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special
Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the
Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Grahamâ€™s protected disclosures
report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S.
public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI
Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of
Mr. Grahamâ€™s counterintelligence investigations involved espionage
activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On
April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected
disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations
involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic
surveillance. In his unclassified report SA Graham states: â€œIt is
the complainantâ€™s reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR
[electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect
evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters.â€
Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions
were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney
Generalâ€™s office.

Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Grahamâ€™s
Official Report.

The report filed by SA Graham bolsters another FBI whistleblowerâ€™s
case that became public several months after Grahamâ€™s official
filing with the Justice Department in 2002. Sibel Edmonds, former
FBI Language Specialist, also worked for the FBI Washington Field
Office (WFO), and her assignments included the translations of
Turkish Counterintelligence documents and audiotapes, some of which
were part of espionage investigations led by SA Graham. After she
filed her complaint with the DOJ-OIG and Congress, she was
retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002.
Court proceedings in Edmondsâ€™ case were blocked by the assertion
of the State Secrets Privilege by then Attorney General John
Ashcroft, and the Congress gagged and prevented from investigating
her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ.
To read the timeline on Edmondsâ€™ case Click here.

Edmondsâ€™ complaint included allegations of illegal activities by
Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the
involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials in the
Department of State, Pentagon, and the U.S. Congress in these
activities. In its September 2005 issue, Vanity Fair ran a
comprehensive piece on Edmondsâ€™ case by reporter David Rose, in
which several former and current congressional and Justice
Department officials identified former House Speaker Dennis Hastert
as being involved in illegal activities with the Turkish
organizations and personnel targeted in FBI investigations. In
addition, Rose reported: â€œâ€¦much of what Edmonds reportedly heard
seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity. There
was talk, she told investigators, of laundering the profits of
large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military
technologies to the highest bidder.â€ In January 2005, DOJ-OIG
released an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds'
termination. The report concluded that Edmonds was fired for
reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's
translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported
by convincing evidence.

Another Former Veteran FBI Counterintelligence and Espionage
Specialist at FBI Headquarters in Washington DC also filed similar
reports with DOJ-OIG and several congressional offices regarding
violations of FISA implementation and the covering up of several
espionage cases involving FBI Language Specialists and public
corruption cases by the Bureau. The cases reported by this
whistleblower corroborate those reported by SA Graham and Sibel
Edmonds. In an interview with NSWBC investigators the former FBI
Specialist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: â€œâ€¦you are
looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage
cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI
Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone
involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent
investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the
state secrets privilege in Edmondsâ€™ case.â€

William Weaver, NSWBC Senior Advisor noted that,â€These abuses of
power are precisely why we must pay attention to whistleblowers.
Preservation of the balance of powers between the branches of
government increasingly relies on information provided by
whistleblowers, especially in the face of aggressive and expanding
executive power. Through illegal surveillance members of Congress
and other officials may be controlled by the executive branch,
thereby dissolving the matrix of our democracy. The abuse of two
powers of secrecy, FISA and the state secrets privilege, are working
hand in hand to subvert the Constitution. In an abominably perverse
arrangement, the abuse of FISA is being covered up by abuse of the
state secrets privilege. Only whistleblowers and the congressional
and judicial oversight their revelations spawn can bring our system
back into balance.â€

Several civil liberties and whistleblowers organizations have joined
Edmonds and NSWBC in urging congress to hold public hearing on
Edmondsâ€™ case, including the supporting cases of SA Graham and
other FBI witnesses, and the erroneous use of state secrets
privilege by the executive branch to cover up its own illegal
conduct. The petition endorsed by these groups is expected to be
released to public in the next few days.

About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in
August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of
whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nationâ€™s
security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security
vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power
plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nationâ€™s
borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in
some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding
national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods,
including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the
public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and
fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation
and other harms, and working with other public interest
organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission
statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org Â© Copyright 2006,
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Information in this
release may be freely distributed and published provided that all
such distributions make appropriate attribution to the National
Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

www.nswbc.org

Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI language specialist, was terminated from
the bureau after reporting security breaches, cover-up, and blocking
of intelligence with national security implications. Since that
time, court proceedings in her whistleblower case have been blocked
by the imposition of ?State Secret Privilege,? and Congress has been
prevented from discussion of her case through retroactive
reclassification by the Department of Justice. Edmonds, fluent in
Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; holds an MA in Public Policy and
International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in
Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2007
*****************************************************************
 23 UPI: Opposition to U.S. missile system grows

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Updated: 03/05/2007 4:27:19 PM -0500 UTC

BERLIN, March 5 (UPI) -- The planned U.S. anti-missile system in
Eastern Europe is facing growing opposition from politicians and the
public in the European Union.

Ahead of this week's summit of EU leaders in Brussels, Luxembourg's
Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said the system, which foresees ten
bunker-protected missiles to be stationed in Poland and a radar unit
in the Czech Republic to fend off nuclear warheads from North Korea
and Iran, destabilized the continent.


"We will have no stability in Europe if we corner the Russians," he
said, according to German online daily Netzeitung.


In the Czech Republic, opposition to the system is growing. Roughly
seven of ten Czechs are against participating in the defense system,
and 80 percent feel a referendum should be the basis of the
country's decision whether or not to do so.


Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president, has lobbied for helping
the Americans, calling Moscow's criticism of the anti-missile system
"scandalous."


Russian President Vladimir Putin last month at a security conference
in Munich said the U.S. rockets provoked a new Cold War-like arms
race.


The German opposition has meanwhile upped the pressure on German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose government holds the rotating
six-month EU presidency. Merkel has just managed to repair ties with
Washington, and is in a delicate situation when it comes to the
American missiles. Opposition leader Guido Westerwelle told the Bild
am Sonntag weekly Merkel had to ensure that the missile issue didn't
"divide Europe."

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Wilmington News Journal: WWII atomic bombings topic of Wednesday program

Serving Clinton County Ohio since 1838
 
3/5/2007 7:52:00 AM 


The granddaughter of a Japanese survivor of the World War II 
atomic bombings will speak at Wilmington College at 7:30 p.m. 
Wednesday in the McCoy Room of Kelly Center.

Kyoko Matsunaga will present a lecture, "After Apocalypse: Nuclear
Writings in Native America and Japan."

The event is free of charge and open to the public. Her visit is
sponsored by WC's humanities area with the support of WC's Peace
Resource Center and Meriam R. Hare Quaker Heritage Center.

Matsunaga completed her doctorate in English at the University of
Nebraska in 2006 after earning a master of art degree at Hiroshima
University.

The granddaughter of a hibakusha (atom bomb survivor), she has
studied the literature and history of the atomic bombings both in
Hiroshima, her grandmother's home and in the United States.

She argues that even though American nuclear literature and
criticism have developed during and since the Cold War, the voices
of actual witnesses - including the Pueblo Indians of the American
Southwest - have often been dismissed or unacknowledged. Nuclear
testing, uranium mining and waste disposal have impacted their lands
and ways of life.

She discusses this literature in tandem with the complex and
well-developed literature of the atomic experience that has
developed in Japan since the bombings took place.

Also, Matsunaga's visit to Wilmington College will allow an
opportunity for her to review the Barbara Reynolds collection on the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings at the Peace Resource Center and
make recommendations to the college regarding maintenance, use and
development of the collection.

Software © 1998-2007 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 25 Canada: Gobal Research: “Nuclear Primacy"
 
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:39:26 -0800


<x-flowed>

“Nuclear Primacy" is a Fallacy

by Valery Yarynich and Steven Starr

Global Research <http://www.globalresearch.ca>, March 4, 2007
Intelligent.ru, 2006 (Russian)

It is of the utmost importance that both the U.S. and the Russian 
Federation permanently demonstrate to the satisfaction of each other 
that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

The March/April 2006 edition of Foreign Affairs featured an article by 
Lieber and Press, entitled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, which 
stated, “It probably will soon be possible for the United States to 
destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first 
strike.” The authors conclude: “the age of MAD [Mutual Assured 
Destruction] is nearing an end.”

Because the article was published by the Council on Foreign Relations, 
it was viewed as an outline of the official position of the Bush 
Administration. Hence it has drawn sharp and widespread criticism 
throughout Russia .

We believe such reactions can lead to a deterioration of relations 
between the U.S. and the Russian Federation , particularly in the area 
of nuclear arms control. This is both unfortunate and unnecessary, 
because the “Nuclear Primacy” argument is based upon flawed logic and 
questionable methodology.

The conclusions reached by Lieber and Press about a U.S. “Nuclear 
Primacy” over Russia and the corresponding results of their calculations 
in tables are erroneous. Although their set of initial data is 
sufficiently full and correct (Russian nuclear forces and American 
offensive means), both their model and method of assessing final results 
are incorrect. We share their concern about the (potential) danger of 
such a phenomenon as U.S.   “Nuclear Primacy” over Russia , but 
nevertheless we believe that it is absent today and cannot exist in the 
future.

Our arguments are as follows.

One should not estimate the strategic military results of a massive 
nuclear strike without first conducting a preliminary assessment of the 
ecological consequences of such an attack, because these consequences 
can be clearly unacceptable for both an attacker and the world as a 
whole. Lieber and Press ignored this consideration.

An ecological examination must include an assessment of all possible 
aspects of this attack, including the consequences of: hundreds of 
American nuclear warheads detonating on Russian soil; the destruction of 
thousands of Russian nuclear warheads and the corresponding secondary 
effects; the interception of Russian retaliation warheads by U.S. 
Ballistic Missile Defenses (BMD); and the explosions of Russian warheads 
on American territory, if U.S. BMD failed. In any case, the results of 
this examination must be made public, because the final decision about 
their admissibility must belong to the people rather than to a handful 
of politicians and high-ranking military officers.

Lieber and Press examine only one scenario: a Surprise Attack at 
Peacetime Alert levels (SAPTA). Although they concede that this event is 
not “likely”, they use this variant as the basis for all their serious 
conclusions. We will not talk about the moral and ethical reasons, but 
rather focus upon the political and military-technical issues which 
render this approach unworkable.

First, to implement SAPTA the National Command Authority (NCA) must have 
in place a set of legislatively approved special conditions authorizing 
this action. No such set now exists.

Secondly, the NCA is obliged to inform the nation about this critical 
decision before a first strike is launched. This must be done if only to 
provide a time-buffer in which its citizens could implement some 
measures of protection against the possible negative consequences of the 
attack.

Third, in order to conduct a first strike it is necessary to implement a 
number of organizational and technical procedures within the strategic 
nuclear forces. This is because in peacetime there are numerous 
procedural and technological blocks in place which are designed to 
protect nuclear weapons against human error, accidents and sabotage. In 
order to remove such barriers as a preliminary step towards launching a 
nuclear first strike, it would require the participation of a 
significant number of crews on duty working at different operational levels.

The implementation of all the above mentioned circumstances as 
preparations for a “surprise” first strike would be technically 
impossible to hide. Therefore, the opposite side would have a certain 
amount of time to raise the combat readiness of its strategic nuclear 
forces. If Russia did that, then, as Lieber and Press recognize 
themselves, nuclear retaliation is inevitable.

Lieber and Press also assume that the Russian Early Warning System will 
be completely unable to reveal a massed American attack capable of 
destroying all Russian nuclear forces. “A critical issue for the outcome 
of a U.S. attack [they say] is the ability of Russia to launch on 
warning (i.e., quickly launch a retaliatory strike before its forces are 
destroyed). It is unlikely that Russia could do this.” 

We believe this important conclusion demands more serious calculations 
than the mere statement that “it is unlikely”.  It's necessary to prove 
that the Russian EWS will be completely incapable of revealing such 
massed American attack which is capable of destroying all Russian 
nuclear forces.

Admittedly, the Russian EWS is now weakened. However, if it is able to 
detect even a small part of the American attack, then it is impossible 
to rule out the possibility that Russia will react by utilizing the 
policy of Launch on Warning (LoW), i.e., launching its missiles before 
the attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. The number of nuclear 
warheads in a Russian LoW strike will be far more than in case of a pure 
LuA (Launch under Attack) variant.

Thus, the implied ecological admissibility of a nuclear strike, the 
procedural and technical complexities of ordering and executing a 
surprise attack, and the assumed full inability of Russian EWS together 
constitute too many assumptions to be built into such a definitive 
definition of “Nuclear Primacy”.

A more detailed and technical version of the Foreign Affairs article can 
be found in the spring 2006 edition of International Security (see  “The 
End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”). Yet even in 
this longer version of their article, a language of assumptions remains 
the characteristic feature of the methodology of Lieber and Press.

For example, they write, “The Russian early warning system would 
PROBABLY not give Russia 's leaders the time they need to retaliate; in 
fact it is questionable WHETHER it would give them any warning at all. 
Stealthy B-2 bombers COULD LIKELY penetrate Russian air defenses without 
detection. Furthermore, low-flying B-52 bombers COULD fire stealthy 
nuclear-armed cruise missiles from outside Russian airspace; these 
missiles — small, radar-absorbing, and flying at very low altitude — 
would LIKELY provide no warning before detonation.” We think this isn't 
the language of serious proofs, especially on such an important theme.

Lieber and Press state that, “Our model does not prove that a U.S. 
disarming attack against Russia would necessarily succeed. Nor does the 
model assume that the United States is likely to launch a nuclear first 
strike. Even if U.S. leaders were highly confident of success, a 
counterforce strike would entail enormous risks and costs.” We must ask: 
if this is so, then how can they predict that “a surprise attack at 
peacetime alert levels would have a reasonable chance of success”?

As for our own assessment of the model, which is described in detail in 
International Security, it is as follows:

The authors have used an analytical type of model, in which a studied 
process is imitated with the help of formulas. However, it is well known 
among experts that creating a more or less correct description of a 
nuclear war through an analytical model is a hopeless task.

It is necessary to take into account an enormous number of different 
factors. Even if someone is able to offer a formula (or set of formulas) 
for each of these factors, it will be impossible to combine them as a 
whole within the framework of such a complex process.

In any case, such an “analytical conglomeration” will be incredibly 
difficult to accurately evaluate. We believe a statistical imitation 
model (SIM) is the preferable medium for such studies.

Apparently, Lieber and Press understood this difficulty very well, for 
there are only two simple formulas in their calculations: one formula to 
determine a “lethal range” against a given Russian target, and a second 
formula to calculate a  “single-shot probability of kill” for the 
selected American warhead. They model only an immediate process of 
destroying Russian targets, and only for concrete types of  
“warhead-target” pairs. The authors offer an artificial picture such as 
the following: American warheads “lie” near Russian targets, and at “X” 
moment all of them are detonated simultaneously. It isn't clear from 
their explanations how individual assessments are combined to tables of 
results for all Russian nuclear forces.

Therefore, one can say that the authors tried to imitate only the small, 
final part of the huge process of a nuclear war. Many other serious 
elements also remained beyond the scope of their research. One should 
not assume that there will be a 100% probability of such events as:

a) the strict implementation of launch order by all American duty crews 
in full accordance to the selected structure of a nuclear first strike 
(and this structure itself also isn't clear in the given case); i.e., a 
human factor may be decisive for the real size of an American first 
strike. Will ALL American duty crews be able to push the button against 
Russia on one of the cloudless days of peacetime?

b) the inability of the Russian side to use either a LoW or LuA 
response. Each of many possible variations of a first strike must take 
this likelihood into account. For example, if all American warheads are 
launched simultaneously, then they reach targets at different times, and 
Russia can use information about nuclear explosions for its response. On 
the contrary, if the structure of the first strike provides a 
synchronous arrival at Russian targets, then the total flight time 
required for the American strike is sufficiently large enough to allow 
Russia a better possibility to detect the initial U.S. launches;

c) the somnolence of all Russian nuclear forces. As we have noted, the 
slightest sign of a U.S. preparation for a first strike will immediately 
lead to an increase of combat readiness of at least some part of Russian 
strategic nuclear forces. Thus, the probability of their survival will 
be far greater than in case of the variant offered by Lieber and Press;

d) the destruction of the Russian nuclear command and control system 
(C3). The authors believe that this system will be completely 
neutralized. However, some portion of the Russian C3 could survive to 
launch all remaining missiles even after absorbing a U.S. first strike.

It is extremely important to note that the method of “fixed” assessment 
of results used by Leiber and Press is essentially incorrect. They 
contradict themselves. On the one hand, they discuss a  “95 percent 
confidence interval” for all these calculations. On the other hand, they 
say nothing about “non-typical” results within the remaining 5%. 
However, these “non-typical” results are far more important for a 
correct assessment of a risk of a  first strike than all others listed 
in Table 4 (Model Results) and in Figures 1-3.

Usually, for ordinary studies of a process with an accidental nature, it 
is correct to utilize the most probable results for assessment, and 
ignore the non-typical ones. Lieber and Press transmit this correct rule 
to their modeling of a nuclear war. This is a serious methodological 
mistake.

The absolutely unique consequences of nuclear war dictate the need for a 
quite opposite approach: we are obliged to estimate a risk through the 
most unacceptable results, even if they are non-typical. Lieber and 
Press must study this 5% in the first place, but instead they ignore 
them! This calculation involves the death of many millions of people and 
quite possibly the destruction of civilization — it cannot be made lightly.

They write, “some probability of nuclear retaliation far below 100 
percent should deter almost any prospective attacker. They [critics] 
err, however, by assuming that any level of first-strike uncertainty 
will create a powerful deterrent effect. There is no deductive reason to 
believe that a country with a 95 percent chance of successfully 
destroying its enemy's nuclear force on the ground will act as 
cautiously as a country that only has a 10 percent chance of success.”

In our view, this is the main error of Lieber and Press. The decisive 
factor is the EXISTENCE ITSELF of unacceptable results of retaliation, 
independent of their probability and size. This is because the 
individual probability of unacceptable results among all possible 
results of modeling does not play the decisive role; ANY of the 
calculated results IS possible if a real nuclear war occurs; i.e., IS, 
but not ARE, because a real nuclear war is possible only one time.

In 1987, American experts stated that, “Dramatically different outcomes 
might not be downright unlikely, but only less than the expected 
outcome. The expected outcome, thought the most likely, might 
nonetheless be unlikely . . . most sinister of all, but almost surely 
present, are the ‘unknown unknowns' of which operational planners are 
not even aware.” (/Managing Nuclear Operations/, by A.Carter, 
J.Steinbruner and C.Zraket, 1987, p.612)

Finally, Lieber and Press too often refer to history to confirm the 
correctness of their conclusions. As they suggest, the experience of the 
Cold War gives them the right to believe that “the possibility of a U.S. 
nuclear attack should not be entirely dismissed.” We think, however, 
that historical parallels are always dangerous. But in the given case 
they are absolutely inadmissible. At least, such conclusions should not 
be used as the basis for a scientific argument.


        OUR CONCLUSION:

We believe the noted shortcomings of both the mathematical modeling and 
the approach to the assessment of modeling results are enough to 
consider the main conclusion of Lieber and Press as incorrect. The U.S. 
cannot eliminate Russian nuclear forces by means of a surprise attack 
without causing unacceptable damage to itself. We are confident that 
neither the U.S. nor Russia will obtain “Nuclear Primacy” in the future.

However, in order to adequately resolve this ultimate question, a joint 
working group of American and Russian official experts should be 
organized to model all possible present and future scenarios of a 
nuclear war. Such joint modeling is possible, with the help of already 
known data plus conditional ones, without inflicting any damage on the 
national security of both countries. And the results of this cooperation 
must be open to the public.

It is of the utmost importance that both the U.S. and the Russian 
Federation permanently demonstrate to the satisfaction of each other 
that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.


 /Global Research Articles by Valery Yarynich/ 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Valery%20&authorName=Yarynich> 


 /Global Research Articles by Steven Starr/ 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Steven&authorName=%20Starr> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=membership>

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 
<mailto:crgeditor@yahoo.com>

www.globalresearch.ca 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/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 <mailto:crgeditor@yahoo.com>

© Copyright Valery Yarynich, Intelligent.ru, 2006 (Russian), 2007

The url address of this article is: 
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=YAR20070304&articleId=4991 
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=YAR20070304&articleId=4991> 


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 26 RIA Novosti: Russia to receive 2 modernized strategic bombers in 2007

14:19 | 05/ 03/ 2007
 
MOSCOW, March 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will commission two
modernized Tu-160 bombers in 2007, the Strategic Air Force commander
said Monday.

Russia is currently carrying out an ambitious program to upgrade and
modernize its strategic Air Force assets. The upgraded fleet will
include both new and modernized Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-22 Blinder and
Tu-95 Bear bombers.

"We are modernizing the fleet of Tu-160 bombers...and are planning
to receive two [modernized] aircraft by the end of this year,"
Lieutenant-General Igor Khvorov said, adding that one of the
previously commissioned bombers will conduct test bombing runs in
spring 2007.

According to various sources, 16 Tu-160 bombers are currently in
service with the Russian Air Force and they will continue to be the
mainstay of Russia's strategic air assets.

The Tu-160 has a strong resemblance to the U.S. B-1B Lancer,
although it is larger and faster, and is powered by four
afterburning turbofan engines, allowing supersonic speeds of over
Mach 2.

It has a flight range of 12,300 kilometers (7,640 miles) and can
carry up to 40,000 kilograms (88,200 pounds) of weaponry, including
nuclear missiles.

Khvorov also said that Russia was maintaining its global leadership
in developing new missile systems, especially cruise missiles.

He said Russia's strategic bombers will conduct about 10 cruise
missile test launches this year, including during the joint CSTO-SCO
maneuvers named Peaceful Mission Rubezh-2007 which will be held in
the Russia's Volga-Urals area and will involve ground and air units
from all member countries.

However, the general reiterated that Russian strategic bombers never
carry nuclear weapons when on combat duty.

"At present, strategic bombers are deployed on the ground while on
combat duty, but are capable of responding to orders immediately and
carry out combat tasks anywhere in the world," Khvorov said.

*****************************************************************
 27 UPI: Analysis: The U.N.'s war on global warming

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

3/5/2007 9:21:00 AM -0500

By WILLIAM M. REILLY UPI U.N. Correspondent

UNITED NATIONS, March 5 (UPI) -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
reached back to his past to tell the students he was addressing how
as a child he first became aware of the world organization he now
heads and how his experience shapes the way he equates the fight
against global warming with war.

He spoke last Thursday at the U.N. International School in New York
debating climate change.

Having taken over as secretary-general only 59 days earlier, from
Kofi Annan, Ban said the speech was the first at the GA podium.

"A child of the Korean war, I grew up viewing the United Nations as
a savior; an organization which helped my country, the Republic of
Korea, recover and rebuild from a devastating conflict," the
secretary-general said, referring to the 1950-1953 war. "Because of
decisions taken in this building, my country was able to grow and
prosper in peace," he said.

The prosperity helped Ban, from a farming village, rise up through
his country's diplomatic ranks and become secretary-general.

But Ban said the big difference between the era in which he grew up
and the world his audience would inherit was "the relative dangers
we face."

"Yet there is one crucial difference," he said. "For my generation,
coming of age at the height of the cold war, fear of a nuclear
winter seemed the leading existential threat on the horizon.

"Today, war continues to threaten countless men, women and children
across the globe," the secretary-general said. "It is the source of
untold suffering and loss and the majority of the U.N.'s work still
focuses on preventing and ending conflict. But the danger posed by
war to all of humanity -- and to our planet -- is at least matched
by the climate crisis and global warming."

Said Ban, "I believe that the world has reached a critical stage in
its efforts to exercise responsible environmental stewardship.
Despite our best intentions and some admirable efforts to date,
degradation of the global environment continues unabated, and the
world's natural resource base is being used in an unsustainable
manner.

"Moreover, the effects of climate change are being felt around the
world," he said. "The latest assessment by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change has established a strong link between human
activity and climate change. The panel's projections suggest that
all countries will feel the adverse impact."

Not for the first time, Ban warned, "It is the poor -- in Africa,
small-island developing states and elsewhere -- who will suffer
most, even though they are the least responsible for global warming."

He has mentioned such consequences previously, when listing climate
change among his top priorities as new secretary-general.

"I am encouraged to know that, in the industrialized countries from
which leadership is most needed, awareness is growing," Ban said.
"In increasing numbers, decision makers are recognizing that the
cost of inaction or delayed action will far exceed the short-term
investments needed to address this challenge."

One of the issues he hoped the students would consider is "that
there is an inextricable, mutually dependent relationship between
environmental sustainability and economic development" around the
world.

"Global warming has profound implications for jobs, growth and
poverty. It affects agricultural output, the spread of disease and
migration patterns," Ban said. "It determines the ferocity and
frequency of natural disasters. It can prompt water shortages,
degrade land and lead to the loss of biodiversity."

The secretary-general said in coming decades, "changes in our
environment and the resulting upheavals -- from droughts to
inundated coastal areas to loss of arable lands -- are likely to
become a major driver of war and conflict.

"These issues transcend borders. That is why protecting the world's
environment is largely beyond the capacity of individual countries,"
he said, arguing the need for concerted and coordinated
international action will mean "the natural arena for such action is
the United Nations."

Said the secretary-general, "We are all complicit in the process of
global warming. Unsustainable practices are deeply entrenched in our
everyday lives. But in the absence of decisive measures, the true
cost of our actions will be borne by succeeding generations,
starting with yours.

"That would be an unconscionable legacy; one which we must all join
hands to avert," he said. "As it stands, the damage already
inflicted on our ecosystem will take decades, perhaps centuries, to
reverse, if we act now.

"Unfortunately, my generation has been somewhat careless in looking
after our one and only planet," Ban said. "But, I am hopeful that is
finally changing and I am also hopeful that your generation will
prove far better stewards of our environment."

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 28 [NukeNet] Japan Plutonium Use Plan
 
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:24 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] Japan Plutonium Use Plan
Date: 	Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:13:56 +0900
From: 	Citizens' Nuclear Information Center <cnic@nifty.com>
To: 	nukenet@energyjustice.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Details of Japan's plutonium use plan for the 2007 fiscal year were 
released on February 23rd. CNIC has published an analysis of the plan 
and translated it into English. See the following page:

http://cnic.jp/english/topics/cycle/MOX/pluplanFEPCO23feb07.html

Philip White

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 29 World Nuclear News: Laguna Verde set for 260 MWe uprate

05 March 2007

A $605 million steam turbine retrofit project is planned for 
Mexico's Laguna Verde plant to increase the output of the 
two-unit plant by 20%. Iberdrola and Alstom will carry out the 
work for Mexico's Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) .

Laguna Verde, on the Veracruz coast (Image: CFE)

Contracts were signed in February for the work encompassing full
retrofits of two steam turbines, both of which include high-pressure
and low-pressure cylinders, and the supply of new generators. Alstom
will supply the turbines and generators while Iberinco, the
construction arm of Spain's Iberdrola, is the main contractor and
will supply balance-of-plant equipment. An Alstom release indicated
the value of the project to the company would be about $193 million.
Mexican branches of both the companies will participate in the
uprate.

According to Alstom, work was scheduled to start on 2 March with
completion in 2010. Iberinco said the company would be concerned
over the next three-and-a-half years with the design, engineering,
equipment supply & materials, installation, assembly and tests
associated with the project.

Laguna Verde hosts two boiling water reactors, completed by General
Electric with Mitsubishi turbine generators in 1989 and 1994. Both
currently provide 654 MWe to the Mexican grid, about 3% of
electricity. After the uprating work, each will output about 785 MWe.

Phlippe Joubert, President of Alstom Power said the contract was
"won against strong international competition in a re-emerging
nuclear market."

CFE said that two other consortia submitted bids for the uprate
work. Tenders from General Electric and Siemens were worth $951
million and $695 million respectively. CFE said those bids complied
with technical requirements but exceeded the amount the state-owned
company had set aside for the project while the Alstom/Iberdrola bid
complied with its 'economic ceiling' at $605 million.

Further information

Alstom Power
Comisi&#243;n Federal de Electricidad (CFE)
Iberdrola

WNA's Nuclear Power in Mexico information paper
*****************************************************************
 30 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo Canyon to get ready for the heavy lifters

03/05/2007 | 

By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com

Managers at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant are planning a busy
year of construction as they get ready to replace the plant?s eight
steam generators.

In December, the state Coastal Commission gave Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. its final regulatory approval to conduct the $706
million maintenance project. The work calls for all eight of the
plant?s steam generators ? weighing 300 tons apiece ? to be replaced.

The generators for one of the plant?s two units will be installed in
the spring of 2008. The generators for the other unit will be
installed in the spring of 2009, said Pete Resler, plant spokesman.

In the meantime, millions of dollars of construction work to pave
the way for the installation is planned throughout the year. The
work will begin within the next month or so, once final permits are
received from the Coastal Commission.

"Once we get the permits, work will begin in earnest," Resler said.
"There is a finite window of opportunity to get this stuff done."

One of the first jobs will be a nearly $3 million realignment of a
road and utilities behind the plant that leads to the storage site
for the used steam generators. The slightly radioactive generators
will be stored in a cinderblock building behind the plant.

Construction of the building as well as installation of temporary
office space and docking facilities at the plant for unloading the
new steam generators are other projects that will be completed
throughout the year.

Plans call for the new steam generators to be shipped by freighter
to Long Beach and then transported by barge up the coast to the
plant.

Replacement of the generators will take place during regularly
scheduled refueling shutdowns of the plant. However, the
installations will more than double the length of the outages from
30 days to 60 or 70 days.

Steam generators are huge bundles of tubes that transfer heat
created by the plant?s two nuclear reactors to the turbine-driven
electrical generators. Over the years, some tubes have cracked and
deteriorated to the point that they had to be plugged to prevent
radioactivity from contaminating the electrical generating system.

Without replacement, the problem would have forced the plant to shut
down by 2014. Steam generator deterioration is a problem in all of
the nation?s 103 commercial nuclear reactors.

Only one aspect of the replacement project remains unresolved. The
Coastal Commission has required PG&E to spend $300,000 to allow
visitors to the nearby Point San Luis Lighthouse to bypass armed
guards at the plant?s main entrance.

The commission and lighthouse caretakers want the guard station
moved farther back up the entrance road, but PG&E officials say that
is not an option. The utility is still negotiating with the
commission to find a solution, Resler said.

*****************************************************************
 31 FP Passport: Israel seeks civilian nuclear power | 

Eric Hundman

Mon, 03/05/2007 - 12:48pm.

Getty Images News

Back in February, the director-general of the Israel Electric
Corporation, Uri Ben-Nun, said that the Israeli Atomic Energy
Commission is "mulling the construction of a nuclear power plant in
Israel."

It may be surprising that Israel has never built a civilian nuclear
power plant, since it has long been assumed to have a sophisticated
nuclear weapons program. All other countries with advanced nuclear
weapons programs also have substantial civilian nuclear power
programs. Add Israel's uniquely pressing need for energy
independence and the question becomes even more puzzling: Why hasn't
this already happened?

Geopolitics, mostly. According to a report by Stratfor, a private
intelligence firm, "Israel has flirted with nuclear power three
times, beginning in 1976, but security concerns and the
international environment have thus far prevented such a project's
completion." For example, nuclear materials have been hard for
Israel to acquire (since it has not signed the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty) and a hostile neighbor could have attacked
the plant.

The international environment has changed, though. Nuclear power is
becoming more attractive worldwide because it does not generate
greenhouse gases. While some Gulf States had been calling for a
"nuclear-free zone" in the region, now Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates
have expressed interest in developing nuclear power. And Israel's
military preeminence in the region makes an attack on any nuclear
power plant much less likely today.

Most important for Israel, though, is the recent U.S.-India deal on
nuclear cooperation. India, like Israel, never signed the NPT but
has nuclear weapons. They, too, had difficulty buying nuclear fuel
abroad, but the new deal will allow the United States to sell
nuclear materials to India for its civilian program. This may open
the door for Israel in the future.

While Israel won't be building civilian nuclear reactors tomorrow,
Stratfor is probably right that these changes "make an Israeli
civilian nuclear power program more likely than ever before."

Eric Hundman is a science fellow at the Center for Defense
Information. His research focuses on emerging technology, terrorism
and nuclear policy, including the conventionalization of nuclear
forces. He contributes a series of posts for Passport on nuclear
technology called "Nuke Notes."


1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-939-2230 | Fax: 202-483-4430
Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

*****************************************************************
 32 World Nuclear News: Energy Alberta prepare to introduce nuclear

05 March 2007

Energy Alberta (EA) want to use a nuclear power plant in their oil
sand mining operations by 2016.

Wayne Henuset of EA told Reuters that he imagines a C$5.5 billion
($4.7 billion) project could see a two-unit Candu plant operate in
the north of the province of Alberta. The first of the twin reactors
could come online by 2016, the second following a year later.

Colin Hunt of the Canadian Nuclear Association told WNN that a
likely plan to employ nuclear energy in oil sands would see a
reactor supply electricity to power to energy-intensive oil
extraction operations.

At the moment, the process of extracting oil from the bitumen
contained in the gritty sands requires a variety of power products.
First, a large amount of steam is pumped underground to soften the
oily mixture; next, electricity is used by a variety of plant
equipment; and finally, hydrogen is added to the resulting oils to
'sweeten' them.

At present, natural gas is the primary energy souce proving these
requirements, but in future, nuclear plants are seen as a possible
alternative which would reduce the overall carbon dioxide emissions
from oil sands operations. "The people of Canada are saying: 'We
need to clean up our carbon dioxide, we have to be responsible,'"
said Heunset.

Initial nuclear applications in the oil sands industry would
probably see a nuclear plant simply provide large volumes of
carbon-dioxide free electricity to local producers, said Hunt, but
nuclear power could theoretically provide steam and electricity for
plant equipment as well as for producing hydrogen via
high-temperature electrolysis.

EA's redesigned website states: "Energy Alberta will be a profitable
energy provider at the lowest cost, utilizing proven nuclear
technology to supply low cost steam, electricity and hydrogen to oil
sands operators."

A business case for EA's use of nuclear power is expected for around
May 2008. Heunset said that his company would be choosing a site and
talking to communities over the next two months. Hunt said areas
near to Fort McMurray in the north of Alberta would probably be
under consideration.

Further information

Energy Alberta

WNN: Not 'if' but 'when' for nuclear oil sands
*****************************************************************
 33 BBC NEWS: Firm aims to reopen nuclear plant

Last Updated: Monday, 5 March 2007, 19:38 GMT

Hinkley Point B is due to be decommissioned in 2011

British Energy has applied for permission to reopen Hinkley B
nuclear power station in Somerset, after six months of repair work.

The station was closed in September last year for repairs to cracked
pipes in the boiler system.

The Stop Hinkley Campaign Group says it is not safe and British
Energy will be taking a huge chance by operating it.

Campaign group spokesperson Jim Duffy said: "We're already passed
the effective life of this nuclear reactor and what's happening is
that Hinkley are acting on a string and a prayer."

He said the fact that it took three months longer than expected to
complete the repairs meant it was not safe.

However, Nigel Cann director of Hinkley B section, said if the units
were not in a position to start up safely, then they would not.

"Our responsibility to the safety of the public and our staff
members is always our number one priority," he said.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 34 FR: NRC: Mr. Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

Doc E7-3822

[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 9708-9709] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05mr07-14]                         

Proposed Rules Federal Register

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the 
public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The 
purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an 
opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the 
adoption of the final rules.

[[Page 9708]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-81]

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The NRC is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM) submitted 
by Mr. Eric Epstein on October 19, 2005. The petition, docketed as PRM-
50-81, requests that NRC codify criteria in the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) \1\ 1986 Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV-2, 
``Protective Actions for School Children,'' into NRC's emergency 
planning regulations. The petitioner believes that this action is 
necessary to provide preplanned emergency evacuation capabilities for 
children in Pennsylvania. The NRC is denying PRM-50-81 because it does 
not provide significant new information that was not previously 
considered in denying an earlier petition, PRM-50-79, submitted by Mr. 
Lawrence T. Christian, which requested that the Commission amend its 
emergency planning regulations to ensure that all day care centers and 
nursery schools in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities are 
properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency.

\1\ Now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition, 
including the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letter of denial to 
the petitioner may be viewed electronically on public computers in the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor 
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, 
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC 
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly 
available documents created or received at the NRC after November 
1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

 From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's 
Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you 
do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference 
staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-2771, 
e-mail mjb@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On March 27, 2006, the NRC docketed a petition for rulemaking 
submitted under 10 CFR 2.802 by Mr. Eric Epstein on October 19, 2005. 
The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations to codify 
criteria in the FEMA 1986 GM EV-2 into NRC's emergency planning 
regulations (10 CFR part 50). The petitioner believes that this action 
is necessary to provide preplanned emergency evacuation capabilities 
for children in Pennsylvania. In support of his petition, Mr. Epstein 
cited excerpts from an enclosure to his petition, an unsigned, undated 
document that he represents as a differing professional opinion (DPO) 
submitted by a member of the NRC staff.\2\ This DPO focused on the 
adequacy of preplanned evacuation resources and preplanned relocation 
centers for day care centers and nursery schools within the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (``Commonwealth'') and on whether the 
Commonwealth and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/FEMA have failed 
to comply with DHS/FEMA guidance.

    \2\ The Commission acknowledges that such a DPO was submitted. 
This DPO was processed in accordance with NRC procedures included in 
Management Directive 10.159, ``The NRC Differing Professional 
Opinions Program.'' On June 14, 2006, the Director, Office of 
Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), issued a decision 
that concluded that DHS has arrived at a defensible finding of 
reasonable assurance that children at day care facilities and 
nursery schools would be evacuated in the event of a radiological 
emergency at a power plant in the Commonwealth. The NSIR Director 
also concluded that the DHS finding is consistent with the relevant 
regulations and guidance documents as well as legal implementation 
of Federal, State, and local requirements. A summary of the DPO 
decision is available on the NRC public Web site http://www.nrc.gov.

Summary of Original Petition PRM-50-79 and Basis for Denial

    On September 4, 2002, NRC received a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co-signers. The 
petition was docketed on September 23, 2002, and assigned Docket No. 
PRM-50-79. The petition requested that NRC amend its regulations 
regarding offsite State and local government emergency plans for 
nuclear power plants to ensure that all day care centers and nursery 
schools in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities are properly 
protected during a radiological emergency.

    The Commission denied the petition in a document published in the 
Federal Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75085). The petition was 
denied on the basis that current NRC requirements and NRC and DHS 
guidance reasonably assure adequate protection of all members of the 
public, including children attending day care centers and nursery 
schools, in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. NRC stated in 
its denial that many of the specific requests of petition PRM-50-79 
either are already covered by regulations or guidance documents 
(including GM EV-2) or are inappropriate for inclusion in NRC 
regulations owing to their very prescriptive nature.

    The Commission also determined that the petition and information 
obtained during the review of the petition, raised questions about 
local implementation of relevant requirements and guidelines. 
Accordingly, the Commission directed the NRC staff to undertake several 
actions to further assess these implementation questions and to provide 
appropriate recommendations for improvement (staff requirements 
memorandum (SRM) dated October 26, 2005, available in the Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML052990321). In 
response to this direction, the NRC staff met with DHS and the 
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency to

[[Page 9709]]

obtain information relevant to local implementation. Pennsylvania 
officials described a comprehensive program, mandated by Pennsylvania 
law, for licensed day care facilities that substantially enhances the 
existing emergency preparedness posture that was previously found by 
DHS to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures 
will be taken for the public, including children in day care 
facilities.

    The NRC staff provided the Commission the results of this 
assessment and other related initiatives in a Commission paper dated 
May 4, 2006 (SECY-06-0101; ML060760586). The staff found no sufficient 
basis to question the adequacy of DHS findings regarding reasonable 
assurance. The staff believes the DHS findings are consistent with the 
planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the existing memorandum of 
understanding between NRC and DHS. The staff also included a 
recommendation to republish the December 19, 2005, Federal Register 
Notice with revisions to correct factual errors and clarify NRC's 
regulatory positions and bases in the petition denial. This 
recommendation afforded the Commission an opportunity to reconsider its 
earlier denial of the petition. The Commission found no basis for 
changing its earlier denial, and in an SRM dated June 21, 2006 
(ML061720324), the Commission directed the staff to publish the amended 
Federal Register Notice. The amended notice was published on August 7, 
2006 (71 FR 44593).

Reasons for Denial

    The Commission is denying the petition for the following reasons. 
The petition does not provide significant new information or arguments 
that were not previously considered by the Commission in denying PRM-
50-79. As stated above, the petition relies upon a DPO, which focused 
on the adequacy of preplanned evacuation resources and preplanned 
relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools within the 
Commonwealth, and on whether the Commonwealth and DHS/FEMA complied 
with DHS/FEMA guidance. The proposed remedy of the petitioner is for 
the NRC to grant the petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79), commence a 
rulemaking to incorporate the criteria in GM EV-2 into the NRC's 
emergency planning regulations, and to implement the 120-day clock 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) while the rulemaking is in progress. 
However, the nature of the issues raised in the DPO would not provide a 
basis for the petitioner's remedy. The DPO raised issues about local 
implementation of the requirements and guidance, and DHS/FEMA 
evaluation of local implementation, neither of which could be resolved 
by the petitioner's proposal that the GM EV-2 criteria be incorporated 
into NRC regulations.\3\ GM EV-2 is a guidance document developed by 
FEMA and utilized by the DHS, which has primary responsibility for 
assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness \4\. NRC bases 
its own findings in part on a review of DHS's findings and 
determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are 
adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be 
implemented.

    \3\ The Commission has, in the October 26, 2005 SRM on SECY-05-
0045, directed the staff to develop guidance and expectations for 
the NRC review of FEMA's assessment and findings of offsite 
emergency preparedness. This activity should address the 
petitioner's and the DPO's issues with respect to the adequacy of 
FEMA/DHS evaluation of local implementation of offsite emergency 
preparedness.

    \4\ The Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, 
Public Law 109-347, provides that the DHS radiological emergency 
preparedness program will be transferred back to FEMA as of April 1, 
2007.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of February 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E7-3822 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
 35 FR: NRC: Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic 

Doc E7-3824

[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] 
[Notices] [Page 9781-9782] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05mr07-76]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

Risk Assessment; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting on March 22, 2007, Room T-2B1, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Thursday, March 22, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.

[[Page 9782]]

    The Subcommittee will review the staff's plans for evaluating the 
agency's human reliability analysis models in an effort to propose 
either a single model for the agency to use or guidance on which 
model(s) should be used in specific circumstances. The Subcommittee 
will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of 
the NRC staff and industry regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will 
gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate 
proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Dr. 
Hossein P. Nourbakhsh, (Telephone: 301-415-5622) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: February 23, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E7-3824 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 36 FR: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 

Doc E7-3825

[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] 
[Notices] [Page 9782] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05mr07-77]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; 
Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting on March 23, 2007, Room T-2B3, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Friday, March 23, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business
    The Subcommittee will review the Risk Management Technical 
Specification Initiative 4b and the Risk Informed Completion Times. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff and industry regarding this matter. 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. 
Maitri Banerjee (Telephone: 301-415-6973) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
 Cayetano Santos,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-3825 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 37 FR: NRC: Notice of Public Meeting for Fuel Cycle Facilities

Doc E7-3826

[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] 
[Notices] [Page 9781] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05mr07-75]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Meeting notice and request for speakers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Smith, Project Manager, 
Technical Support Section, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20005-0001. Telephone: 
(301) 415-6459; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: jas4@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is hosting a seminar, The 
Fuel Cycle Information Exchange 2007 (FCIX 2007), on June 12 and 13, 
2007. This will be the second annual hosting of this seminar to provide 
an opportunity for licensees, NRC staff, and other stakeholders to 
exchange information and discuss issues of interest pertaining to the 
regulation of NRC-regulated fuel cycle facilities.
    The seminar will be held in Rockville, Maryland, at the 
Universities of Maryland at the Shady Grove Campus Auditorium and will 
be open to the public. We are expecting that NRC staff, licensees and 
certificate holders, and other interested parties and stakeholders will 
be making presentations on varying subjects of interest, with 
opportunity for followup discussion on each subject.

II. Requests for Speakers and Topics of Discussion

    Speakers from the Nuclear Energy Institute and the NRC have 
volunteered to address various topics; however, at this early date, the 
NRC is seeking additional speakers to discuss topics of a broad nature, 
relative to the nuclear fuel cycle. If you would like an opportunity to 
discuss an issue, or to offer an additional topic of discussion, please 
contact the staff member listed below.
    The nature of the topics will not be limited; however; we do ask 
that you not use this as a commercial venue to promote your company's 
products or services. Additionally, we ask that you provide the staff 
contact with a Microsoft Powerpoint version of your presentation at 
least 45 days prior to the seminar.

III. Dates and Location

    Dates: June 12, 2007, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; June 13, 2007, 9 a.m.-12 
p.m.: Universities of Maryland at the Shady Grove Campus Auditorium, 
9630 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850.

IV. Contact

    James Smith, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Special 
Projects Branch, Mail Stop: T8F42, 301-415-6459, Fax: 301-415-5370, e-
mail: jas4@nrc.gov. 

V. Further Information

    The document related to this action is available electronically at 
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
 From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS ascension number for 
the document related to this notice is provided in the following table. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the document located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Wilkins Smith,
Acting Chief, Technical Support Branch, Special Projects, and Technical 
Support Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety, and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E7-3826 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 38 IAEA: Statements of the Director General

Introductory Statement to the Board Of Governors

Web IAEA.org

5 March 2007 | Vienna, Austria

by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei

The items on our meeting agenda relate to nuclear technology, safety
and verification - all three of the Agency´s areas of activity. I
will discuss a few issues related to each area.

Nuclear Power

You have before you the draft Nuclear Technology Review 2007 and an
information document entitled Considerations to Launch a Nuclear
Power Programme. The first reports developments in the past year in
nuclear power and non-power applications. The second is part of the
Agency’s response to these developments.

Current Status and Trends
Nuclear power currently remains on a plateau in terms of installed
capacity. Expansion in some regions has been balanced by retirements
in others. Eight nuclear power reactors were retired in 2006 (in
Bulgaria, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom) while two new
reactors were connected (in China and India), and construction began
on another five (in China, the Republic of Korea and the Russian
Federation).

Expectations for future growth remain high. This is reflected in:
the ambitious expansion plans of countries like China, India, Russia
and South Africa; more moderate plans in countries such as
Argentina, Finland and France; license application work for new
plants in the United States; more favourable policies towards
nuclear power in several countries with nuclear power programmes;
plans for new construction in some newcomer countries, such as
Indonesia, Turkey and Vietnam; and the announcements by some other
countries that they are considering or moving in the direction of a
nuclear power programme. This picture contrasts sharply with the
nuclear power picture of only a few years ago.

Each year, the International Energy Agency of the OECD publishes an
analysis of global energy trends. According to their World Energy
Outlook 2006, published last November, if current consumption trends
and government policies continue, we will see a 53 per cent increase
in global energy consumption by 2030.

Two aspects of this analysis are especially interesting. The first
is the expectation that 70 per cent of the coming growth in demand
will be from developing countries. The second is that, for the first
time, the International Energy Agency stated that the increased use
of nuclear power would help to meet the increase in energy demand,
enhance the security of energy supply and mitigate carbon emissions.

It is obvious that nuclear energy alone is not a panacea. But from
these trends, it seems likely that it will have an increasing role
as part of the global energy mix.

Planning for the Introduction of Nuclear Power
For the Agency, one result of this trend is an increase in requests
from Member States for guidance and advice. The last technical
cooperation cycle produced a substantial increase in requests for
IAEA energy assessment and planning services. Through these
services, which treat all energy sources equally, we provide energy
planning models tailored to each country’s special circumstances. We
train local experts to forecast energy demand, to identify
least-cost options, and to bring these and other factors together
into a national decision making process. To date, we have been able
to accommodate all of these requests.

To assist with subsequent steps in nuclear power planning, we have
established an inter-departmental nuclear power support group - with
participants from across the House - to provide a coordinated,
"one-stop" Agency focal point for this assistance. The Secretariat
has also produced, with inputs from Member States, the information
document before you. It summarizes key considerations from all
perspectives (safety, security, infrastructure development,
technical cooperation, legal considerations, etc.) for countries
contemplating the launch of a nuclear power programme.

INPRO
The Agency´s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors
and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) is moving to Phase 2, as agreed by the INPRO
Steering Committee. Member States are submitting proposals for
Collaborative Projects, to be coordinated by INPRO, related to the
development or analysis of specific aspects of innovative reactor
systems. As requested by the General Conference, we are also
developing common user requirements for small and medium size
reactors.

Nuclear Applications

Nuclear applications continue to be used around the world to improve
human and animal health, to aid in food production, to manage
groundwater more effectively, to protect marine and terrestrial
environments and to provide other societal benefits.

Pest Control (Sterile Insect Technique)
This year, for example, with Agency support, the Southern Tsetse
Eradication Project in Ethiopia plans to move from the preparatory
to the operational phase of applying the sterile insect technique
(SIT). Tsetse population suppression activities have been initiated
in some areas, in preparation for the first pilot releases of
sterile tsetse flies, currently scheduled for the second half of
2007. These suppression activities have already reduced the
prevalence of nagana disease in livestock in the treated areas.

Food and Agriculture


The Agency continues to assist Member States in building capacity to
produce food crops with improved characteristics. A good example is
in Peru, where nine mutant varieties of barley, developed with
support from the IAEA, now cover 90 per cent of the barley producing
area. These crops are being planted in the Andes in harsh and
extreme climatic conditions. Since gaining access to these improved
varieties of barley, the Andean population has been experiencing a
sustained improvement in food and economic security.

Nuclear Safety and Security

The Nuclear Safety Review for the Year 2006 provides an overview of
current and emerging nuclear safety trends and issues. Nuclear power
plant safety, as well as radiation, waste and transport safety in
both power and non-power nuclear activities, has continued to show
strong performance worldwide.

As the Review points out, it is essential that plans for new nuclear
power development and other uses of nuclear technology are
complemented with equally ambitious plans for sustainable safety
infrastructures.

Integrated Regulatory Review Service
The newly established Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) is
intended to help Member States enhance their legislative and
regulatory infrastructures, and to harmonize regulatory approaches
in all areas of safety. It will also be one of the most effective
feedback tools on the application of Agency standards. The first
full scope IRRS was conducted last year in France.

International Conference on Lessons Learned from Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities
In December, a conference was held in Athens to provide a forum to
exchange knowledge and good practices on all aspects of
decommissioning. The forum highlighted the importance of
incorporating insights gained from decommissioning into the design,
operation and maintenance of new and existing facilities.
Participants stressed the need to improve decommissioning funding
and cost estimates, and the advantages of immediate dismantling as a
decommissioning strategy.

Denial of Shipments of Radioactive Material
In recent years, the safety record for the transport of radioactive
material has been strong. However, denials of shipments of
radioactive material continue to occur. The Agency has constituted
an International Steering Committee to help address this issue. Two
workshops are scheduled for Latin America and Asia in the coming
months. They will be focused on sensitizing persons involved in
transport operations - from both industry and regulatory bodies -
about the need to resolve local problems such as overlapping
regulations, perception issues and training needs. In addition, we
have used new communication channels to ensure the involvement of
the International Maritime Organization in solving particular cases.

Nuclear Verification

Status of Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols
The nuclear non-proliferation regime continues to face a number of
challenges. I remain concerned by the fact that 30 countries have
not yet fulfilled their legal obligations under the NPT to conclude
and bring into force comprehensive safeguards agreements. I am also
concerned by the comparatively slow progress on the conclusion and
entry into force of additional protocols. To date, more than 100
countries remain without an additional protocol in force.

As I have stated on many occasions, the Agency can provide no
assurance with regard to countries that have no safeguards
agreement, and limited assurance about the absence of undeclared
nuclear material and activities with regard to countries that do not
have an additional protocol in force.

Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of
Korea
On 23 February I received an invitation from the Democratic People´s
Republic of Korea (DPRK) to visit the DPRK to "develop the relations
between the DPRK and the Agency, as well as to discuss problems of
mutual concerns". I have also been notified by China, in its
capacity as Chairman of the Six-Party Talks, of the "initial actions
for the implementation of the joint statement" adopted in Beijing on
13 February. These actions envisioned, inter alia, the DPRK shutting
down and sealing, for the purposes of eventual abandonment, its
Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility. It
also envisioned the return of IAEA personnel to conduct all
necessary monitoring and verification as agreed by the IAEA and the
DPRK. I welcome the Beijing agreement, and the invitation to visit
the DPRK, as positive steps towards the denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula, and towards the normalization of the DPRK´s
relationship with the Agency. I will report to the Board on
developments and any required action.

Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
You have before you a report on the implementation of the NPT
safeguards agreement and relevant provisions of UN Security Council
resolution 1737 in the Islamic Republic of Iran - as well as a
report on cooperation between Iran and the Agency in light of this
resolution. As you can see from the report before you on
verification activities, Iran has not suspended its enrichment
related activities, nor its heavy water related projects, as
required by the Security Council as a confidence building measure.

As you can also see, we have - pursuant to the Security Council
resolution - conducted a review of the Agency’s cooperation with
Iran, and made the necessary adjustments to that cooperation. We
have also put mechanisms in place to monitor the Agency´s ongoing
activities in Iran, to ensure continuing compliance with the
resolution.

The Agency has been verifying Iran´s nuclear programme for the past
four years, with the aim of providing the required assurances that
all nuclear material in Iran has been declared to the Agency and is
under safeguards.

The current situation remains somewhat of a stalemate. The Agency
has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear
material in Iran. However, we continue to be unable to reconstruct
fully the history of Iran´s nuclear programme and some of its
components, because we have not been provided with the necessary
level of transparency and cooperation on the part of Iran. We have
not seen concrete proof of the diversion of nuclear material, nor
the industrial capacity to produce weapon-usable nuclear material,
which is an important consideration in assessing the risk. However,
quite a few uncertainties still remain about experiments,
procurements and other activities relevant to our understanding of
the scope and nature of Iran´s programme. This renders the Agency
unable to provide the required assurance about the peaceful nature
of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran´s verification case is sui generis. Unlike other verification
cases, the IAEA´s confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme
has been shaken because of two decades of undeclared activities.
This confidence will only be restored when Iran takes the long
overdue decision to explain and answer all the Agency´s questions
and concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and
transparent manner. Until that time, the Agency will have no option
but to reserve its judgment about Iran´s nuclear programme, and as a
result the international community will continue to express concern.

The decision by Iran to link its readiness to resolve the Agency´s
concerns to actions by the Security Council is difficult to
understand. Only through full cooperation with the Agency, as the
independent verification body - and irrespective of any progress or
lack thereof in its negotiations with other relevant parties - can
Iran dispel the doubts about its nuclear programme. Assurance by the
Agency about Iran´s nuclear programme will undoubtedly facilitate a
solution to the Iranian issue - which would, on the one hand, take
full account of Iran´s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy
and, on the other, provide the necessary level of confidence to the
international community about Iran´s nuclear programme and its
future direction.

In this context, I earnestly hope that conditions will be created
soon for the resumption of negotiations between Iran and all
relevant parties. I remain convinced that only through negotiation
can a comprehensive and durable solution be attained to the Iranian
nuclear question and other issues related to it.

Management Issues

Programme and Budget
At an informal session on 15 February, the Programme and Budget
Committee considered the Agency´s Draft Programme and Budget for
2008–2009. In formulating the new programme and budget, we have done
considerable re-shaping within programmes, reprioritizing and
retiring activities where appropriate, and captured efficiency gains
where possible.

We have included, separately, a category of "Essential Investments".
These investments are extraordinary, unavoidable expenses needed,
inter alia, to shore up the Agency Laboratories´ ageing
infrastructure, to purchase special equipment and services for new
facilities coming under safeguards, and to enable the Agency´s
financial, procurement and other systems to comply with the
requirements of best practice international public sector accounting
standards (IPSAS), as is now the case with most UN system
organizations.

The role of the Agency continues to expand. Member States continue
to demand more and better services. We can do more, but we need
adequate resources. It is my duty to present you with budget
estimates and essential investments that I believe are necessary to
effectively carry out the programme you have asked for. I should
emphasize that, even with the budget estimate presented to you, the
Agency’s ability to perform its responsibilities remains in a
precarious state.

Take the example of our Safeguards Analytical Laboratory at
Seibersdorf. Particle analysis of environmental samples is one of
the cornerstones of modern safeguards. However, the Agency has never
had the equipment necessary to perform the most sensitive analyses,
but must depend on a few Member States, without the capability to
independently validate the results through our own measurements. And
for performing particle analysis at "normal sensitivity" levels, our
"workhorse" instrument is now some 28 years old and urgently needs
to be replaced.

This is only one example among several that I could cite, to
demonstrate how critical the financial situation of the Agency has
become.

Conclusion

Security and development continue to be among the most daunting
challenges facing humanity. The work of the Agency continues to be
central to these intertwined challenges. We naturally rely on your
support to be able to carry out our mission effectively.

More DG Statements &raquo;

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:
*****************************************************************
 39 Independent: Climate Change

The Big Green Fuel Lie

George Bush says that ethanol will save the world. But there is
evidence that biofuels may bring new problems for the planet

By Daniel Howden in Sao Paolo

Published: 05 March 2007

The ethanol boom is coming. The twin threats of climate change and
energy security are creating an unprecedented thirst for alternative
energy with ethanol leading the way.

That process is set to reach a landmark on Thursday when the US
President, George Bush, arrives in Brazil to kick-start the creation
of an international market for ethanol that could one day rival oil
as a global commodity. The expected creation of an "Opec for
ethanol" replicating the cartel of major oil producers has spurred
frenzied investment in biofuels across the Americas.

But a growing number of economists, scientists and environmentalists
are calling for a "time out" and warning that the headlong rush into
massive ethanol production is creating more problems than it is
solving.

To its advocates, ethanol, which can be made from corn, barley,
wheat, sugar cane or beet is a green panacea - a clean-burning,
renewable energy source that will see us switch from dwindling oil
wells to boundless fields of crops to satisfy our energy needs.

Dr Plinio Mario Nastari, one of Brazil's leading economists and an
expert in biofuels, sees a bright future for an energy sector in
which his country is the acknowledged world leader: "We are on the
brink of a new era, ethanol is changing a lot of things but in a
positive sense."

In its first major acknowledgment of the dangers of climate change,
the White House this year committed itself to substituting 20 per
cent of the petroleum it uses for ethanol by 2017.

In Brazil, that switch is more advanced than anywhere in the world
and it has already substituted 40 per cent of its gasoline usage.

Ethanol is nothing new in Brazil. It has been used as fuel since
1925. But the real boom came after the oil crisis of 1973 spurred
the military dictatorship to lessen the country's reliance on
foreign imports of fossil fuels. The generals poured public
subsidies and incentives into the sugar industry to produce ethanol.

Today, the congested streets of Sao Paolo are packed with flex-fuel
cars that run off a growing menu of bio and fossil fuel mixtures,
and all filling stations offer "alcohol" and "gas" at the pump, with
the latter at roughly twice the price by volume.

But there is a darker side to this green revolution, which argues
for a cautious assessment of how big a role ethanol can play in
filling the developed world's fuel tank. The prospect of a sudden
surge in demand for ethanol is causing serious concerns even in
Brazil.

The ethanol industry has been linked with air and water pollution on
an epic scale, along with deforestation in both the Amazon and
Atlantic rainforests, as well as the wholesale destruction of
Brazil's unique savannah land.

Fabio Feldman, a leading Brazilian environmentalist and former
member of Congress who helped to pass the law mandating a 23 per
cent mix of ethanol to be added to all petroleum supplies in the
country, believes that Brazil's trailblazing switch has had serious
side effects.

"Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these
vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems," he said. "If
you see the size of the plantations in the state of Sao Paolo they
are oceans of sugar cane. In order to harvest you must burn the
plantations which creates a serious air pollution problem in the
city."

Despite its leading role in biofuels, Brazil remains the fourth
largest producer of carbon emissions in the world due to
deforestation. Dr Nastarti rejects any linkage between deforestation
and ethanol and argues that cane production accounts for little more
than 10 per cent of Brazil's farmland.

However, Dr Nastari is calling for new legislation in Brazil to
ensure that mushrooming sugar plantations do not directly or
indirectly contribute to the destruction of vital forest preserves.

Sceptics, however, point out that existing legislation is
unenforceable and agri-business from banned GM cotton to soy beans
has been able to ignore legislation.

"In large areas of Brazil there is a total absence of the state and
no respect for environmental legislation," said Mr Feldman.

"Ethanol can be a good alternative in the fight against global
warming but at the same time we must make sure we are not creating a
worse problem than the one we are trying to solve."

The conditions for a true nightmare scenario are being created not
in Brazil, despite its environment concerns, but in the US's own
domestic ethanol industry.

While Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source alcohol from its
sugar crop, the US has turned to its industrialised corn belt for
the raw material to substitute oil. The American economist Lester R
Brown, from the Earth Policy Institute, is leading the warning
voices: "The competition for grain between the world's 800 million
motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its two billion
poorest people who are simply trying to stay alive is emerging as an
epic issue."

Speaking in Sao Paolo, where the ethanol boom is expected to take
off with a US-Brazil trade deal this Thursday, Fabio Feldman, said:
"We must stop and take a breath and consider the consequences."

Biofuel costs

When Rudolph Diesel unveiled his new engine at the 1900 World's
Fair, he made a point of demonstrating that it could be run on
peanut oil. "Such oils may become, in the course of time, as
important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present
time," he said.

And so it has come to pass that US President George Bush has decreed
that America must wean itself off oil with the help of biofuels made
from corn, sugar cane and other suitable crops.

At its simplest, the argument for biofuels is this: By growing crops
to produce organic compounds that can be burnt in an engine, you are
not adding to the overall levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The amount of CO2 that the fuel produces when burnt should balance
the amount absorbed during the growth of the plants.

However, many biofuel crops, such as corn, are grown with the help
of fossil fuels in the form of fertilisers, pesticides and the
petrol for farm equipment.

One estimate is that corn needs 30 per cent more energy than the
finished fuel it produces.

Another problem is the land required to produce it. One estimate is
that the grain needed to fill the petrol tank of a 4X4 with ethanol
is sufficient to feed a person for a year.

© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 40 tENNESSEAN: Speak out against flawed plan to jumpstart nuclear power program -

Nashville, Tennessee - Monday, 03/05/07 - Tennessean.com

By DON SAFER

Tennessee Voices

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is the Bush administration and
the U.S. Department of Energy's deeply flawed plan to resuscitate
nuclear power plants worldwide. They make it sound so easy. All it
will take is billions of your (taxpayers') money.

The proposal calls for the development of three new nuclear
facilities to be sited at 11 possible locations in the U. S. Two
potential sites, Oak Ridge and Paducah, are of local concern. The
first new technology to be developed is a nuclear waste reprocessing
plant. The second is a fast neutron reactor. The third is a nuclear
fuels research facility. The total cost to reprocess the estimated
lifetime discharges of current U.S. reactors by this process and to
build enough fast reactors to use the reprocessed fuel is estimated
to be $250 billion.
 
GNEP is big on vision but short on specifics, according to an Aug.
7, 2006, article in Nuclear Engineering International. It is being
touted as "a bold new approach toward the global nuclear economy,
aimed at attacking the dangers of proliferation and significantly
reducing the nuclear waste problem." Clay Sell, deputy secretary of
energy, claims that GNEP will "enhance the expansion of nuclear
power worldwide."

This project was originally conceived as a smaller-sized
demonstration plant; however, the DOE has decided to skip that step
and "fast track" the first two components of the experiment, moving
directly to "commercial sized" before fully testing the process.
Many unresolved questions remain concerning GNEP and nuclear power.
Plans call for large quantities of nuclear waste to be transported
to the facility from around the world. The waste would be ground up,
liquefied, and separated into its components, including plutonium.
Reprocessing is inherently expensive, dirty and dangerous. Just ask
the citizens around West Valley, N.Y., where a plant that closed in
1972 has a mounting clean-up bill of more than $5 billion of your
tax dollars. Plutonium, which is easily used to create nuclear
weapons, would be fuel for the fast reactor. This technology
dramatically increases its quantity and utility as bomb material.
Plus, we still have no long-term waste storage facility.

GNEP is a desperate, ill-conceived and deliberately misleading
government-funded attempt to revive the fading nuclear power
industry under the guise of addressing global warming, nuclear
weapons proliferation and nuclear waste. Nuclear power's high cost
and risk make it untenable on the private capital market. Huge
federal subsidies for nuclear power limit private and public
investment in more cost-effective alternatives like cogeneration,
renewables and efficiency.

DOE is seeking public comment on this proposal. Voice your concerns
at the public meeting in Paducah, Ky., on Tuesday. You can e-mail
comments to GNEP-PEIS@nuclear.energy.gov or fax comments to
866-645-7807 by April 4, 2007. Be sure to copy your representative,
senators and the president.

Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer
its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations
online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it
impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting. Since
Tennessean.com does not control user submitted statements, we cannot
promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or
inaccurate comments posted on our Web site. In addition, we remind
anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility
for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment,
not Tennessean.com or its related sites. 


 But what if you buy indulgences @ the Church of Gore? Then would
nuclear energy be ok???

The hardcore dirt-person environmentalists care about nothing except
taking down the US' evil capitalistic system - not giving a poop
about the pigsties of China & India.

Mr. Bryson, how dare you come up against their cult-like religious
beliefs with facts - truth doesn't matter to these people, they are
going to force their faith down everyone's throats!!!

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:56 pm

 Regarding Don Safer's article "Speak out against flawed plan to
jumpstart nuclear power program" (2007-03-03), there is absolutely
no need for nuclear power in the US (and many other parts of the
world) because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver
huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear
power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of
concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using
the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like
a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in
melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the
night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating
electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million
Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP
plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always
nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar
electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC'
transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000
km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US and
Canada too. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society
says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could
provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the
current total US electric capacity***" (emphasis added).

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it
is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and
the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of
electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A
large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by
Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout
Europe.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and
www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded
from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated
with nuclear power are summarised at
www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:40 pm

 The pattern of environmentalism:

1. Gasoline/diesel internal cumbustion engines are bad, use
electricity instead

2. TVA pollutes the atmosphere and causes acid rain while producing
electricity by burning coal, we should build wind mills.

3. Windmills are noisy and kill birds and bats. We should develop
ethanol and biodiesel.

4. Ethanol and biodiesel uses up the worlds food supply by taking up
agricultural land and resources. We should ride horses and live on
farms.

5. Horses, cattle, pigs, and chickens emit massive amounts of carbon
dioxide and their wastes destroy our waterways, we should find
"clean" energy sources that do not emit CO2.

6. Nuclear energy is bad because it clashes with my Birkenstocks and
the cast of the "West Wing" said it was dangerous.

7. Starve and die.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:00 pm

Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 41 Baltic News: Vilnius signs nuclear plant agreement with Warsaw

Mar 05, 2007

From wire reportsThe prime ministers of Lithuania and Poland have
signed a political agreement on the building of new nuclear reactors
in Lithuania.

The government leaders, Gediminas Kirkilas and Jaroslaw Kaczynski,
also agreed to explore the possibilities of connecting their gas
transportation grids, and urged Germany to develop a uniform
European Union energy policy.

The agreement highlights the significance of cooperation between
Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia to build a new nuclear plant, which
will now also involve the Polish power company Polskie Sieci
Elektroenergetyczne (PSE)

Lithuania and Poland also confirmed their intentions to speed up the
building of bilateral power bridge and invited Estonia's and
Latvia's energy companies to join the project.


  Developed by Julius Nalivaiko  (c) Copyright 2007 Baltic News Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 42 Mid-Hudson News: New siren positions set 

Monday, March 5, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide

Tuxedo &ndash; As Entergy completes its new emergency warning siren
system for the 10 mile warning area around its Indian Point nuclear
power plants, new siren positions will be established in southern
Orange County.

Orange County Legislator Noel Spencer told MidHudsonNews.com that
after he pointed out voids in the warning system to Entergy, they
agreed to fill in the gaps.

&ldquo;What they have done is identify seven areas in the southern
tier of Orange County, even going beyond Tuxedo to put new sirens
into place,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;So, in case there is an emergency
or a warning, the whole southern tier would not be fully covered.
Before there were big holes in Tuxedo, in Harriman State Park, even
coming up to Harriman itself.&rdquo;

The new siren system should be operational this summer.

 


======================================================================


  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only
                     Internet radio news report.



*****************************************************************
 43 The Australian: Aussies embrace nuclear power - poll 

NEWS.com.au |

* March 06, 2007

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP

CONCERNS about climate change have swung Australian opinion in
favour of nuclear power for the first time, a poll shows.

A Newspoll published in today's The Australian newspaper reveals
support for nuclear power has surged 10 percentage points to 45 per
cent in four months, outstripping opposition, which has plummeted 10
points to 40 per cent.

But a vast majority - 66 per cent - are against having a nuclear
power station in their local area.

The key to the shift appears to have been Prime Minister John
Howard's repeatedly linking nuclear power to strategies for the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the newspaper reports.

The survey asked whether respondents supported the development of
nuclear power industry in Australia as one of a range of energy
solutions to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whether they
would personally be in favour or against a nuclear power station
being built in your local area.


© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 44 AU ABC: Switkowski appointment shows Govt's nuclear plans - Greenpeace.

05/03/2007. ABC News Online


Dr Switkowski says ANSTO is well advanced in research into all
aspects of the nuclear cycle. (Getty Images) 

Greenpeace says the appointment of Ziggy Switkowski as the chairman
of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) confirms that the Federal Government plans to introduce
nuclear power.

Dr Switkowski was appointed to the board of ANSTO last year, but
stood aside after he became the head of the Prime Minister's inquiry
into the viability of nuclear energy.

Dr Switkowski told ABC radio today ANSTO is well advanced in
research into all aspects of the nuclear cycle.

Greenpeace's energy adviser Paul Cleary says that backs up his
assessment.

"It's essentially the only place of nuclear expertise in Australia,"
he said.

"It claims that it is only there to produce medical isotopes, but in
fact ANSTO is actually doing a lot more than that.

"It's already producing the silex technology which can basically be
used for making backyard weapons if it falls into the wrong hands."

Dr Switkowski says the introduction of nuclear power will be not be
integral to his role at ANSTO.

"There's no doubt that coming out of the nuclear review that one
does form opinions about the applicability of nuclear power in
Australia's strategic thinking," he said.

"Particularly in a future where greenhouse gas abatement is going to
be a bit of a priority.

"But that doesn't translate into an agenda, and my personal goal
will be to facilitate informed debate."

*****************************************************************
 45 AU ABC: Nuclear power gaining support - poll. 

06/03/2007. ABC News Online

Last Update: Tuesday, March 6, 2007. 7:18am (AEDT)

There may be some comfort for the Federal Government in another
Newspoll published today showing support for nuclear power is
gaining ground in Australia.

The poll published in the Australian newspaper shows 45 per cent of
people surveyed are in favour of the development of a nuclear power
industry as one of a range of future energy options.

That figure was 35 per cent four months ago.

It is the first time there is more support than opposition to
nuclear power.

Prime Minister John Howard has been calling for a new debate on
nuclear power in Australia, seeing it as a way to address the
problems of greenhouse gasses from coal energy and climate change.



*****************************************************************
 46 AU: News Limited: Australians warm to nuclear future | 

NEWS.com.au

By Dennis Shanahan and Sid Marris

March 06, 2007 01:00am

FEAR of global warming has dramatically reversed Australians'
attitude to nuclear energy, with more people supporting nuclear
power for the first time.

In the past four months, support for nuclear power has risen from
just 35 per cent to 45 per cent, and opposition has fallen in the
same time from 50 per cent to 40 per cent.

But people are still overwhelming opposed to having a nuclear power
plant in their backyard.

The Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last
weekend, is the first survey showing more support for, than
opposition to, nuclear power stations in Australia.

Previous Newspoll surveys, in May and December last year, had the
highest support at 38 per cent and lowest opposition at 50 per cent,
with 40 per cent being "strongly opposed".

The key difference in the survey results stems from the question of
trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

John Howard has been campaigning for a nuclear debate in Australia
and ordered a report on nuclear power on the basis of fighting
global warming.

The Prime Minister has constantly referred to nuclear power as
"clean and green" and an option that has to be considered to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

From strong opposition to nuclear power, the balance of opinion has
turned to being slightly in favour when linked with cutting
greenhouse gas emissions.

Strong opposition to nuclear power plants remains among women, Labor
voters and those aged between 35 and 49.

The strongest support for nuclear energy is among men, Coalition
supporters, people aged 18-34, and those over 50.

Previously, young people had been more opposed to nuclear power but
the linking with greenhouse gas emissions seems to have swung their
opinions.

Mr Howard has been running a campaign on the benefits of nuclear
power in fighting greenhouse gas emissions, although Labor is
opposed to nuclear energy.

The Government commissioned a study into nuclear options for
Australia by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski.

Yesterday, Labor launched an extraordinary attack against the
integrity of the businessman, claiming he had been put in charge of
the nation's nuclear research organisation to campaign for nuclear
power.

Opposition industry spokesman Kim Carr said Dr Switkowski could not
be trusted as the new chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation because he had accepted an invitation to
write a report on the prospects for nuclear power.

"Once again, Mr Howard has put his own political interests ahead of
the nation's, appointing a cheerleader for nuclear power as chair of
the board for the nation's only research organisation devoted solely
to nuclear science and technology," he said.

"There is no doubt Dr Switkowski has qualifications in the area
&ndash; in nuclear engineering and high-level management &ndash; and
Labor does not call those into question.

"However, Dr Switkowski has also earned his political stripes
writing the recent report for the PM recommending that nuclear power
is imposed on Australia."

Opposition spokesman on national development, resources and energy
Chris Evans said the appointment was meant to accelerate the push to
nuclear power because Education Minister Julie Bishop had stated
that Dr Switkowski was "an ideal choice to head up ANSTO as we move
into this period of seriously discussing nuclear power as an
alternative to coal".

WA Liberal backbencher, physicist and advocate of nuclear energy
Dennis Jensen said Labor had been playing personal politics,
attacking anyone who was not opposed to nuclear power.

Dr Switkowski's interim report found that nuclear energy would not
be competitive against coal and gas power for at least a decade, but
by the middle of the century the nation could feasibly host 25
nuclear power stations along the eastern seaboard.


Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).



*****************************************************************
 47 UK: News Limited: Switkowski appointment criticised | 

NEWS.com.au 

March 05, 2007 12:26pm

THE appointment of Ziggy Switkowski's to head Australia's nuclear
research body has been criticised by the Opposition and the
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).

-ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said Dr Switkowski's
appointment as Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation (ANSTO) chairman showed due process had been thrown out
the window in the nuclear debate currently raging in the country.

Making the announcement yesterday, federal Science Minister Julie
Bishop said Dr Switkowski, who last year headed the Government's
inquiry into the viability of a nuclear power in Australia, was an
ideal choice when the country was discussing nuclear power as an
alternative energy source.

Mr Sweeney said the appointment highlighted the Government's quest
to push nuclear energy, especially when the Government had not yet
responded to Dr Switkowski's nuclear inquiry report.

"We are talking about the world's most hazardous energy source, yet
the government process to investigate whether Australia should adopt
it has not been independent, not rigorous, not transparent, not
robust," he said.

"It is simply not good enough."

Mr Sweeney said the Government's haste towards a nuclear program had
seen an unashamedly pro-nuclear Mr Howard hand-pick a taskforce to
examine domestic nuclear power and then appoint as taskforce
chairman a man who was on the board of Australia's largest nuclear
agency.

He said the taskforce delivered a one-eyed pro-nuclear report that
lacked detail on costing and siting, failed to address the two key
issues of nuclear safeguards and radioactive waste, and was widely
criticised.

"Before the dust settles on this report, before the Government has
even formally responded to this report, its chief author is promoted
and put in charge of its implementation," Mr Sweeney said.
"Mr Switkowski has a clear conflict of interest. "

Labor called Dr Switkowski a pawn for the Government.

"Whatever Mr Ziggy Switkowski's considerable professional
qualifications, this will be seen as a highly controversial
appointment," Labor's science spokesman Kim Carr said.

"He is a man who has such strong qualifications in nuclear
engineering and company management. However, his recent report for
the Prime Minister lends weight to the view that he will be pursuing
an agenda by this Government, for this Government to impose nuclear
power upon Australia."

Today, Dr Switkowski said his experience heading up the nuclear
power study would be an advantage in his new position as head of the
country's nuclear research and development organisation.

"ANSTO itself, I think, is well progressed in its thinking around
all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," Dr Switkowski said on ABC
radio.

"The fact that I now return as chairman will lead to a situation
where the board will continue to be, I think, conversant with and in
some cases quite expert in the areas of ANSTO, which is what you
would want."

Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).
*****************************************************************
 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Administration posture prompts fear of new blasts 
at Nevada Test Site

Utahns voice opposition to the possibility of new blasts

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 03/05/2007 07:22:08 AM MST

WASHINGTON - For four decades, the Nevada Test Site was ground zero
for hundreds of nuclear weapons tests.

    Then in 1992, the United States conducted its last atomic
weapons test at the outdoor lab, leaving the tightly guarded
installation the size of Rhode Island in a bit of limbo.

    Although the bombs have gone silent, the Bush administration has
left the door open to a return to testing, pushing a more aggressive
nuclear posture and seeking money to cut the time it would take to
begin testing at the site.

    A large public outcry from residents in Utah, Nevada and Idaho
forced the Defense Department two weeks ago to cancel its proposed
Divine Strake test - a huge blast of 700 tons of conventional
explosives - and raised the question of whether the public could
ever stomach renewed nuclear tests at the site.

    "If you look at [Divine Strake] as a litmus test for how
comfortable the public is with the idea of renewed nuclear testing,
well, the answer is crystal clear: Don't even think about it," said
Vanessa Pierce, executive director of the Healthy Environment
Alliance of Utah. "Utahns are unwilling to consider allowing
anything that brings us even one step closer to the days of nuclear
blasts."

    But some, including Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, whose father 
died of cancer as a result of radioactive fallout from the Cold 
War nuclear tests, fear that is the direction the Bush 
administration is headed.

    On Friday, the National Nuclear Security Administration
announced its new design for the "Reliable Replacement Warhead," the
next generation U.S. atomic weapon. Matheson questions the rationale
for the new weapon, and how it can be built without being tested.

    "I think we're going down the path of new nuclear weapons, which
takes us down the path to new nuclear weapons testing," Matheson
said.

    Between 1951 and 1992, when the United States ceased testing, a
total of 925 atomic tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site,
825 of them underground. President Clinton issued a moratorium on
testing, and in 1996 signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
although it was never ratified by the Senate.

    Since then, the test site has been used for hazardous chemical
testing, emergency response training and conventional weapons
testing. The National Nuclear Security Administration has put in
place an extensive program designed to maintain atomic weapons
without relying on full-scale testing.

    In 2001, the Bush administration also issued a new Nuclear
Posture Review that envisioned a significant shift in U.S. weapons
policy, moving from the Cold War-era strategy of deterring enemy
strikes to a position of using tactical nuclear weapons to defeat
fortified enemy positions.

    And the president has repeatedly asked Congress to approve
funding that would allow the Nevada Test Site to resume testing
within 18 months. The time it would take to restart a testing
program already has been cut from three years to two.

    Congress balked at funding the request, since the administration
insists new nuclear tests are not necessary.

    The approved Reliable Replacement Warhead design was patterned
after a weapon that had been tested in the past, and the National
Nuclear Security Administration reiterated Friday that new testing
won't be needed.

    Downwinders, suffering from cancer as a result of their exposure
to fallout from the Cold War atomic tests, remain concerned.

    "Let's not kid ourselves. The threat is there and until that
threat is lifted, we've said what we've said all along: 'You are not
going to create another generation of us,' '' said J. Preston
Truman, founder and director of the group Downwinders.

    Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. also opposes any move to renew
testing.

    "I think it's a terrible idea and I hope it's never resumed," he
said.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says that, especially in the current
Congress, there is no appetite for new nuclear tests.

    Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of
American Scientists, said the public's opposition to Divine Strake
was surprising, and it's fair to assume there would be considerable
resistance to any future nuclear tests.

    "In one way, politically, it has certainly made it a very tough
sell," he said. "On the other hand, it all depends on the situation.
I think people locally would be opposed to it . . . but that's not
necessarily what drives a decision, and if the nation decides it was
necessary because of a serious reliability issue, I think,
opposition or not, it would happen."

    That's why Matheson says he plans to keep pressing the issue.

    "To assume the door is shut and the potential just isn't there
anymore, I can't assume that," he said. "I think we have to remain
ever-vigilant."
   
*****************************************************************
 49 FR: DOL exposure meetings  

Doc E7-3689

[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 9716-9718] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05mr07-17]                         

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0021]
RIN 1218-AC16

 
Announcement of Stakeholder Meetings on Occupational Exposure to 
Ionizing Radiation

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Announcement of stakeholder meetings.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
invites interested parties to participate in informal stakeholder 
meetings on Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. These meetings 
are a continuation of OSHA's information collection efforts on ionizing 
radiation.

DATES: Stakeholder meetings: The stakeholder meeting dates are:
    1. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., March 16, 2007, Washington, DC.
    2. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., March 26, 2007, Orlando, FL.
    Notice of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting: You must 
submit a notice of intention to attend the Washington, DC, or Orlando, 
FL, stakeholder meeting by March 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Stakeholder meetings: The stakeholder meeting locations are:
    1. Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    2. For the location of the Orlando, FL, stakeholder meeting, 
contact Liset Navas at (202) 693-1950.
    Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting: You may 
submit your notice of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting by any 
of the following methods:
    Electronic: OSHA encourages you to submit your notice of intention 
to attend to navas.liset@dol.gov.
    Facsimile: You may fax your notice of intention to attend to (202) 
693-1678.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger and 
courier service: Submit your notice of intention to attend to Liset 
Navas, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone (202) 693-1950. The Department of Labor's and OSHA's 
normal hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: For further information on the stakeholder meetings 
and submitting notices of intention to attend one of the meetings, see 
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this notice.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may 
cause a significant delay in the receipt of notices of intention to 
attend. For information about security procedures concerning the 
delivery of materials by hand, express mail, messenger or courier 
service, please contact Liset Navas at (202) 693-1950.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at 
http://www.regulations.gov. This document, non-attributed notes from 

the stakeholder meetings, as well as news releases and other relevant 
information, will also be available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Seymour, Director, OSHA, 
Office of Physical Hazards, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room 
N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The use of ionizing radiation has increased significantly in recent 
years. Today, ionizing radiation is used in a

[[Page 9717]]

wide variety of workplaces and operations, including security 
operations, hospitals and medical offices, dental offices, 
manufacturing worksites, research facilities, forestry and other 
agricultural worksites, and wastewater treatment plants.
    In 2005, OSHA initiated information collection efforts to obtain 
data, information, and comment on the increased workplace use of 
ionizing radiation and other related issues. These efforts started with 
the publication of a Request for Information (RFI) on May 3, 2005 (70 
FR 22828). OSHA received 51 comments in response to the RFI. To 
supplement this information, OSHA is inviting interested parties to 
attend informal stakeholder meetings on the Occupational Exposure to 
Ionizing Radiation. OSHA will use the data and materials obtained 
through these information collections efforts to determine, in 
conjunction with other Federal agencies, whether regulatory action is 
necessary to protect employees from ionizing radiation exposure.
    OSHA's existing standard on Ionizing Radiation (29 CFR 1910.1096) 
was adopted in 1971 pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 
655). The standard has remained largely unchanged since that time.
    OSHA's Ionizing Radiation standard applies to all workplaces except 
agricultural operations and those workplaces exempted from OSHA 
jurisdiction under section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 653). Section 4(b)(1) states:

    Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of 
employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State 
agencies acting under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021), exercise statutory authority to 
prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational 
safety and health.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has statutory authority for 
licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials as mandated 
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), 
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended), the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Act of 1978, and other applicable statutes. 
Specifically, the NRC has the authority to regulate source, byproduct 
and certain special nuclear materials (e.g., nuclear reactor fuel). 
This authority covers radiation hazards in NRC-licensed nuclear 
facilities produced by radioactive materials and plant conditions that 
affect the safety of radioactive materials and thus present an 
increased radiation hazard to workers.
    In 1988, OSHA and NRC signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 
delineating the general areas of responsibility of each agency (CPL 
2.86, December 22, 1989). The MOU specifies that at NRC-licensed 
facilities OSHA has authority to regulate occupational ionizing 
radiation sources not regulated by NRC (CPL 2.86). Examples of non-NRC 
regulated radiation sources include X-ray equipment, accelerators, 
electron microscopes, betatrons, and some naturally occurring radiation 
sources (CPL 2.86). (See the Ionizing Radiation RFI (70 FR 22828) for 
additional information on sources of ionizing radiation exposure, 
workplace uses of ionizing radiation, and health effects of ionizing 
radiation exposure.)
    Most recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized NRC to 
regulate material made radioactive by accelerators by adding 
``accelerator-produced material'' to the definition of ``byproduct 
material'' that NRC is authorized to license and regulate. The Energy 
Policy Act directed NRC to issue licensing and compliance oversight 
regulations to carry out the legislation. Until NRC issues and begins 
enforcing those regulations, OSHA retains authority over both 
accelerators and the materials they produce.

Stakeholder Meetings

    OSHA intends to hold four stakeholder meetings on Occupational 
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, two of which the Agency is announcing 
in this notice. OSHA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing 
the other two stakeholder meetings when meeting arrangements are 
finalized. The first stakeholder meeting, to be held in Washington, DC, 
will cover the uses of ionizing radiation in the healing arts, 
including medicine, dentistry, chiropractor services and veterinary 
medicine. The second stakeholder meeting, to be held in Orlando, FL, in 
conjunction with the Annual Research Symposium of the American Society 
for Nondestructive Testing, will cover nondestructive testing. The 
other two stakeholder meetings will cover non-medical use of 
accelerators and the use of ionizing radiation in security operations. 
OSHA encourages interested parties to attend only the stakeholder 
meeting that deals with their industry, occupation, or operation.
    The stakeholder meetings will be an opportunity for informal 
discussion and the exchange of data, ideas, and points of view. To make 
the stakeholder meetings as productive as possible, OSHA requests that 
interested parties attending stakeholder meetings be prepared to 
discuss the following issues relating to occupational exposure to 
ionizing radiation in their respective industries, occupations, or 
operations:
     Uses of ionizing radiation;
     Available exposure data;
     Controls utilized to minimize exposure; and
     Training.

In addition, OSHA will use the stakeholder meetings to discuss comments 
and materials received in response to the RFI.

    Each stakeholder meeting will begin with OSHA's presentation on 
Agency responsibilities related to occupational exposure to ionizing 
radiation followed by stakeholder questions. OSHA will devote the 
remainder of each meeting to informal discussions on the topics above 
and related issues. In particular, OSHA is interested in hearing 
firsthand from employers and employees and in reviewing exposure data. 
Meeting participants are not expected to prepare and present formal 
testimony.

Public Participation--Submission of Notices of Intention To Attend and 
Access to Docket

    You may submit notices of intention to attend one of the 
stakeholder meetings (1) electronically, (2) by facsimile, or (3) by 
hard copy. All notices must identify the Agency name and docket number 
for this notice (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0021). Because of security-
related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant 
delay in the receipt of notices of intention to attend. For information 
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, 
express mail, messenger or courier service, please contact Liset Navas 
at (202) 693-1950.
    Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting must include 
the following information:
     Name and contact information;
     Affiliation (e.g., organization, association), if any;
     The stakeholder meeting you plan to attend;
     Whether you wish to be an active participant or observer; 
and
     Whether you need any special accommodations in order to 
attend or participate in a stakeholder meeting.
    For access to comments and materials received in response to the 
RFI, go to OSHA Docket No. H-016 on OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.
 Contact the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-016, Room N-

2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is 
(877) 889-5627) for

[[Page 9718]]

information about materials in the RFI docket that are not available 
through OSHA's Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to 
locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at 
http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at 
http://www.osha.gov.

Authority

    This notice was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, 
Jr., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. It is 
issued under Sections 4 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 657), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 
(67 FR 65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC on this 27th day of February, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7-3689 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


*****************************************************************
 50 Global News Service: Tests to reveal levels of depleted uranium in Army personnel

PressZoom.com - 

Randall Parrish, Professor of Isotope Geology, developed the test
with Postdoctoral Fellow Dr Axel Gerdes, who now works at the
University of Frankfurt, Germany, and his colleague Matt Horstwood
at the British Geological Survey, using advanced mass spectrometry.


(PressZoom) - A test recently used by the UK government’s
Independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board to detect exposure to
UK troops by depleted uranium ( DU ) during the 1991 Gulf Conflict
was developed by a team led by a University of Leicester geologist.

Randall Parrish, Professor of Isotope Geology, developed the test
with Postdoctoral Fellow Dr Axel Gerdes, who now works at the
University of Frankfurt, Germany, and his colleague Matt Horstwood
at the British Geological Survey, using advanced mass spectrometry.

Prof Parrish’s team has tested more than 350 individuals as part of
the programme, with the result that none so far tested had any
demonstrable DU exposure resulting from their participation in the
1991 Gulf Conflict, though the extent of actual initial exposure of
tested individuals to DU is unknown.

Depleted uranium ( DU ) is a by-product from the manufacture of
enriched uranium, used for fuel in nuclear reactors or in weapons.
It is 60 per cent as radioactive as natural uranium.

Because of its hardness, it has been used in engineering projects,
as well as in the construction of military tanks and anti-tank
weapons, such as those used in the 1991 Gulf War, in Bosnia in
1994-5, Kosovo in 1999 and in the latest conflict in Iraq.

While DU weapons can reduce casualties amongst the forces using
them, there may be long-term risks to the health of those exposed to
them, either through shrapnel wounds or inhalation, and risks, also,
to the environment.

The test was designed to detect after 15 years even a modest
exposure to DU, on the basis of accepted knowledge about the
retention and solubility of DU in the human body. The test is
applicable even to those who excrete extremely low levels of uranium
in urine.

Professor Parrish’s and his colleagues’ work, undertaken to help in
the planning of the UK DU testing programme, explored the
sensitivity and accuracy of urine tests to measure uranium
concentrations and isotope ratios.

The testing programme was set up in 2001, to investigate concerns
amongst UK Service personnel from the Balkans and the 1991 Gulf War,
following media coverage about Depleted Uranium.

Professor Parrish commented: "Dr Gerdes and I continue to
collaborate on this test, which is by far the most sensitive and
accurate of all uranium isotope test for urine worldwide. It uses
multiple isotopes to ascertain the extent of contamination.

"Our facility has used this test in the monitoring of more than 400
UK veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, under the testing programme
administered by the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board over the past
two and a half years – a testing programme that is nearly finished."

###
Randall Parrish
rrp@nigl.nerc.ac.uk
01-159-363-427

This news item was released on 2007-03-06. Please make sure to visit

(c) PressZoom.com - Press Release Distribution Service - All Rights
Reserved  
*****************************************************************
 51 [NukeNet] Japan-Russia Uranium Enrichment
 
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:25:45 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] Japan-Russia Uranium Enrichment
Date: 	Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:09:24 +0900
From: 	Citizens' Nuclear Information Center <cnic@nifty.com>
To: 	nukenet@energyjustice.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Press Release by Green Action (Kyoto), Citizens' Nuclear Informaton 
Center (Tokyo) and Ecodefense (Moscow)

For international release: February 28, 2007

STATEMENT BY JAPANESE AND RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

CONSEQUENCES OF JAPAN-RUSSIA URANIUM ENRICHMENT DEAL

Today the prime ministers of Japan and Russia are meeting in Tokyo. 
According to media reports, part of the negotiations will focus on a 
new nuclear agreement allowing Japanese nuclear material to be sent to 
Russia. It is planned that uranium extracted from spent nuclear fuel 
reprocessed in the UK and France will be enriched in Russia for use as 
nuclear fuel for Japanese nuclear power plants. Earlier this month, the 
Yomiuri Shimbun (1) and various Russian media reported that "Japan has 
entered into final negotiations that would see Russia enriching Japan's 
uranium".

It is clear that the Russian uranium enrichment plant in Angarsk will 
serve as the main enrichment plant for such a deal, because the 
Rosatom, Russian nuclear agency, has announced that it is establishing 
a so-called "international center" for uranium enrichment at Angarsk. 
The aim of the center is to provide a guaranteed supply of uranium fuel 
for countries which do not enrich uranium themselves, including for 
countries under international sanctions such as Iran, India and others. 
Although Japan has an enrichment plant, the plant's capacity is only a 
fraction of Japan's total demand.

If a deal is signed between Japan and Russia, uranium extracted from 
Japanese spent fuel will be transported nearly 10,000 km to the Angarsk 
uranium enrichment plant near lake Baikal, a UNESCO World Heritage 
site. Transportation over such a long distance may become a target for 
terrorist attack, or cause transport accidents leading to large 
releases of radioactivity.

Uranium enrichment and the production of nuclear fuel result in 
enormous amounts of radioactive waste, which has to be stored and 
isolated from the environment permanently. According to Russian 
environmental groups, there is over 100,000 tons of radioactive waste 
already stored in Angarsk. The Russian nuclear industry has no plan for 
disposal of that waste. The waste is stored under the open sky in 
partly corroded containers and poses a threat of radioactive leakages. 
Such leakages may reach lake Baikal, contaminating the largest 
reservoir of non-salt water on Earth.

There are also concerns that Japan's proposal to send uranium to Russia 
for enrichment could further undermine the international 
non-proliferation regime. Japan cannot be confident that Japanese 
nuclear material will not be diverted to Iran, or to other countries 
suspected of developing nuclear weapons. Russia traditionally uses its 
own resources (including down-blending of highly enriched uranium to 
the enrichment level of uranium fuel for light-water reactors) to meet 
its own demand. Uranium sourced from other countries is more likely to 
be exported. The inadequacy of IAEA safeguards in nuclear weapons 
states and Russia's avowed determination to supply fuel for Iran's 
Bushehr nuclear power plant are grounds for serious concern.

Local residents are totally opposed to the plan of establishing an 
international center for uranium enrichment and new enrichment 
contracts. Since December 2006, protests have been happening on a 
weekly basis. People are demanding that authorities withdraw from new 
enrichment contracts in order to stop the growth of radioactive waste 
stockpiles near the highly sensitive Baikal ecosystem. Both Japan and 
Russia must uphold democratic values and respect the wishes of the 
local residents. We call on both governments to withdraw from 
negotiations over enriching Japanese uranium in Russia.

Contact information:
Green Action: + 81-75-701-7223  or +81-90-3620-9251 (Aileen Mioko Smith)
        email: amsmith@gol.com  web: http://www.greenaction-japan.org/
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center: +81-3-5330-9520  (Philip White)
        email: cnic@nifty.com web: http://cnic.jp/english/
Ecodefense (Moscow, Russia): +7-985-7766281 or 903-2997584 (Vladimir 
Slivyak)
        email: ecodefense@online.ru web: http://www.ecodefense.ru

References:
(1) Yomiuri Shimbun "Nuclear fuel agreement mixed blessing", 22 
February 2007
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/20070222TDY03004.htm
(2) RIA Novosti "Atomic power will be the theme of visit of Fradkov to 
Tokyo" 27 February 2007
http://www.rian.ru/politics/foreign/20070227/61275555.html
(3) Newspaper "Vedomosti (together with Financial Times and Wall Street 
Journal)", article "Atomic power will be the theme of visit of Fradkov 
to Tokyo", 27 February 2007
http://www.vedomosti.ru/newsline/index.shtml?2007/02/27/390346

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 52 [NukeNet] Uranium Speculators Drive Up Price - Irking Utilities
 
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:33:31 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] Uranium Speculators Drive Up Price - Irking Utilities
Date: 	Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:13:14 -0500
From: 	Mike Ewall <catalyst@actionpa.org>
To: 	nukenet@energyjustice.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


New Exotic Focus For Hedge Funds: Uranium Market Speculators Drive Up 
Price, Irking Utilities; Adit Capital's Big Bet

Wall Street Journal
By ANN DAVIS
March 5, 2007; Page A1

In a new type of nuclear-arms race, hedge funds and other 
institutional investors in search of higher returns are competing 
with energy companies to amass scarce fuel-grade uranium, hoping to 
profit from revived interest in nuclear power.

The intense quest for uranium by speculators has sparked a debate 
over private investors driving up the price and increasing the 
scarcity of the world's most sensitive natural resource.

Since investors first delved into the market two years ago, the price 
of processed uranium yellowcake powder -- the most commonly traded 
form of processed uranium -- has skyrocketed more than fourfold, from 
about $21 a pound, traders say. They say uranium prices climbed to 
$85 from $75 in February due to bidding for supplies offered by a 
tiny mining company in Corpus Christi, Texas, Mesteña Uranium LLC. 
The privately held company regularly includes hedge funds and other 
speculators in sales.

Uranium isn't traded on any exchanges. The somewhat infrequent sales 
of the commodity in the open market are private, so the price depends 
on the terms of any given transaction.

Financial investors aren't licensed to possess the radioactive 
mineral, which is subject to tight government controls aimed at 
keeping it out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states. Instead, 
several of those investors have secured access to ownership rights of 
material stored at licensed repositories in North America and Europe, 
exploiting legal channels previously used only by utilities and suppliers.

But even with only paper rights to the material, hedge funds are 
exacerbating what was already the biggest nuclear-fuel supply crunch 
in decades, according to utilities, miners and large traders. The 
market represents the latest corner in which hedge funds -- private 
partnerships that cater to wealthy investors and large institutions 
-- are seeking outsize returns, an increasingly challenging task as 
the number of funds multiplies.

Many funds say they are holding their uranium off the market because 
they expect the price to climb.

"They sweep the market clean. Every pound they can find," said 
nuclear-fuel broker Kevin Smith, who connects buyers and sellers of 
uranium for White Plains, N.Y., commodities-brokerage Evolution Markets.

Adit Capital, a small hedge fund in Portland, Ore., was an early 
uranium investor, buying millions of pounds for as little as $20 a 
pound beginning in December 2004, said Bob Mitchell, its founder.

It jumped into the uranium market after Mr. Mitchell noticed nuclear 
utilities allowing inventories to dwindle when the material was 
cheap, to avoid the cost of storing it. Meanwhile, some mining 
companies had been selling more future production than Mr. Mitchell 
figured they would be able to produce, and mines were closed when 
prices were depressed in the 1990s -- all evidence of a coming shortage.

QVT Financial LP, a $5 billion-plus New York hedge fund that was spun 
out of Deutsche Bank AG in 2003, won a big portion of a U.S. 
government stockpile of uranium gas at auction last August for $42.1 
million, people familiar with the sale said. Uranium gas is refined 
from yellowcake as part of the multistep process that produces fuel 
for nuclear power plants. (Making weapons-grade uranium involves a 
much more complicated process.)

Two new publicly traded uranium investment funds are adding to the 
competition. The funds are similar to gold and silver exchange-traded 
funds, raising money from investors in initial public offerings of 
shares to buy uranium.

Unlike other fuels and metals, there is no futures market for 
uranium, but the mined supply is so scarce that some utilities now 
are striking deals to buy it on future dates at whatever the 
prevailing market price is on delivery, said Mr. Smith. It's a 
perilous bargain: The uranium market hasn't had a down week since 
June 2003, according to Ux Consulting Co., a Roswell, Ga., 
price-reporting service.

Production shortfalls at uranium mines around the world are helping 
drive up the price, says Jim Cornell, president of Connecticut 
nuclear-fuel trading firm NUKEM Inc. Production fell last year, in 
part because a flood this past October collapsed the underground 
infrastructure of Cameco Corp.'s Cigar Lake project, a major mine in 
Canada, soon before it was to begin production.

The investors' arrival has spurred questions about the economic 
viability of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, 
including coal, that produce global-warming greenhouse gases. About a 
quarter of the cost of producing nuclear power goes toward uranium 
fuel, and prices are skyrocketing just as safety concerns over 
reactors are ebbing. Although uranium is abundant in the earth's 
crust, bulls see prices climbing to $200 a pound before supply can 
catch up to push them back down.

Currently, some of the fuel used in reactors comes from U.S. 
Department of Energy stockpiles and a program run for the U.S. 
government by USEC Inc., a publicly traded Bethesda, Md., energy 
company originally formed as a government corporation, to convert old 
Soviet warheads back into fuel. The rest comes from private mining 
companies and other suppliers.

When selling uranium, the Energy Department makes no distinction 
between financial investors and end users, so long as it's held in 
authorized storage facilities. Bidders must disclose their identity 
and the nature of their business.

The Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, which represents 
utilities and fuel processors and producers, asked the Energy 
Department on Feb. 5 to exclude anyone but end users from federal 
auctions. In a letter, the institute asked the government to "protect 
utilities that cannot procure sufficient uranium in the open market."

Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of the NEI, said in an interview 
that investor stockpiling isn't in the industry's best interest: "All 
it does is take what's somewhat scarce and make it a little bit 
scarcer," he said.

Financial investors say they are just seizing on buying opportunities 
that the nuclear industry missed. Moreover, industry players say, 
high prices are encouraging hedge funds and others to invest in 
mining companies, which will help finance increased production and 
possibly drive down prices.

The NEI's Mr. Fertel conceded as much. In the long run, "I think 
we're going to end up with a much better situation than we even had 
before," he said.

The market began taking off about two years ago. In May 2005, several 
months after Adit entered the market, Uranium Participation Corp. 
raised about $80 million for a uranium investment fund via an initial 
public offering on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and has raised roughly 
twice as much since. Managed by executives of the Canadian mining 
concern Denison Mines Corp., UPC controls more than 6.8 million 
pounds of uranium yellowcake or gas. It says its average yellowcake 
acquisition cost was $31.75 a pound.

A similar fund, Nufcor Uranium Ltd., went public last July on the 
London Stock Exchange's AIM small-stock market and now controls 2.3 
million pounds, the company says. Regulatory filings show that hedge 
funds invested in that IPO, including GLG Partners, Citadel 
Investment Group and QVT Financial LP.

Shares of both funds are trading at about 20% more than the current 
market price of their uranium, suggesting that investors see prices 
continuing to climb.

Ux says financial funds have purchased about 20 million pounds of 
yellowcake since entering the market in late 2004. That is roughly a 
fifth of the supply being mined each year. Such funds bought about 
25% of the uranium sold on the spot market in 2005 and 2006. They are 
husbanding most of their supplies, having sold only two million 
pounds so far, Ux officials say.

Today, while the value of some funds' uranium has quadrupled, Cameco 
and other large miners are stuck with commitments to sell future 
production for a small fraction of today's prices. In the last three 
months of 2006, Cameco got an average of just $22.35 a pound for its uranium.

Tension over the issue was evident at a February energy conference in 
Houston. After John Rowe, nuclear-power producer Exelon Corp.'s chief 
executive, addressed the gathering, a man in a rainbow-hued jacket 
rushed up to introduce himself as a potential seller of uranium.

The man was Mitchell Dong, a Cambridge, Mass., entrepreneur who last 
September launched the Solios Uranium Fund, which recently reported 
having assets worth $46 million.

"I know who you are!" Mr. Rowe shot back with a laugh. "Are you the 
biggest villain in the energy industry?" Mr. Rowe later explained in 
an interview that he believes hedge funds are helping run up uranium's price.

Mr. Dong declined to discuss his fund's recent activities. He told a 
newsletter last fall that he expected demand to exceed supply for 
five years. "We're going to buy it, hold it, and when the price is 
right we'll liquidate a position," he said.

Indeed, eventually "the price of uranium will collapse," said Adit's 
Mr. Mitchell. "I don't know when, but the mining companies of the 
world will get their act together. The guts of the trade was getting 
into it before anybody even knew you could. But the art of the trade 
will be getting out before the price turns over."

Write to Ann Davis at ann.davis@wsj.com1


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 53 Platts: US Senate energy panel tells budget panel it is split over GNEP

Washington (Platts)--2Mar2007

The US Senate Energy Committee is split on the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership, a Department of Energy initiative to develop 
new kinds of reprocessing and fast-reactor technologies, the 
panel's top two members told their counterparts on the Senate 
Budget Committee in a Wednesday letter released late Thursday. 

     The two New Mexico senators who head the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee -- Democrat Jeff Bingaman, the chairman, and 
Pete Domenici, the top Republican -- said there is "no consensus" 
on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

     "While some of our members strongly support it, others 
believe it is unwise and untimely," Bingaman and Domenici said. 
DOE is requesting $405 million for GNEP for fiscal 2008.

		--Daniel Horner, daniel_horner@platts.com

Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved


*****************************************************************
 54 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions hires senior energy official as D.C. lobbyist

The Associated Press

Article Last Updated: 03/05/2007 12:56:56 PM MST

Posted: 12:59 PM- SALT LAKE CITY - EnergySolutions, a Utah company
that owns or manages radioactive-waste sites, said it hired a senior
government official as its top lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

    Jill Sigal, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for
congressional and intergovernmental affairs, will become senior vice
president of government relations.

    In a written statement Monday, Sigal said she wants to help
EnergySolutions become a "successful global nuclear firm."
    EnergySolutions primarily accepts tainted soil and debris from

decommissioned power plants and defense depots at a landfill in
Tooele County, 70 miles west of Salt Lake City.
    A new Utah law eliminates the governor's office, Legislature and

local governments from judging any expansion, leaving it to state
regulators. Gov. Jon Huntsman, however, vowed to take other steps to
limit the amount of waste.

    In South Carolina, meanwhile, EnergySolutions wants to extend
the life of a landfill that takes waste from hospitals and power
plants. The Barnwell County site is supposed to cut off waste from
all but three states next year.

    EnergySolutions describes itself as the largest transporter of
radioactive material in the United States.

    It raised its public profile recently by paying to put its name
on the home of the NBA's
Utah Jazz.

*****************************************************************
 55 KRQE News 13: Uranium plant water plan approved

Posted: 3/5/2007 10:57:00 AM

Source: AP

HOBBS, N.M. -- The state Environment Department has granted a
groundwater discharge permit to Louisiana Energy Services.

The permit is required for LES to operate a uranium enrichment plant
under construction near Eunice.

Environment Department spokeswoman Marissa Stone said the permit for
the $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility is good for five years.

It covers evaporative ponds for industrial wastewater and domestic
wastewater treatment systems.

LES will have to monitor its ponds and soils each month and report
its findings to the Environment Department.


  
 Phone: 505.243.2285 | Contact KRQE | EEOC Broadcast Plaza SW
Albuquerque, NM

KRQE.com Hosted By:

*****************************************************************
 56 UPI: Senators say GNEP funds not assured

United Press International - Energy - 

3/5/2007 2:33:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, March 5 (UPI) -- The energy committee in the U.S. Senate
has found "no consensus" on President Bush's international nuclear
power and waste plan.

In a letter to the Senate's budget committee, Sens. Jeff Bingaman,
D-N.M., and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the chair and ranking member,
respectively, of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership isn't faring well.

"There is, as yet, no consensus among the members of the committee
on this program. While some of our members strongly support it,
others believe it is unwise and untimely," they wrote in a letter
that addressed a number of issues regarding Bush's fiscal year 2008
budget request for the departments of energy and interior.

GNEP is a multipronged plan to increase the use of nuclear energy
worldwide while ensuring the fuel isn't used for weapons by
increasing the use and technology of fuel recycling plants.

Proponents say it will be a safe way to ensure country's of various
sizes and needs the use of nuclear energy and keeping the uranium
enrichment capability in the hands of only a number of countries.

But those oppose it question the $405 million price tag for GNEP
next fiscal year, considering the technology to be relied upon is
not commercially viable yet.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 57 Bulletin Online: A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Prohibition versus Elimination 

By Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky | 5 March 2007

Today, a world free from nuclear weapons would be a safer world, and
a United States within a nuclear-weapon-free world would be a safer
country. Yet nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented. Two nuclear
weapons used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed one-quarter of a
million people. Since then, however, nuclear weapons have not been
used in anger, and arguably, the existence of nuclear weapons has
deterred major world wars since 1945. But during this time period,
there have been about 100 armed conflicts. The absence of use of
nuclear weapons in these conflicts may be attributable to the wisdom
of national leaders, but more likely to good fortune. There is ample
documentation that several U.S. presidents seriously considered
using nuclear weapons. 1 So attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free
world remains an urgent objective. But is it attainable?

Advocacy of a nuclear-weapon-free world has been legion. In 1955,
the Russell-Einstein Manifesto was issued, and immediately after
World War II, the United States introduced the (understandably
rejected) Baruch proposal that advocated the international control
of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
which came into force in 1970, requires in Article VI: "Negotiations
in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date to nuclear disarmament . . ." But
while the worldwide inventories of nuclear weapons have now shrunk
to below half their Cold War peak of 70,000--still an inexcusable
amount--a nuclear-weapon-free world appears utopian to most.

Whether a nuclear-weapon-free world is attainable depends on the
meaning of that term. Unfortunately, the verbiage in this respect
has been confusing. Do we mean abolition, disarmament, or
prohibition?

In the strict sense, abolition means that no nuclear weapons remain
worldwide. This indeed appears utopian. But prohibition is clearly
an attainable goal. The world has succeeded to prohibit chemical
weapons and biological weapons through international agreements, but
in the face of possible and even probable violations and slow
implementation. 2 But most would agree that the world is safer by
virtue of such prohibitions. Prohibition of nuclear weapons does not
imply their disappearance. Knowledge of their design and
construction is widely disseminated, and barriers to knowledge are
no longer a feasible means for preventing their further spread.

Evasion of prohibition is possible to a limited extent. But to
evaluate the merits, cost, and feasibility of prohibition, answers
must be provided as to what is to be prohibited and what monitoring
system needs to be in place internationally to implement such a
prohibition.

In a 2005 report, the National Academy of Sciences analyzed the
technically and politically feasible monitoring systems that could
be made available. 3 That report estimated the extent of violations
of a prohibition agreement that could escape such monitoring
systems. Violations of a prohibition of nuclear weapons could take
place through clandestine retention of nuclear weapons by those
states now possessing them, by diversion of weapons-useable material
from existing stockpiles to the manufacture of new nuclear weapons,
or by a clandestine production complex producing such materials for
incorporation into nuclear weapons.

The academy report judged the extent of possible violations both
from history--that is, the past success and timing of U.S.
intelligence in uncovering foreign nuclear weapons programs--and
from the potential of present and future monitoring systems. That
analysis projected that under a prohibition of nuclear weapons and
with implementation of the monitoring system described in the
report, Russia and the United States could perhaps clandestinely
retain several hundred nuclear weapons without detection, while the
other nuclear weapons states could retain only a very small number.
New production facilities could be uncovered with high confidence.
As a result, it is clear that prohibition, while not guaranteeing a
nuclear-weapon-free world, would result in only a very small
potential number of nuclear weapons worldwide. Therefore, the
potential damage should one of those weapons ever be used would
still be horrendous, but it would be small compared to the risks of
the present situation.

The size of such remaining risks depend on the then-existing
political climate and the agreed upon details of the prohibition.
Among the questions that must be answered:
* What is to be prohibited? Presumably acquisition and
  storage--yet alone deployment--of nuclear weapons. But shall
  possession of nuclear weapon parts be outlawed? How about
  production facilities or other elements of a nuclear weapons
  infrastructure?
* How quickly can nuclear weapons reappear? Even if nuclear
  weapons are prohibited, they retain their function as "existential
  deterrents," meaning that the very possibility that nuclear
  weapons can come into being in the future constitutes a deterrent
  to their clandestine possession, let alone use. Therefore, the
  extent of the reach of prohibition determines the lead time for
  regenerating nuclear weapons in case violations become evident and
  therefore the power of potential existential deterrence. That lead
  time could be a fraction of a year for the highly industrialized
  nations.
* Prohibition presumably requires enforcement, but this must
  remain a political question for future international arrangements.


Worldwide attainment of prohibition seems only a remote possibility
under present conditions, but these conditions can (and must) be
changed; the present role of nuclear weapons in the conduct of
international relations remains an intolerable anachronism inherited
from the Cold War and a burden that must be reversed. Irrespective
as to whether prohibition is being kept in view, a regime of
progressive constraints must be enacted, including for instance:
* Major reductions in inventories encompassing all categories of
  nuclear weapons--not only strategic.
* Improvements in the verified accounting and security
  arrangements governing such reductions.
* Changes in the operational practices of current nuclear forces
  to limit their rapidity of response.
* Cessation of nuclear tests through coming into force of a
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.


Progress along these lines would also pave the way toward
prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Negotiations toward prohibition of nuclear weapons will by necessity
be protracted, but it should be remembered that the NPT was
negotiated from 1959 to 1968. The NPT remains a cornerstone of
today's nonproliferation regime, notwithstanding the current
challenges to that regime. As outlined in another National Academy
report, prohibition could either be negotiated through an analogous
protracted international process, or it might alternatively be
obtained by a covenant among the existing nuclear weapons states
turning over their nuclear weapons to international management. 4

As a further alternative, prohibition might be obtained by amending
the NPT. But this would also require extensive negotiation and would
leave the current nonparties to the NPT outside of the prohibition
regime. Whatever the chosen path toward prohibition, the time is now
to constrain existing nuclear weapons and to reduce their
quantities. Such moves are of grave urgency and would make
prohibition appear far less utopian. 1 J. E. Goodby, At the
Borderline of Armageddon: How American Presidents Managed the Atomic
Bomb (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006).
2 J. Tucker, Arms Control Today, January/February 2007, p. 6.
3 J. Holdren, Chair, "Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear
Explosive Materials," National Academy Press, 2005.
4 "The Future of Nuclear Weapons Policy," National Academy Press,
1997.



© 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Remote Address: 206.130.124.74 · Server: www.thebulletin.org
*****************************************************************
 58 New U.S. Nuclear Weapons
 
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:29:09 -0600 (CST)


Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________

	PM Monday, March 5, 2007

	New U.S. Nuclear Weapons

AP has reported: "The Bush administration selected a design Friday for a 
new generation of atomic warheads, taking a major step toward building 
the first new nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War nearly two 
decades ago.

"The military and the Energy Department selected a design developed by 
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California over a 
competing design by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

"The decision to move ahead with the warhead, which eventually would 
replace the existing arsenal of weapons, has been criticized as sending 
the wrong signal to the world at a time when the United States is 
assailing attempts at nuclear weapons development in North Korea and 
Iran and striving to contain them."

ROBERT ALVAREZ, kitbob@starpower.net, 
http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/nuclear/index.htm
    A former deputy assistant secretary of Energy and now a senior 
scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, Alvarez said today: 
"There's no need to make new nuclear weapons, this is just the labs' way 
of establishing a niche market. This is also incredibly costly -- the 
environmental liability from past nuclear weapons production is half a 
trillion dollars.
    "While the U.S. government is telling other countries they shouldn't 
build nuclear weapons, here the U.S. is leading by exception rather than 
by example. Particularly since the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review policy is 
to possibly use nuclear weapons even against countries that don't have 
nuclear weapons; U.S. policy is in effect pushing countries to acquire 
nuclear weapons."

JACQUELINE CABASSO, wslf@earthlink.net, 
http://www.wslfweb.org/nukes/complex2030.htm
    Currently in Washington, D.C., Cabasso is executive director of the 
Western States Legal Foundation, which focuses on nuclear policy issues 
including Lawrence Livermore. She said today: "Indefinite maintenance of 
a huge, sophisticated nuclear arsenal, by the only country that has so 
far used nuclear weapons, is an unreasonable, unacceptable, and unlawful 
alternative. The only reasonable alternative is nuclear abolition. The 
United States, in compliance with its obligation under the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, should commit to the elimination of nuclear 
weapons no later than 2030, by initiating negotiations leading to 
conclusion of a verifiable treaty, under strict and effective 
international control."
    Cabasso has written extensively on nuclear policy, most recently the 
paper "Complex 2030: U.S. Plans for 'Nukes Forever,'" which is 
forthcoming in the Information Bulletin of the International Network of 
Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation.
    Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states: "Each of 
the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good 
faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms 
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on 
general and complete disarmament under strict and effective 
international control." http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org

For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
     http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
 59 San Jose Mercury News: Livermore lab's design to update warheads
 
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:43:20 -0800


<x-flowed>
San Jose Mercury News
Livermore lab's design to update warheads
By Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press

The Bush administration selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
design Friday for a new generation of atomic warheads, advancing a plan to
update the nation's arsenal amid criticism from nuclear weapons opponents.

The Lawrence Livermore design beat one submitted by Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico because it can be built with more certainty in the
absence of underground testing.

``Both teams developed brilliant designs,'' said Thomas P. D'Agostino,
acting administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

The warhead would replace those now atop missiles on submarines, the most
numerous warhead in the U.S. arsenal.

Critics fear the project could send the wrong signal to the world at a time
when the United States and its allies are trying to curb the spread of
nuclear technology.

Feinstein opposed

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she was ``100 percent opposed'' to
the new program, even though the choice of Lawrence Livermore brings great
prestige, and possibly jobs, to her home state.

``What worries me is that the minute you begin to put more sophisticated
warheads on the existing fleet, you are essentially creating a new nuclear
weapon. And it's just a matter of time before other nations do the same
thing,'' Feinstein said.

The announcement comes at a time when the administration is engaged in
delicate disarmament negotiations with North Korea, which reportedly
possesses several nuclear weapons, and Iran, which the administration fears
wants them.

Iran recently called on the United States to abandon its nuclear weapons
program.

``Today is a sad day for global security,'' said Marylia Kelley, executive
director of Tri-Valley CAREs, a Livermore-area watchdog group. ``Our
government is sending a signal that will increase international
proliferation pressures and increase the nuclear danger.''

Underground testing

Opponents of the program also question whether a next-generation bomb can
improve reliability and safety if it cannot be tested. Congress has
financed the research on the condition that the redesigned weapon reduce
the need for underground testing, which can leave residual radiation.

The goal is to replace the arsenal of aging warheads with a generation
meant to be sturdier, more reliable, safer from accidental detonation and
more secure from terrorist theft.

The replacements will have the same explosive yields and other military
characteristics of the current weapons, officials said, a point that senior
administration officials have made to Russia in arguing that the new
weapons do not represent an expansion of the U.S. arsenal.

Even so, the potentially costly initiative faces an uncertain future and
has generated much criticism from skeptics who argue that a new design for
the nuclear arsenal is unneeded and a potential stimulus to a global
nuclear arms race.

Feinstein cited a report in December saying plutonium pits in existing
weapons have a lifespan of at least 85 years, leading critics to question
whether the new weapons are necessary.

``This is a solution in search of a problem,'' said Daryl G. Kimball,
executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
``There is an urgent need to reduce these weapons, not expand them. This
will keep the Chinese, the Russians and others on guard to improve their
own stockpiles.''

Leaps in computer modeling and experimental capabilities in probing the
internal structure of plutonium allowed scientists to draw up an
essentially new weapon without testing, said Bruce Goodwin, associate
director of defense and nuclear technologies at Lawrence Livermore.

Goodwin said he and his team were ``honored'' by the selection. Competing
designers at Los Alamos had won the last two races for supplying Navy
submarine warheads in the 1970s and 1980s, carving out a near-monopoly on
U.S. ballistic missile warheads and garnering responsibility for about
three-fourths of active U.S. weapons.

Many of the warheads in the nation's stockpile were designed and built 40
years ago, and their plutonium and other components are deteriorating in
ways researchers do not fully understand.

The government spends billions of dollars each year tending to its aging
stockpile.

Reopening facilities

As the program progresses over the next six years, Lawrence Livermore will
work closely with production plants, assuming Congress will pay for it, and
that manufacturing facilities that have been shuttered as the U.S reduces
its nuclear stockpile are brought back to life.

If funded by Congress, the new warhead developed with engineering
assistance from Sandia National Laboratories would be used on the Trident
submarine-launched ballistic missile system.

The administration's Nuclear Weapons Council found several proposed
features of the Los Alamos design ``highly innovative'' and said they could
be integrated into the future warhead design.

Glenn Mara, principal associate director for weapons programs at Los
Alamos, said his lab will review the design and has expertise in the
technology to trigger detonation.

Revamping the nation's warheads will nurture a new generation of nuclear
scientists and engineers, Mara said.

The United States has not built a nuclear warhead since 1991. The
government spends about $5 billion a year maintaining the weapons, and
engineers have patched problems by opening up warheads that were never
meant to be opened. The accumulation of engineering tweaks meant the bombs
have moved away from their original designs, with unknown effects.

The Livermore and Los Alamos labs set aside bomb-designing more than a
decade ago in favor of maintaining the current stockpile.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New York Times and MediaNews contributed to this report

Marylia Kelley,
Executive Director

Tri-Valley CAREs
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA  94551

Ph: (925) 443-7148
Fx: (925) 443-0177
Web: www.trivalleycares.org
Email: marylia@trivalleycares.org or marylia@earthlink.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 60 DOE: DOE Achieves Goal of 200 Energy Savings Assessments

March 2, 2007

Over 50 Trillion Btus of Natural Gas Savings Found

AUSTIN, TX - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Andy Karsner today announced the
completion of Energy Savings Assessments (ESAs) at 200 of the
largest industrial facilities in the nation, identifying
opportunities to save over 50 trillion Btus of natural gas — roughly
equivalent to the natural gas used in 700,000 American homes.  In
2007, DOE will conduct 250 additional Energy Savings Assessments and
offer cost-sharing options with industry, utilities and other
partners.  Assistant Secretary Karsner made the announcement while
speaking to executives who operate electronic data centers, one of
America’s fastest growing industries.

 “Working with our industry partners, the Department of Energy has
surpassed our expectations and found huge opportunities for saving
energy,” Assistant Secretary Karsner said.  “Not only do these
assessments inform industry of best practices to maximize energy
savings, but they will also significantly help reduce greenhouse
gases by increasing the nation’s energy efficiency.” 

DOE’s Energy Savings Assessments directly works toward goals
outlined in President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which seeks
to change the way we power our cars, homes and businesses.  The
total value of energy savings identified is close to half a billion
dollars per year.  These energy savings, if fully implemented, could
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3.3 million metric tons annually,
representing approximately seven percent of the total U.S growth in
carbon dioxide emissions from 2004 to 2005.  For more information on
the 2006 ESAs, visit:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/partners/results.cfm
.

DOE’s Energy Saving Teams visited 200 of the nation’s most
energy-intensive manufacturing facilities over the past 12 months. 
The teams worked with plant personnel to identify savings
opportunities that typically amounted to five percent to15 percent
of a plant’s total energy use - saving an average of about $2.5
million per plant annually.

The 2007 Energy Saving Assessments will be selected through an
on-line application process now underway.  Plants interested in
applying for a 2007 assessment should visit the Save Energy Now
website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/. 
These assessments analyze pumps, fans, and compressed air systems in
addition to process heating and steam systems.  The website also
offers training opportunities, software assessment tools, technical
tips and publications suitable for plants of all sizes.

For tips on easy, inexpensive steps consumers can take to lower
their energy bills, visit: http://www.energysavers.gov/ or call
DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Hotline at
1-877-337-3463.

Media contact(s):
Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 
*****************************************************************
 61 DOE: Two Senior Energy Department Officials to Depart

March 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – Two senior members of the Department of Energy
announced that they will resign their positions in the coming weeks.
 Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
Jill Sigal has been with the Department since July 2003.  She will
be leaving to join EnergySolutions as Senior Vice President for
Government Relations.  Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Jeffrey
Jarrett, who joined the Department in January 2006, has accepted the
position of executive director of Coal-Based Generation Stakeholders.

Department of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman made the following
statement on the departures:

“It is always difficult to lose good people, however the Department
of Energy and the country are better off having had Jill and Jeff
serve.”

“From the very beginning of my tenure as the Secretary of Energy,
Jill has been a loyal and trusted advisor.  She was a leader in the
Department’s efforts to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and she
was instrumental in negotiating and having Congress pass the
Department’s top environmental cleanup priorities.  Her professional
relationships with Members of Congress and congressional staff have
enabled the Department to accomplish many of its priorities.  I have
come to rely on Jill’s advice on a range of issues including energy
security, nuclear energy, environmental management and national
security.  I wish her, her husband Bob and their family the best in
the years to come.”

“The Department of Energy has benefited greatly from Jeff’s
leadership of our fossil fuels program. He has overseen the
impressive progress made in our high priority carbon sequestration
research and development program, and on the FutureGen project to
build and demonstrate a virtually emissions free coal-based power
plant by the year 2012. At the same, time he has overseen the
continuing expansion of the Nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
In his role as my chief advisor on fossil fuels policies and
programs, Jeff’s clear-headed and cogent views have been a great
help to me. I wish him and his family the very best.”

Media contact(s):
Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 62 DOE: DOE Awards $5.6 Million to U.S. Universities for Nuclear Research

March 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC. – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
announced it will award $5.6 million over three years (FY’07-’09),
subject to appropriate from Congress, to U.S. universities in 12
cooperative research projects, under the Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI).  These awards will further engage U.S. university
professors and their students in advanced nuclear fuel cycle
research and development (R&D), supporting President Bush’s Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and his American Competitiveness
Initiative.

“Engaging leading universities and researchers is crucial to
supporting the development of GNEP and to expanding the use of safe,
emissions-free nuclear power worldwide” Secretary Bodman said.  “As
our need for energy will increase, so too does our need for nuclear
power, and the Energy Department has a strong set of nuclear
programs that we believe can create an environment for a nuclear
renaissance.”

Awards announced today support innovative research for nuclear
energy and bring total federal funding for NERI to approximately $4
million in FY 2007 and; $11.4 million for the life of the projects. 
Since 2005, DOE has awarded $43.9 million for 82 NERI projects. 
Selected universities will contribute to the development of advanced
nuclear technologies that will reduce America’s reliance on fossil
fuels and their associated environmental impact.

Projects selected will be conducted by 15 U.S. universities in 12
states.  Seven of these universities are participating in a NERI
project for the first time, demonstrating the program’s success in
broadening the nation’s nuclear research base: Cornell University,
the University of California Davis, and the University of
Missouri-Columbia as lead research institutions; Brigham Young
University, Idaho State University, the University of Chicago, and
the University of Texas at Austin as first-time collaborators.

Award amounts are subject to negotiation and are expected to be
determined in June, 2007.  Each project’s lead university will
contribute an additional 20 percent cost share, totaling $1.2
million.  Projects announced today, along with ten Generation IV and
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative projects awarded earlier this year, were
selected on the basis of a rigorous peer review of 79 proposals
submitted by universities across the United States.

In Fiscal Year 2008, DOE’s budget requested $35.6 million for
research to be awarded to universities through NERI grants – as part
of DOE’s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Initiative, the Nuclear
Hydrogen Initiative, and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative - to
further support advanced nuclear energy R&D.



For additional information on these awards and GNEP, visit:
http://www.nuclear.gov/.

For more information on President Bush’s American Competitiveness
Initiative, visit:

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 63 Tri-City Herald: DOE departures leave Tri-Cities in a lurch

Opinions

Published Monday, March 5th, 2007

The Department of Energy is running the biggest show in town.

That's hardly news, of course, but after spending more than 60 years
with our fates entwined, the connections are easy to take for
granted.

The vitrification plant construction and Hanford cleanup project
carry huge price tags. The associated payrolls, purchases and
employees still determine the course of our community and its
economy.

There's just one problem. Or maybe there are three of them. The
heads of all three of the DOE's offices here have retired in the
span of less than a few months.

And Tri-City residents -- the people with the greatest stake in
Hanford's cleanup program -- have no idea who will take over, when
they will be here or what to expect from them.

It's a critical time, with key contracts expiring and creating the
potential for new players to come to the project at the same time as
new leadership. It's a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

The technical and logistical challenges of building the $12.3
billion vitrification plant are unique. So it's no easy task to
replace leadership. A comparable project, where DOE could headhunt
for talent, doesn't exist.

The replacements need to be scientists, yes, but also proven
business leaders. We need leaders who will make decisions and, well,
lead. We won't be satisfied with anything less.

Best wishes to Keith Klein, manager of DOE's Richland Operations
Office, and Roy Schepens, manager of the Office of River Protection.
Paul Kruger, manager of DOE's Pacific Northwest Site Office, which
oversees operations of the national laboratory, got out of the mix
in September.

No apologies for our criticism over the years -- that comes with the
territory.

But we'd be remiss in failing to acknowledge the progress in
cleaning up the site that occurred during their watch.

No doubt they've gotten less credit for the accomplishments and more
blame for the mistakes than the facts warrant.

Running the show had to be stressful, and they deserve some down
time on a beach somewhere not thinking about nuclear waste,
billion-dollar projects, budget cuts or other unforeseen problems
that could bring progress to a screeching halt.

They've served their time. It's too bad they all decided to leave at
once. The timing certainly raises questions. In the Byzantine world
of DOE, speculation about purge is inevitable.

All we can do is hope for the best and that there's nothing lurking
in the shadows that may have motivated the retirements.

DOE needs to give careful thought to filling these key leadership
positions, but it needs to act as quickly as possible. We're feeling
a little abandoned out here.

We want your best and brightest. These aren't just three federal
jobs, they are positions of national importance.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, show us that you care by the
decisions that you make.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 64 Hanford News: Richland native paints picture of life in desert

This story was published Sunday, March 4th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer


Growing up in Richland, Karen Rice was never sure just what her
father did when he went to work at the Hanford nuclear reservation.

During the Cold War years, it was not something her father, a
metallurgical engineer and manager, talked about.

But she was curious.

She'd climb the sycamore tree in the family's back yard trying to
get a glimpse of the nuclear reactors that were once a part of the
nation's nuclear weapons production program. When the family would
drive down Highway 240 on the edge of the Hanford security zone,
she'd scan the desert for hints of what went on behind the fence.

Today, the nuclear reservation and the Manhattan Project are the
subjects of much of her art.

She remains an outsider looking in at the reservation and
juxtaposing the desert landscape with the industrial remnants of the
Hanford production age.

"I came to look for contrasts of the land," she said. "What's inside
and outside the fence."

In 300 Area, Rice shows one of the old Hanford buildings just north
of Richland as seen through a fence topped with barbed wire on one
of the gray sky days typical of Mid-Columbia winter inversions.
Tumbleweeds bump up against the fence and gulls circle.

In Horn Rapids Road she started with a photo she took along the road
in the early '90s. She was intrigued with signs posted on the fence
that cautioned that the area was used for asbestos dumping and
another sign that identified the area as a curlew nesting ground.

Her artwork shows more tumbleweeds piling up along the fence and a
dust devil forming on the horizon. But beyond the tall wire fence,
curlews swoop.

She also has executed a series of artwork reflecting the history of
the Manhattan Project as the U.S. raced to produce the atomic bombs
at Hanford and in Tennessee and New Mexico that would help end World
War II.

"I was struck by the facial expressions," she said.

In artwork influenced by historic Hanford photos, stony-faced women
in pearls and dresses walk through security gates into Hanford. In
others she shows a serious Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan
Project, and his secretary, Jean O'Leary.

The drawings, heavy with blacks, grays and rust, can be bleak.

But they reflect the love she came to have for the colors of the
desert, she said in an interview from her Missoula home. She is an
adjunct assistant professor at the University of Montana currently
on a year's leave as well as the programs and publications
coordinator of the Montana Museum of Art & Culture.

To make her large-scale drawings - some four feet wide - she uses
charcoal, dry pigments and rust. She mixes dry pigment with water
and uses it as a wash, building it up in layers, then marking it
with an eraser. The rust is derived from iron filings that she
sprinkles and brushes onto damp paper.

After graduating from Richland High in 1986 and Central Washington
University four years later, she moved to Olympia during what turned
out to be an exceptionally rainy year.

"I was very homesick for Eastern Washington," she said.

She became a regular at the Washington Historical Society, poring
through books on the state's reclamation projects and regional
history. She also started taking photos of what she could see of
Hanford during visits back to the Tri-Cities.

Other works by Rice explore different intersections of labor,
technology and natural history in Western landscapes. But she always
seems to circle back to the images of Hanford, she said.

On the Net: www.karenrice.com

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 65 Inside Bay Area: Lawrence Livermore plans new H-bomb

First 'reliable, replacement warhead' in two decades designed for
greater safety, security

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

Article Last Updated: 03/05/2007 02:34:17 AM PST

Bush administration officials on Friday launched California nuclear
weapons scientists on designing the nation's first H-bomb in more
than 20 years.

The decision marked the biggest step yet toward a controversial plan
for wholesale replacement of the fully tested U.S. nuclear arsenal
with bombs and warheads of the same military missions but redesigned
for greater hardiness, safety and security.

For the first "reliable, replacement warhead" ? designated RRW1 ?
federal weapons officials chose a highly conservative design
produced by a team at Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National
Laboratories-California over a more free-wheeling design offered by
Los Alamos lab and Sandia labs in New Mexico.

The warhead would replace the most numerous nuclear warhead in the
U.S. arsenal, the W76, which rides atop missiles on submarines in
the Pacific and Atlantic.

Bruce Goodwin, the aeronautics engineer and nuclear bomb designer
who heads the weapons program at Livermore, said he and his team
were "honored" by the selection. Competing designers at Los Alamos
had won the last two races for supplying Navy submarine warheads in
the 1970s and 1980s, carving out a near monopoly on U.S. ballistic
missile warheads and garnering responsibility for about
three-fourths of active U.S. weapons.

That's always been a sore point for Livermore designers, partly
because most modern Los Alamos weapons drew heavily on Livermore
innovations yet Livermore had responsibility for

fewer weapons to justify its existence. On Friday, Livermore flirted
with an end to its dry spell, which began with deployment of its
last warhead, the land-based W87, in 1986.

"I'm personally humbled by this. It's a huge responsibility," said
Goodwin. "I look forward to serving the Navy and getting their
weapon out for them."

The California scientists and engineers now will spend the next
eight to 12 months refining their design from roughly a large phone
book-sized tome of secret blueprints and specifications into a
full-blown study of engineering schedules and manufacturing costs.
If approved at two or more stages by Congress, taking the design
through prototyping to mass production would take at least six years
and cost hundreds of millions of dollars ? more than $700 million by
one congressional estimate.

Federal weapons officials argue that the hardier warheads would
reduce the likelihood of a return to nuclear testing and allow deep
cuts in the thousands of warheads stored in reserve as insurance
against unexpected breakdown.

So far, federal lawmakers with jurisdiction over nuclear weapons are
distracted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or divided over
whether now is the right time to begin buying a new nuclear arsenal
when weapons scientists routinely have declared the existing arsenal
to be reliable, safe and secure.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, suggested that pursuing the new
warheads "could serve to encourage the very proliferation we are
trying to prevent" in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

"There is a long history of this administration seeking to reopen
the nuclear door, and I am 100 percent opposed to this," she said in
a statement. "While I'm flattered that Lawrence Livermore was
selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program."

Two key House members, Reps. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, and John
Spratt, D-S.C., have talked of a "grand bargain" that would give the
green light to producing the replacement arsenal in exchange for a
firm, legal commitment to a nuclear test ban and perhaps sharper
reductions in the overall size of the U.S. arsenal.

Other House colleagues are more critical.

"This announcement puts the cart before the horse," Rep. Pete
Visclosky, the Indiana Democrat who chairs the influential House
energy and water appropriations committee, said in a statement.

"Although a lot of time and energy went in(to) determining the
winning design for a new nuclear warhead, there appears to have been
little thought given to the question of why the United States needs
to build new nuclear warheads at this time."

So far, Visclosky said, the administration has not supplied a
"national security imperative for the RRW. We are not going to begin
building more nuclear bombs without a serious and open national
debate on that policy question."

The main problem that critics have with replacing the existing U.S.
arsenal is that nothing appears to be wrong with it. Last November,
an outside panel of experts reviewing studies by the weapons labs
reported that the most sensitive components of the weapons, their
plutonium fission cores, last at least 85 years and in most cases
more than a century, much longer than most experts suspected.

But weapons lab executives and federal officials say replicating the
bombs' Cold War parts is expensive and that at least one component
of the bombs is aging faster than anyone can replace ? the designers
themselves. The RRWs are intended to help train a new generation of
weapons scientists and engineers.


The other problem that critics have is that the replacement 
arsenal would not be tested in a nuclear explosion. Federal 
weapons managers sidestepped that criticism in selecting the 
California design.

Unlike Los Alamos' RRW design, which was a compendium of new-fangled
features that had been tested but not together, Livermore's bomb was
hardly new at all, but recycled from the Cold War.

The head of the bomb's original design team from the 1980s doesn't
think much of the new replacement warhead idea, but he's pretty sure
the Livermore bomb won't ever need testing and can be modified again
and again with confidence.

Physicist Seymour Sack, now retired at age 77, has 85 nuclear tests
to his name and contributed more to the U.S. arsenal than any
surviving designer.

"The overall rationale for RRW is about different things for
different people, and I don't know that all of them make sense. But
picking this design makes a good common-sense decision," Sack said
Friday by phone. "It's a design that performed very well by any
standards, and whether it's necessary or not, at least the entry
that's been chosen is reliable with super high confidence."

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or (510) 208-6458.

© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy 
*****************************************************************
 66 SF Chron: Bomb gurus ponder non-nuclear future / New U.S. weapons could make
arsenal a relic of Cold War

New U.S. weapons could make arsenal a relic of Cold War

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, March 4, 2007

Nuclear weapons policy discussions in this country tend to feel
obscure, cerebral and, more often than not, gentlemanly.

The subject may involve degrees of annihilation more vast than
anything ever experienced, but, a new thrust of the debate is being
launched, even as the Bush administration announced on Friday that
it had accepted the design of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
for a new generation of nuclear weapons, known as "reliable
replacement warheads."

During a discussion in San Francisco recently on the future of the
United States nuclear arsenal -- which in other times might have
involved little more than a dry excursion into this dense topic --
specialists provided an extraordinarily tough critique of the Bush
administration's nuclear weapons programs and added fuel to the
growing efforts to drastically reduce, or eliminate , the stockpile.

C. Bruce Tarter, the former director of the Lawrence Livermore and
now head of a group evaluating proposals for a new generation of
warheads, complained during the panel at the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science two weeks ago
that it was almost impossible to make judgments about future weapons
needs because the White House had failed to articulate "a clear,
transparent" statement on its nuclear strategy and there was no
consensus in Congress.

Further, he said, the Bush administration's proposal to resuscitate
the weapons production complex "means nothing" because the White
House has not provided either a firm timetable or a budget for the
program. "You damn well better have bipartisan support" for the new
weapons program before moving ahead, he warned.

Another speaker, Gen. James Cartwright, head of the Pentagon's
Strategic Command, which manages nuclear war planning, was also
blunt. He said that while Stratcom, as the command is known, has
developed an array of new tools and strategies for defending the
country, including space and cyber defenses, nuclear policy was
largely stuck in a Cold War mode.

He endorsed, at least in principle, steps toward eliminating the
stockpile, in part because the United States has so many new weapons
to defend itself that it is far less reliant on nuclear warheads
than in the past. "We ought to grade our homework by the path we're
taking in that direction," meaning the direction of nuclear
disarmament, Cartwright said.

The exercise is far from academic. At one time, Congress more or
less accepted what the administration said the country needed in
weapons systems and provided the funding. But now, many in Congress
on both sides of the aisle are skeptical about the Bush
administration's efforts to start manufacturing new generations of
replacement nuclear bombs.

"There is at present no clear, coherent weapons policy supporting
RRW," or Reliable Replacement Warhead, said Rep. Peter Visclosky,
D-Ind., chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that
controls nuclear weapons spending. "Without a comprehensive strategy
that includes the mission, the threat, and the specific U.S. nuclear
stockpile necessary to achieve the strategic goals, it is impossible
for Congress to appropriate funding for RRW in a responsible and
efficient manner."

Visclosky also sought to put disarmament on the agenda.

Given the need to halt weapons programs in countries such as Iran
and North Korea, he said, "the lack of attention the administration
has given to developing a policy that explains the role of RRW in
our broader national nuclear weapons strategy may result in Congress
eliminating funding for the program."

None of the senior officials involved in the debate proposes quick
elimination of the nuclear stockpile. What they are encouraging is
the first thorough debate in years on whether the country even needs
nuclear weapons, and, if so, what kind. Disarmament is being
discussed not just by arms-control zealots but by the people who
build and manage the nuclear strike force.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, now chairwoman of the Strategic
Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Forces Committee, says she
plans to push for ratification of the long-stalled Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. President Clinton signed the treaty in 1996, but
the Republican-controlled Senate rejected it and the Bush
administration has said it has no intention of seeking ratification.

Tauscher says she believes the United States still needs a nuclear
deterrent for the time being, even if it is far smaller than the
current arsenal of some 5,000 warheads, but she says the new
political climate means the country can finally have a real debate
about the long-term need to replace nuclear warheads with precision
conventional weapons, special forces teams and the like.

"We have a chance to not only get the size of our stockpile to a
significantly reduced level but to move toward elimination," she
said. "We have a chance to regain the high ground on
nonproliferation and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction."

E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page E - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

*****************************************************************
 67 UPI: U.S. chooses new 'safe' nuke wepaon design

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 

3/5/2007 5:07:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, March 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. government has chosen a new
nuclear warhead design that hearkens back to design principles of 20
years ago.

The Army Times reported this weekend that the new design is a
development of nuclear warheads that were successfully tested in
underground explosions 20 years ago. It said the outcome of the
decision-making process was a triumph for the U.S. Department of
Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California over
its traditional rival, the more venerable Los Alamos National
Laboratory of New Mexico.

The report said the new weapon would be called the Reliable
Replacement Warhead and that it is not intended to boost the numbers
of U.S. nuclear weapons but to replace current warheads with safer
ones.

The Army Times said the 12-month design competition between the
competing nuclear laboratories was undertaken after the
Republican-controlled 109th Congress rejected U.S. Department of
Defense and Department of Energy proposals to make new nuclear earth
penetrator, or "bunker buster" weapons, and so-called low-yield
bombs, or "mini nukes."

The Army Times also noted that Congress had mandated that there
could be no test-detonations of the new warheads to ensure that they
were reliable, or would work at all.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 68 KnoxNews: As warnings grow more dire, Nobelist emerges as leader

By RICK DELVECCHIO

March 4, 2007

Steve Chu keeps up with all the latest news on climate change, and
he knows it's bad.

The Nobel-winning physicist can tell you the projected meltdown
rates for the snowpacks of Tibet and the Sierra Nevada. Rivers
drying up and millions of people on the move looking for a drink of
water? That future, a fantasy just a few years ago, has entered the
realm of the possible.

But Chu isn't just talking.

As head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, he is focusing all
divisions of the most intellectually diverse of the U.S. Energy
Department's national labs on a campaign to stand and fight.

"These are serious predictions," Chu, 59, said in a recent
interview. "It's prudent risk management. It's like saying, 'Your
house will burn down in the next 10 years - 50 percent probability.
By the way, do you want fire insurance?' "

Chu, who combines a scientific mind thirsting for challenges with an
enthusiasm that people find catching, has emerged internationally to
champion science as society's best defense against climate
catastrophe.

"He's using his leadership to challenge their scientists and gear
them into addressing this problem in the one last chance we have,"
said Nate Lewis, a chemistry professor at the California Institute
of Technology and an adviser on Chu's energy program. "We don't have
that much time."

Chief in Chu's campaign is an unprecedented research pact reached
recently between the University of California-Berkeley, oil industry
giant BP, the Lawrence Berkeley lab and the University of Illinois.

Chu's role in promoting the clout of the closely aligned research
programs at the lab and UC-Berkeley helped persuade BP to pick the
campus for its $500 million biofuels institute.

Nearly $400 million in new lab space will expand energy-related
molecular work centered at Lawrence Berkeley that involves a cast of
partners around the world. And a $160 million Energy Biosciences
Institute to be built in three years and funded by BP will include
Chu's separate solar energy program. The expansion will put the
Lawrence Berkeley lab and UC-Berkeley at the center of the world's
push for alternative fuels.

To Chu, whose heroes include Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein,
what's needed now is the will to face the crisis and then to break
it down into its component problems.

The first challenge is finding zero-carbon energy sources on a mass
scale. Climate change results mainly from there being too much
carbon in the atmosphere. Compounding the problem, coal and oil are
likely to remain relatively cheap and abundant sources of fuel,
especially in the developing world, for decades to come.

Chu is building the lab's capacity to develop zero-carbon energy
sources in 10 to 20 years, especially biofuels and a new generation
of solar cells.

The profile of lab namesake E.O. Lawrence's enormous particle
colliders, which facilitated many breakthroughs in 20th-century
nuclear physics, has shrunk as the lab morphs into a plant designing
and building bioengineered machines from molecule-sized parts.

In the face of relentlessly rising demand, the world needs mass
quantities of renewable fuels to keep the situation stable and an
almost total conversion to renewables to significantly improve it.

Racing against time, Chu is particularly interested in solar
technology.

Chu started the Helios Project as a framework for his total energy
campaign and, not incidentally, a way to market the Lawrence
Berkeley lab to private and government funders and to inform
outsiders about the lab's work.

The second challenge is consumption. The Lawrence Berkeley lab has
been a world innovator on energy efficiency - work leading to the
invention of the compact fluorescent light bulb was done there. Chu
wants more inventions like that. He's thinking about things like
super-efficient commercial buildings and new designs for green
cities.

Many nations have ambitious conservation goals, but some of the
largest, such as China, lack the means to reach them.

"In order to get close, they really need our help." Chu said.

The third challenge is politics. Numerous coal-fired power plants in
China and India serve cheap electricity to the poor, and many more
are planned. The poor and powerless can't do much about that, but
the rich and politically powerful can. They can look scientific
facts in the eye and afford to act prudently.

They may find they can't afford not to.

"Give signals to industry there's going to be a price on carbon -
over a 10- to 15-year period," Chu said, suggesting a mechanism for
making alternative fuels more attractive. "The history of innovation
has taught us that, once people stop thinking politically and start
thinking from a scientific point of view, surprisingly all the
predictions of 'We can't do this' don't seem to come true."

The science establishment says what energy research needs is what
weapons research has with the Defense Advance Research Projects
Agency, a funding pool for high-risk research done by universities,
industry and the national labs. Chu and other top scientists are
promoting the idea, which Congress is considering.


(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 69 Hemscott: DOE staffers taking industry jobs

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two high-level Energy Department officials are
leaving the department in the coming weeks to take jobs in the
private sector.

Jill Sigal, an assistant secretary in charge of relations with
Congress and other government agencies, accepted a job as senior
vice president for government relations at privately held
EnergySolutions LLC, a Salt Lake City-based company that handles
nuclear waste and does business with the Energy Department, the
department said in a statement.



Also Jeffrey Jarrett, a top adviser to Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman on fossil fuel policy, was hired as executive director of the
Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, an organization that
promotes the use of coal to fire power plants, the Energy Department
said.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2006 Hemscott Group Limited.
Hemscott is the UK registered trademark of Hemscott Group Limited.
*****************************************************************
 70 KVII Online: Package causes Pantex evacuation 

The Pantex plant by air

Posted: Monday, March 05, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Two buildings at Pantex were evacuated Monday afternoon after a
suspicious package was found.

Just after 11:00 in the morning, a report came in about a suspicious
package in the administration building, which was evacuated soon
after.

The event was categorized as an operational emergency, which means
all employees and general weapons operations were put in a safe and
stable configuration.

The Carson County Sheriff's Department also closed the roads leading
to the plant as a precaution.

And the Amarillo Police Bomb Squad was called in to remove the
package using its robot.

Turns out that after it was removed a vendor identified and claimed
the package.

All roads were reopened, and normal operations have resumed. 

    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************