***************************************************************** 04/22/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.94 ***************************************************************** 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 US: Space Weapon Test Set for Launch 2 Daily Yomiuri: Abe, Bush to confirm N-plan 3 US: delawareonline: The alternative energy frontier 4 US: washingtonpost.com: Congress Skeptical of Warhead Plan - 5 AFP: Gates spoke softly as he carried US military stick to the Midea 6 antiwar.com: Ethanol: A Threat to National Security? - NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 The Hindu: US says no to changing its laws for nuke deal 8 Herald Sun: N-power unviable - AGL chief 9 Sydney Morning Herald: Proliferation must shape the nuclear debate - 10 Sydney Morning Herald: ALP 'not damaged by nuclear debate' - 11 Sydney Morning Herald: Power retailer AGL rejects nuclear power - 12 Sydney Morning Herald: Decision on nuclear energy 'this year' - 13 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear is part of climate solution - PM - 14 Economic Times: US says no to changing its laws for N-deal with Indi 15 Bangkok Post: New panel to pave way for nuclear-energy acceptance 16 West Australian: ALP nuclear policy change 'no done deal' 17 Independent Online: Critical review could call time on British Energ 18 US: Tennessean: As TVA prepares outline for future, skeptics gather 19 US: Oshkosh Northwestern: Dominion seeks OK to build new reactor 20 UPI: India nuke accord falters 21 AFP: Jordan parliament clears way for nuclear power - 22 The Tribune: Nuclear deal: US not keen on more changes 23 Telegraph: 'How we made the Chernobyl rain' 24 Japan Times: Abe, Bush to boost post-Kyoto measures 25 Japan Times: Seven nuke utilities told to conduct new checks 26 US: NLD: Waterford Defends Its Credibility In The Millstone Tax Appe 27 AU ABC: AGL plans to get bigger and greener 28 Forex News: China planner sees limited role for nuclear power 29 Business Standard: `India`s role abroad has diminished` 30 Leader-Post: Nuclear debate looms for NDP 31 US: NewsBlaze: NRC to Hold Regulatory Conference With Hirata & Assoc 32 The Australian: Nuclear chief expects energy decision 33 The Australian: Downer tries for nuclear reaction | NUCLEAR SECURITY 34 US: Charlotte Observer: Radioactive material stolen 35 Reuters: US nuclear worker took software to Iran - FBI 36 Al Jazeera: Egyptian-Canadian jailed for Israel spying - NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 The Observer: Revealed: UK nuclear tests on workers 38 GU: Organs from bodies of Sellafield workers had raised plutonium le 39 Sunday Herald: Humans In Secret Radioactive Tests NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 US: AU ABC: Albanese vows to stand by uranium policy 41 Itar-Tass: Ivanov Inspects a Secret Factory 42 US: Beacon News: Debate over nuclear waste heats up 43 US: Green Left: Rudd pushes uranium bosses' agenda 44 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Rialto's water-cleanup costs will be 45 ITAR-TASS: RF develops 9th generation uranium enrichment centrifuges 46 US: AU ABC: Analyst looks at uranium boom 47 US: The Australian: Gillard confident on mines policy 48 US: The Australian: Labor expected to overturn mining ban PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 49 The Modesto Bee: Military has left a deadly legacy 50 Rocky Mountain News: Lawyer fees mount in legal wrangling over Flats 51 Rocky Mountain News: Whistle-blower's attorneys want high court to r 52 lamonitor.com: Former director's talk declassified 53 KnoxNews: Workers added to K-25 site cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Space Weapon Test Set for Launch Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:07:52 -0500 (CDT) Long-debated military satellite set for launch NFIRE has sparked years of controversy over missile-watching technology http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/18248896/ By James Oberg NBC News space analyst April 22, 2007 The U.S. military is about to launch a small missile-watching satellite after years of quiet preparation - and years of alarming reports from critics about its purpose. The NFIRE satellite is due to be sent into space early Monday from a Virginia launch pad. To the Defense Department, which owns and will operate the satellite, NFIRE stands for "Near Field Infrared Experiment." That encapsulates the mission's goal of observing the rocket plumes of military missiles to be launched past it later this year. NFIRE will map and characterize the brightness of the rocket plumes to help the Pentagon design future guidance systems for anti-missile weapons now under consideration. But to its critics, NFIRE could well be spelled "Fire!" - as in, "launch the weapon!" The project has been labeled an irrevocable step toward the weaponization of outer space. The spacecraft's launch atop a commercial Minotaur booster, scheduled for 3:11 a.m. ET from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Virginia's Wallops Island, could light a new fire under the debate. Just last month, Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, gave the official view of the NFIRE mission: "We plan to develop space-based sensors to provide a persistent identification and global tracking capability," he testified to a congressional committee. These are tests of passive tracking satellites, precursors of operational vehicles that could watch for attacks on the United States and its allies. Obering and other program officials insist that nothing on this project relates to interception of such missiles or any other objects. Two demonstration satellites are to be launched late this year to perform acquisition, tracking and handover tests with live missiles. Prior to those flights, Obering said the NFIRE satellite would "collect high-resolution infrared phenomenology data from boosting targets." The explanation is a plausible one, because rocket plumes exist in their true form only in the vacuum of space, and sensors to track them often use wavelengths that are normally blocked by Earth's atmosphere. To field-test tracking sensors, you have to do it in space - and both Russian and American satellites (and manned spacecraft, such as Russia's Mir space station and the space shuttle) have been experimenting with better and better technology for decades. Opposing orbits Critics of U.S. military space activities have an entirely different view. In her latest book, "War in the Heavens," peace activist Helen Caldicott writes: "NFIRE would track and kill missiles . [but] initial NFIRE tests will not include the kill vehicle." Furthermore, she adds, "Obviously if NFIRE and other such systems are deployed, they will provoke countermeasures by powers such as China and Russia" since "it is only a short step from hitting a missile in outer space to hitting an orbiting satellite." The fuss over the "kill vehicle" peaked three years ago when an earlier version of the spacecraft was in final launch preparation. That object was indeed a component of a ground-launched anti-missile warhead, modified to carry more cameras and fewer maneuvering thrusters. Caldicott's book cited a Moscow newspaper for a quotation attributed to an anonymous Pentagon official upset with the NFIRE program. "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization," the official was said to have remarked. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, insisted to MSNBC.com that the current NFIRE spacecraft is focused entirely on passive plume sensor tests. "It's just an experimental use of sensors to get data on rocket plumes," he said by telephone. "We can use that data to design the guidance system of the kinetic energy interceptor," a high-acceleration anti-missile system that could be based on land or on ships near the border of a potential missile-launching state. Lehner said the $10 million appropriation requested by Obering was for analysis and design. "There's no plan for prototypes or for construction," he said. Instead, the money would fund comparisons of the mathematical models and previous sensor tests with the actual results from the NFIRE observations. "We will get data so that in the future we can make decisions from an informed position," he said. No decisions about future deployments have been made, he insisted, nor would they be made for years to come. For now, this NFIRE mission is the only one planned, he said. But that's not the way that NFIRE and similar U.S. programs are being described around the world. The Russian press has been highly vocal about sounding the alarm, with a classic example published on the newspaper Izvestia's front page on March 29. "The United States is going to put an anti-missile shield in space - this was announced yesterday by General Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency," correspondent Dmitri Litovkin declared. The reason? "In his opinion, that is the only way of protecting America". Obering's March 27 testimony before the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee is readily available (PDF file) and his actual words can be checked. They do not reflect what Litovkin claims they said. After describing the orbiting sensor tests planned for this year, Obering elaborated on why an operational network of space-based sensors might be valuable. He urged lawmakers to consider deploying such a passive observation network - a network that would have been forbidden by the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty that the current Bush administration withdrew from five years ago. The ABM treaty forbade any space-based components of an anti-missile system, whether or not they were actually related to weapons. Confusing debate with decision Obering did talk about actual interceptors in orbit, a concept that has been argued over for decades. In terms of pure practicality, a seemingly insurmountable operational obstacle has been the need for hundreds of fast-moving platforms to cover any possible location anywhere on Earth from which a missile might suddenly rise. "I believe the performance of the [Ballistic Missile Defense] system could be greatly enhanced by an integrated space-based layer," Obering nevertheless continued, touching on the weapons-in-space issue. "Deployment of such a system must be preceded by significant, national-level debate." To that end, Obering requested a budget of $10 million for 2008 "to begin concept analysis and preparation for small-scale experiments". That is hardly the description of an already-approved imminent deployment of a fleet of battle stations. Nor was it accurately reflected by the reporter for the Novosti news agency, who filed a story on the hearings with the headline, "U.S. missile defense chief argues for missile shield in space." Novosti claimed that Obering said some elements of the missile defense system should be deployed in space, but what he really said was that the United States needed to debate that issue before making a decision years in the future. Recognizing the realities Russian press coverage is not universally garbled. A well-informed retired military officer named Vladimir Dvorkin uses original sources and direct interviews to correctly describe the over-wrought hyping of "U.S. space threats" by Kremlin officials. Dvorkin is one of the rare commentators in Russia recognizing the realities of the situation. Fortunately, spaceflight is a technological exercise where physics is the ultimate judge of reality. The main fear about NFIRE seems centered on its potential to lead to orbiting satellite-killers, not merely missile-killers. None of these critics seems to have worked through the fundamental engineering of the NFIRE-type sensor system, which depends on tracking an extremely hot rocket plume trailing a powerful intercontinental missile. Orbiting satellites, on the other hand, are in orbit, following a fixed course through space. Because they don't emit enormous rocket plumes, they could not possibly be observed - much less attacked - by any weapons systems based on NFIRE-type sensors. They have no "fire," hence nothing to fear from NFIRE. Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog) ***************************************************************** 2 Daily Yomiuri: Abe, Bush to confirm N-plan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President George W. Bush will confirm a joint Japan-U.S. nuclear action plan at their summit meeting in the United States on Friday, government sources said. The plan calls for cooperation in developing nuclear power for civilian use, nuclear nonproliferation and measures to fight global warming. The leaders will announce the action plan after their meeting, the sources said. The action plan will use Japanese technology to spread nuclear power for civilian use that cannot easily be transferred for weapons use, with the objective of building nuclear power plants in developing countries that have growing energy demands, such as India. The plan will spell out Japan's cooperation for projects, including research and development work, by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which was announced by the U.S. administration in February last year, the sources said. The GNEP is designed to have countries that reprocess nuclear fuel under extremely secure conditions handle the reprocessing of spent fuel extracted from nuclear power plants in countries that lack adequate technology. Doing so will help establish an international mechanism for safely recycling civilian nuclear fuel. This also will boost nuclear nonproliferation efforts because nuclear fuel will be kept under tight control. Based on the action plan, the Japanese and U.S. governments will develop a new advanced nuclear fuel recycling technology to make it difficult to use nuclear fuel in weapons, the sources said. Increasing the number of nuclear power plants, which only emit a limited amount of greenhouse gases, also will help fight global warming. The action plan will include U.S. government loan guarantees for U.S. firms to build more than 30 nuclear power plants in the United States, and the Japanese government's approval of government trade insurance to Japanese firms that form tie-ups with U.S. companies to build the plants, the sources said. In the future, Tokyo and Washington plan to promote construction of nuclear power plants in India and other countries in line with the Japan-U.S. cooperation framework, the sources said. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 3 delawareonline: The alternative energy frontier The News Journal, Wilmington, Del. ¦ HOME > Opinion > Perspective By RONALD BROWNSTEIN Posted Sunday, April 22, 2007 PERSPECTIVE A coal mine near Gillette, Wyo., as well as mines in Montana fill record demand from utilities. AP Wind turbines spin along a ridge at Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon-Washington border. AP Since the arrival of the white settlers, the American West has been shaped by the discovery and extraction of natural resources, beginning in the 19th century with silver and gold and then extending to timber, copper, uranium and fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal. For decades, the industries that grew around these resources mined state capitals as thoroughly as they did the riches beneath the earth. As recently as three decades ago, the Mountain West states erupted in what was known as the "sagebrush rebellion" -- a loud and sustained clamor from the extraction industries and their political allies for the federal government to open millions of acres of public land for resource exploration and development. But that has changed. In less than a generation, the sagebrush rebellion has given way across the West to a "renewable revolution." Today, from the Rockies to the Pacific, a new political axis is emerging that could transform the national debate over energy, the environment and global warming. "It's a massive shift in not just policy but ... voter attitudes," said Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico and presidential candidate. Across the West, governors from both parties are advancing the nation's most ambitious policies to promote clean energy, encourage conservation and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Common ground On each of these fronts, leaders in the West are racing far beyond the gridlocked energy debate in Washington -- and drawing support from ideologically diverse local coalitions that include new residents concerned about preserving an attractive environment and agricultural and tourism interests fearful that global warming may undermine their industries. Even major utilities across the West have enlisted. Some critics predict that these initiatives eventually could provoke a voter backlash if they result in higher costs for energy, especially electricity. But if, on the other hand, the interlocked efforts in the West demonstrate economic, environmental and political viability, they will provide enormous momentum for faltering national efforts to build a clean-energy economy less reliant on fossil fuels. "We've had really very little support from the Bush administration even to analyze this in a thoughtful way," complained Bill Ritter, a Democrat who centered his successful gubernatorial campaign in Colorado last year on a promise of promoting alternative energy. "We really need [action] on a national basis." Some states elsewhere, particularly in the Northeast, have adopted similar policies, but the push in the West is especially dramatic given the region's historic connection to the fossil fuel economy. Western Democrats now control seven of the region's 11 governorships, and their gains are both a reflection and a cause of the shift in priorities. The West's new energy axis rests on a deepening partnership between those Democratic governors and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a centrist Republican. In some cases, California is leveraging its market power -- as what Montana's Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer calls the "900-pound gorilla" in the region's energy economy -- to propel change. California exercised that influence most effectively last fall when Schwarzenegger signed a law barring state utilities from entering long-term contracts to import electricity from power plants that emit more carbon dioxide than the cleanest natural gas facilities -- a standard that excludes conventional coal-fired plants. That decision already is sending ripples through the region as governors from energy-exporting states use it to build support for cleaner alternatives to conventional coal. "We see it as an opportunity to build and construct new clean and green facilities," said Schweitzer, who is promoting power plants that would generate electricity by converting coal into natural gas and then sequester the carbon dioxide emissions in underground facilities, such as depleted oil fields. Renewable standards In other instances, California and other Western states are moving independently along parallel paths. Six of the 11 states, for example, have approved "renewable portfolio standards" that require utilities to generate a fixed percentage of electricity from renewable power sources such as wind, solar and geothermal; Oregon is on track to join them this year. Recently New Mexico and Colorado mandated that utilities generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 -- double the existing requirements; California last fall stiffened its rules by advancing the deadline on a 20 percent requirement from 2017 to 2010. Washington, Oregon and Arizona have committed to adopting a California regulation requiring huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles -- a standard that would essentially require improved fuel economy -- if the rule receives a federal waiver and survives a court challenge from the auto industry. New Mexico will join too if the Environmental Protection Agency and the courts approve the rule, which appears more likely after the Supreme Court ruling pressuring the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In the most dramatic example of regional coordination, California and its neighbors are pursuing a formal agreement on climate change. In February, Schwarzenegger and the Democratic governors of Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Oregon agreed to devise a regional plan for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, most likely through a cap-and-trade system. That effort, the most sweeping attempt in the United States so far to combat the emissions linked to global warming, germinated from discussions that began at last summer's Western Governors' Association meeting in Arizona. The participating states have agreed to devise a market-based regulation system by fall 2008, and sources involved in the design say they hope to entice into the plan not only other Western states but the Canadian province of British Columbia. Nevada, Idaho and Utah, the three Mountain states with Republican governors, haven't joined these efforts, but neither are they immune to the trend. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is pursuing an ambitious conservation program. Idaho's Public Utilities Commission in March approved an order decoupling local utility profits from the amount of electricity consumed in the state -- a pro-conservation reform already in place in California and Utah. The political coalition for these changes begins with the influx to the rapidly growing Mountain states of new residents unattached to traditional resource industries -- and inclined to view those interests as threats to the outdoor lifestyle that prompted them to relocate. Industries concerned about the potential economic effects of global warming -- such as farmers worried about the effects of declining snowmelt on water supplies and ski towns fearful of warmer winters -- are amplifying those voices. Many Western utility companies now see alternative energy as popular with consumers -- and as a hedge against the likelihood that Washington will mandate reduced carbon emissions after President Bush leaves office. Resistance hasn't vanished. Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative Colorado think tank, maintains that the new energy consensus across the region "could be potentially devastating for the states" that adopt it, raising energy costs and suppressing economic growth. Even supporters who dismiss such a gloomy forecast acknowledge other impediments. Schweitzer and Ritter, while supporting national action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expressed reluctance to join the regional carbon compact for fear of ceding an economic advantage to states that don't. Solar facilities and the clean-coal technologies that Schweitzer and other governors are promoting may take many years to develop at economically competitive costs. But the overall shift in the region's energy priorities appears irreversible. Production of oil and natural gas has boomed under Bush and will remain important to the West's economy. But through the Mountain and coastal states alike, the focus of public policy and private investment is moving toward the technologies that were spotlighted at a state conference on alternative energy in Denver in March: wind farms, solar, geothermal heating, bio-fuels and the next-generation coal power plants that separate carbon emissions and sequester them underground. "There is definitely a potential for a backlash," said the University of Denver's Richard Lamm, who was Colorado's Democratic governor during the sagebrush rebellion. "But history is on the side of these governors." Contact Ronald Brownstein at the Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of ***************************************************************** 4 washingtonpost.com: Congress Skeptical of Warhead Plan - Lawmakers and Experts Question Necessity, Implications of a New Nuclear Weapon By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 22, 2007; Page A05 Congressional hearings over the past several weeks have shown that the Bush administration's plan to move ahead with a new generation of nuclear warheads faces strong opposition from House and Senate members concerned that the effort lacks any strategic underpinning and could lead to a new nuclear arms race. Experts inside and outside the government questioned moving forward with a new warhead as old ones are being refurbished and before developing bipartisan agreement on how many warheads would be needed at the end of what could be a 30-year process. Several, including former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), suggested linking production of a new warhead with U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a move the Bush administration has opposed. Ex-senator Sam Nunn (D) worries about the international reaction to developing a new nuclear warhead. (By Peter Frey -- Uga Photo Services Via Associated Press) Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who originated what has become the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, wants the number of warheads in the current U.S. stockpile declassified as "the first step for an honest dialogue on nuclear weapons." Including warheads that are deployed, inactive and in reserve, the total is assumed to be above 6,000. "I suspect our potential adversaries know the number of U.S. nuclear warheads with much better precision than do the members of Congress," Hobson said at a recent congressional hearing. "I think I know the number," he added, "but I can't talk about it." Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the nuclear weapons complex, said at a hearing Wednesday on the RRW program that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have "not been forthcoming" about their views on the issue. Domenici, who supports the program, said he has sent letters to Rice, Gates and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, "urging them to take a more active role in supporting the RRW program." He told them, "You must answer critics who have argued that the RRW will lead to an arms race." The program involves not only coordinating the design and costs of a new warhead for the Trident submarine-launched intercontinental missile, but also a multibillion-dollar plan -- called Complex 2030 by the Department of Energy -- to modernize the aging nuclear weapons facilities where warheads and bombs are designed, built and dismantled. Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the nuclear complex, said at a hearing late last month that the program is proceeding "although the administration has not announced any effort to begin a policy process to reassess our nuclear weapons policy and the future nuclear stockpile required to support that policy." He also noted that the Pentagon's Defense Science Board reported last year that there has been virtually no high-level, long-term articulation of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Gen. James E. Cartwright, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, which controls the nation's nuclear weapons, said at the hearing that he would like to challenge the proposed level of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012 as possibly too high, "based on new [conventional weapons] capability, not new nuclear capability." Former defense secretary William J. Perry, also appearing at the hearing, said current nuclear policies were developed for the Cold War and are "really not appropriate to the world we live in today." A new nuclear plan is "long overdue" and should be shared with the appropriate congressional committees, he said. It should include "not only issues about what numbers we need," Perry said, "but on what a future trajectory of those numbers in our forces should be and what kind of R&D is needed to support it." At the same hearing, Nunn said he does not favor dismantling the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but he expressed concern about the international impact of the RRW program. Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and now chief executive of the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative, told the House panel, "If Congress gives a green light to this program in our current world environment . . . I believe that this will be misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, [and] complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons." Nunn suggested that the RRW program would be better received "in the context of a ratified test ban treaty." He cautioned that "we can't afford to do it in this atmosphere without being misperceived, not only by Russia but by many others." Nunn quoted a recent study prepared for the Defense Department that said: "The world sees us as increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons. The world sees us as shifting from nuclear weapons for deterrence and as weapons of last resort to nuclear weapons for war-fighting roles and first use. . . . And the world sees us as blurring the difference between nuclear and conventional weapons -- use whatever fits best." Perry said there are two "valid" arguments being made in support of the RRW program -- that it would maintain the capabilities of U.S. weapons designers and provide a new warhead that "cannot be detonated by a terror group, even if they were able to get their hands on it." However, he said, development of the RRW program "will substantially undermine our ability to lead the international community in the fight against proliferation, which we are already in danger of losing." Noting that present U.S. nuclear weapons will retain their capabilities for 50 to 100 years, he said the program could be deferred "for many years." At Wednesday's Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said bipartisan agreement on the program is necessary before Congress votes to spend funds to develop the new warheads. The chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), said playing a major role in funding the nation's nuclear weapons poses important questions for him, and he is unsure how he will come out on the program. There are "serious questions to answer," he said. "The survival of this planet, I think, depends on our getting these things right." © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Gates spoke softly as he carried US military stick to the Mideast - by Carlos Hamann Sun Apr 22, 6:59 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took his soft-spoken approach to the troubled Middle East last week as he addressed the harsh realities facing Iraq's beleaguered government. Unlike his more strident predecessor Donald Rumsfeld, the gray-haired, mild-mannered former CIA chief discussed Iraq in humble tones, acknowledging the serious problems plaguing the Baghdad leadership and the limits of US military might. "There is not yet confidence in the region that Iraq's government represents all Iraqis," he said during his five-day tour that took him to Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Iraq. Gates sought to reassure Jordan and Egypt which along with other Sunni Arab states have expressed concern over Shiite Iran's influence over the largely Shiite government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. In Amman, his first stop, Gates met Jordan's King Abdullah II and said the two sides "agreed that diplomatic and economic pressure" was the best way to influence Iraq. King Abdullah, however, made no mention of Iran in a statement, stressing the overriding importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which the palace described as "the core conflict in the region." In Iraq, Gates met with top military brass and lobbied Iraqi officials to push through crucial legislation, including a law regulating the oil industry and another on revenue sharing. Gates acknowledged the friction between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities, and said that reaching agreement on these laws is "probably harder than they anticipated." He added: "It's not that these laws are going to change the situation immediately, but the ability to get them done communicates a willingness to work together." Amid continuing bloodshed in Iraq, Gates used careful language to describe the results of the new US strategy in Iraq involving a surge in American troops. "I think it is no surprise that the results are mixed at this point. There will probably be tough days ... but I'm hopeful and modestly optimistic." He also warned the Iraqi leadership that the US commitment was not open-ended and urged the need for political reconciliation. The remarks by Gates and top military officers were a stark contrast to the defiantly optimistic assessments often offered by Rumsfeld during his tenure at the Pentagon. Gone is the US talk of "dead-ender" Baathist fighters and the insurgency being in its "last throes." With Gates by his side, General David Petraeus, who heads military operations in Iraq, made no effort to play down car bombings in Baghdad that killed some 200 people last week. The general called the violence "sensational attacks" that "can be seen as none other than setbacks and challenges." In Israel, Gates said diplomacy was the best route for dealing with Iran's disputed nuclear program, which the West fears is a cover for building an atomic bomb. Referring to UN Security Council sanctions on Iran over Tehran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, Gates preached patience and avoided sabre-rattling talk. "These things don't work overnight, but it seems to me clearly the preferable course to keep our focus on the diplomatic initiatives," said Gates, the first US defense secretary to visit key ally Israel since 2000. The next day Gates denied a report in the Jerusalem Post newspaper saying that he refused to discuss military operations against the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who famously said he would like to see Israel "wiped off the map." Gates also chose to tactfully sidestep questions on the feud between President George W. Bush and Congress over US troop levels in Iraq. Asked about Democratic Senator Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record)'s remark that the war in Iraq was lost, he said: "I have great respect for Senator Reid, and on the issue of whether the war is lost, I respectfully disagree." Could he offer a compromise over the deadlock on setting a date to withdraw US forces? "This is really a discussion that has to be between the president and congressional leadership," he said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 antiwar.com: Ethanol: A Threat to National Security? - by Gordon Prather April 21, 2007 In his State of the Union Address this year, the Commander in Chief of the War on Terror asked the newly-elected Democrat-controlled Congress to join him "in pursuing a great goal." To effect regime change in Iran, thereby delivering "a decisive blow to terrorism," and achieving yet another famous "victory for the security of America and the civilized world"? No. Well, how about cutting our losses and getting out of Iraq, incurring as few additional American casualties as possible? No, not that either. Bush?s "great goal" is to reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent within ten years! What?s so great about achieving that goal? "When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East." Aha! Our National Security requires it. But how are we to reach that goal? "To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017." Of course, if Bush goes ahead and does unto Iran what he did to Iraqi, our total imports of oil from the Middle East will be cut for us, by the Iranians, before Bush even leaves office, long before we achieve that goal. Hence, Bush ought either to forego his impending War of Aggression against Iran, or ask Congress to require the production of 35 billion gallons per year of ethanol (from corn) before he leaves office. No doubt the 110th Congress will support Bush?s impending attack on the Mullahs (and their non-existent nuclear-weapons program), especially if it means the next President can focus on assisting the "farm lobby" solve the principal remaining "threat" to our National Security (indeed, according to Al Gore, [.pdf] to the "survival of our civilization"): Climate Change. The CNA Corporation has just issued a report [.pdf] of its Military Advisory Board entitled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." "The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security." According to the Board "Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. "As President Bush noted in his 2007 State of the Union speech, dependence on foreign oil leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists, and clean domestic energy alternatives help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change. "Because the issues are linked, solutions to one affect the other." The Board adopted the latest assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change. "Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values. "The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 [1774 ppm] exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). "The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use." So, how does the IPCC come to those conclusions? And what are "fossil fuels"? Well, according to Wikipedia, fossil fuels are buried combustible geologic deposits of hydrocarbon materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, and natural gas by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth?s crust over hundreds of millions of years. So what distinguishes such organic hydrocarbons from inorganic hydrocarbons? Recall that isotopes are atoms that have the same chemical properties but have different physical properties. About 1.11 percent [.pdf] of the stable carbon atoms are C-13. The rest are C-12. Plants take carbon dioxide out of the air and ? through the process known as photosynthesis ? fixate nitrogen, enabling them to eventually produce the 20 amino acids that both plants and animals need to live. The reaction goes much faster for the C-12 isotope, so there is a C-13 deficiency in all organisms, plants and animals, living and dead. Hence, there is a measurable C-13 deficiency in carbon dioxide that has been produced by burning something organic, like a tree, for example. But on the basis of C-13 deficiency analysis of oil and gas found at considerable depths beneath the earth's surface, there is reason to believe fossil fuels may not be organic in origin after all. Nobel Laureate Sir Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in some detail, noted that the deeper one goes into the earth's crust to find the oil reservoir, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil one finds. True, there are signs of organic activity ? microbial life ? in oil found near the surface. But as the depth from which the oil is obtained is increased ? to the depths where microbes aren't found ? the more nearly the C-13 deficit disappears. Robinson concluded: "Actually it cannot be too strongly emphasized that petroleum does not present the composition picture expected from modified biogenic products, and all the arguments from the constituents of ancient oils fit equally well, or better, with the conception of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture to which bio-products have been added." Why does that matter? Well, the measured C-13/C-12 ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand. The IPCC assumes that decrease has resulted from a huge increase in additions of "organic" CO2. Since the IPCC assumes coal, oil and natural gas are "organic" hydrocarbons, the IPCC concludes that mankind is "very likely" [90% certain] to be responsible for that CO2 increase. But, since the isotopic carbon ratios for natural gas obtained from great depths is indistinguishable from the methane ejected in volcanic eruptions, it follows that the carbon dioxide produced by burning natural gas obtained from deep reservoirs is also indistinguishable from the carbon dioxide ejected in volcanic eruptions. Similarly, methanol produced from natural gas obtained from great depths will not have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio. How about ethanol, produced from Iowa corn or Brazilian sugarcane? Will that ethanol have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio? Will burning 35 billion gallons per year of that stuff contribute ? according to IPCC lights ? to Climate Change? Will burning all that organic ethanol contribute to our National Security problem? You bet your sweet bippy. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 7 The Hindu: US says no to changing its laws for nuke deal Saturday, April 21, 2007 : 1120 Hrs Washington, April 21 (PTI): Expressing frustration over the slow pace of negotiations on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, the Bush administration, however, has made it clear that some of the things insisted upon by India require changing American laws which cannot be accomodated. "Fair to say that there's probably some frustration on the part of the administration as well as the Congress on the pace of these negotiations," State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters here. His comments assume significance as they came days ahead of a scheduled visit of Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on April 30 and May one to Washington followed by a visit of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns to India in May to speed up the negotiations. Replying to a query on Burns' visit, he said "Nobody's questioning the Indian government's goodwill and good faith in this regard. And it's a useful opportunity to bump up the level of discussions to take stock of where we are right now, so you have essentially a political-level discussion, as opposed to just the experts-level discussion. And they're going to explore ways that we can energize the discussions so that we can get this done." "We still have faith that we're going to be able to get this agreement done, and we believe that the Indian government is committed to that. But we're at a stage in these particular negotiations where we think we need to raise the level of dialogue to a political level in order to move it forward," McCormack added making the point that he will not go to the extent of saying that all hope is lost. "As a matter of fact, I would put it in the positive. I would say that we believe that these negotiations will ultimately yield an agreement that will allow us to move forward and fully implement the deal previously," McCormack said and refused to get into the details of what the specific frustrations of the administration are with the Government of India. "I don't want to get into specific issues because it's in negotiation. But the Indian government has raised a series of issues in these negotiations concerning our laws and suggesting solutions that would require us to change us laws. And we just -- we're not going to do that. We can't do that. "So we would suggest that we set aside that group of issues, and let's focus on areas where the two governments can negotiate and come to agreement. And it's -- it has been our suggested tactic that we focus on defining what are those baskets of issues. What are the basket of issues that wou ld require changes to the U.S. law? Put those aside. Let's define and work on those issues that we can actually negotiate on, that wouldn't necessitate changes to law," he said. "We've already passed legislation. And this is -- this would require -- this is an implementing agreement that itself would also have to be approved by the Congress. But we're not willing to consider at this point any further changes to our laws," McCormack insisted. Asked if India was conveyed this, the spokesman said "Look, we're not going to change our law. Just drop this. It's a dead end." "They have not taken that hint?" he was asked. "It's a good question. It deserves a fair answer. And there were a series of discussions at the expert level in Capetown. And those discussions moved forward, but they didn't quite yield the results that we had hoped for. So we're going to take this up to a higher -- take the opportunity of Foreign Secretary Menon's visit here to the United States to have a political-level dialogue," McCormack said. The senior State department official emphasized that he would characterise the Capetown Talks as having broken down, but only that the two sides had not made progress that was anticipated. Asked if the United States has started looking at a deadline or a realistic timeline to bring closure on the issue, McCormack argued that the administration would like to have the agreement in the timeline of the Bush administration. "We hope to move it forward as quickly as we possibly can. But there are certain realities of the legislative calendar here and certain realities -- this administration has about 20 months left in office. So we would very much like to conclude this agreement in the Bush administration. President Bush has been responsible for fundamentally changing the -- at least on the U.S. side -- the U.S.-India relationship," the Spokesman said. The spokesman also did not believe that the missile tests of India will stand in the way of successfully concluding the nuclear agreement with the United States. The issue of Iran and India's relationship with that country also figured in the briefing making the point that he had not heard of the Iran factor being mentioned as a specific cause of concern in the ongoing negotiations. "I haven't specifically heard it as a mention of concern in these negotiations. We've talked to the Indian government about various aspects of their relationship with Iran. We fully comprehend the fact that Iran and India are in the same neighbourhood and that they are going to have a certain kind of relationship. We have urged the Indian government to take a look at what sort of ties that they have with Iran and take into consideration the behaviour and fundamental orientation of this Iranian government when they look at what sort of interactions that they might have with the Iranian g overnment and including the Iranian military", McCormack said. "We're not going to dictate Iranian-Indian relations. That course is going to be defined by Iran and India together. We have, however, in public counseled them to consider the nature of the regime and the behavior of the regime in their decision-making process about what sort of interactions they have with the Iranian government," the Spokesman remarked. "Certainly we are pleased that the Indian government has in the past voted with the majority in the IAEA. We think it's an important message to Iran. But it was also an important step by the Indian government on the world stage in taking its place as an important voice in the international system for responsible behavior. And I'm sure that that was, as much as anything else, a motivation by the Indian government in deciding how it cast its vote," he said. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 8 Herald Sun: N-power unviable - AGL chief NEWS.com.au | April 22, 2007 12:00am THE head of Australia's largest power retailer, AGL Energy Ltd, believes a move to nuclear power will not happen in his lifetime because the power plants are uninsurable. AGL chief executive Paul Anthony made the comments on ABC Television as he described the company's aims to expand to hold 40 per cent of the market through organic growth. Mr Anthony said he was confident the company could do this despite the collapse of a recent $14 billion proposed merger with rival Origin Energy Ltd. The proposal was rejected by Origin in February and by March it was withdrawn. The nuclear power debate was a difficult one for Australia, Mr Anthony said. When asked if he thought he would live to see a nuclear power station in Australia, he said he did not. "Nuclear power stations are uninsurable so the insurer of last resort in all countries has to be the government. The government has to say we're going to underpin the uninsurable risk of the nuclear sector" he said. He added that nuclear power stations worked on a much larger scale of economy. "We're talking of thousands of megawatts of generation. It's a long-term investment and nobody really has effectively sorted out the long-term tailing costs of holding redundant nuclear stations for the next 300 years," he said. When it came to growing to AGL's maximum position in retail, Mr Anthony said this would mean expanding to five million customer accounts in a landscape where there was 12 million. That would be about 40 per cent of the market. Mr Anthony said that could happen without having to buy the NSW electricity distribution system from the government because, already, the company had 4.1 million customer accounts. "Whoever gets to that position first commands the lowest cost to serve," he said. "We are very close to our goal. Can we get there organically? I think we can." Reflecting on the Origin collapse, he said it was a complex transaction and involved fighting on two fronts. ". . . In other words, dealing with the anti-trust provisions and the hostile management of the takeover target," Mr Anthony said. While it had not been completely rejected, he said: "We look at it and say that it would be a very difficult position to place our shareholders in at this moment in time in opening ourselves up on two open fronts". He said the entire deregulation of the electricity markets could mean that the company could gain existing gas customers from its NSW market, where they had one million gas customers. "Once the process is taken through, we have the opportunity to convert the one million gas customers in New South Wales to electric customers," Mr Anthony said. "Even if we only achieve a 50 per cent success rate, that's half a million additional electric customers we could potentially get." In terms of the company's goal to quadruple gas production, he said there were numerous possibilities to get there and didn't rule out future acquisitions. AAP © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 9 Sydney Morning Herald: Proliferation must shape the nuclear debate - www.smh.com.au Opinion » Article Anthony Albanese April 23, 2007 Uranium is a moderate export earner, but a big principle in the Labor Party. That's why there will be considerable passion from delegates to the ALP national conference this week: delegates understand the uranium debate is about values. The principles behind the "no new uranium mines" policy are drawn from concerns about economic cost, safety, nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation. The policy also recognises that Labor governments should not repudiate contracts because of sovereign risk and compensation issues, while phasing out our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The advocates of change argue for more stringent nuclear proliferation controls and management of waste. However, expanding uranium mining before those controls are in place, and before nuclear waste can be safely disposed of, puts the cart before the horse. Given the nature of the nuclear fuel cycle, the ALP should be cautious and have those measures in place before considering approval for any new uranium mines. After 60 years of operation, the nuclear industry has failed to come up with solutions to nuclear waste and proliferation. The storage of nuclear waste remains a public policy black hole. In Australia, we have been unable to find a solution to low-level waste, let alone the high-level waste created by nuclear reactors. Australians are right to be cautious about storing waste for tens of thousands of years and assurances that geological, climate and political changes will not disturb this highly toxic material. Not a single repository exists in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear fuel cycle. A US site, Yucca Mountain, was due to be operational by now. However, after 20 years and $US7 billion, all that has been built is an access tunnel and it is unlikely to proceed because of a growing list of environmental impediments. Put simply, you can guarantee that uranium mining will lead to nuclear waste, but you can't guarantee it won't lead to nuclear weapons. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, warned about the dangers of nuclear proliferation: "Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation ... have been reawakened ... driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programs. The emergence of a nuclear black market ..." The activity of Iran is a reminder of the link between civil nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons proliferation. The former US vice-president Al Gore stated that in his eight years in the White House, each and every issue of nuclear proliferation was related to a civil nuclear reactor program. In the era of terrorism this threat is more acute. Nuclear proliferation is the cold, hard reality that must shape the nuclear debate and the debate over uranium. If you can't resolve the issue of proliferation and waste after 60 years, then maybe there just aren't any answers. The Bush Administration's plan for a global nuclear energy partnership is an admission of failure by the nuclear power industry's greatest advocates that the issues of waste and proliferation remain outstanding. And with all this risk, nuclear power does not solve our greatest global challenge: climate change. If we doubled the global use of nuclear energy we would use all known reserves of uranium in coming decades. We would achieve emission reductions of only another 5 per cent by 2050, compared with the 60 per cent reduction that is required to avoid dangerous climate change. Conservative commentators argue that our anti-nuclear position holds Labor back electorally. Does anyone seriously believe that there are any people in marginal electorates whose position is: "I would change my vote to Labor if only they would change to a pro-uranium policy?" Labor's electoral prospects are best served by consistent and coherent opposition to any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The "Light on the Hill" famously espoused at ALP conferences was not a product of radiation. Labor has always been strongest when the party shows the courage of its principles and applies them in a practical and pragmatic way to meet policy challenges. It is on that basis that a resolution of the outstanding nuclear waste and proliferation issues needs to be found before Labor governments consider removing our long-held opposition to new uranium mines. Anthony Albanese is a Labor member of Federal Parliament and the manager of Opposition business. When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 10 Sydney Morning Herald: ALP 'not damaged by nuclear debate' - www.smh.com.au April 22, 2007 - 12:34PM Labor's water spokesman Anthony Albanese denies he is being disloyal to party leader Kevin Rudd by opposing his stance on uranium mines. Mr Albanese will push for the no new mines policy to be retained at the ALP's upcoming national conference in Sydney, putting him at odds with Mr Rudd. "No, I'm not at all," Mr Albanese told the Nine Network, in response to a suggestion he was being disloyal. "The Labor Party is a democratic party. "It's part of our tradition of 116 years that Labor Party members get a say, particularly at national conference which is binding on the party." Mr Albanese said it was not necessarily the case that the numbers had been worked to ensure Mr Rudd's position won. Nor was it correct that Labor's chance of winning this year's federal election would be damaged if the party voted against its leader, he said. "The logical endpoint of: `Let's not have any debate in the party' is we may as well not have a conference and the leader gets to decide the policy," he said. "I think Kevin Rudd certainly respects the traditions and forums of the party. "And I don't think it hurts Labor at all to show the Australian public that we are prepared to have democratic debate over the future of the nation over a three-day conference next weekend." Mr Albanese said he would push to amend the policy to ensure safeguards were put in place before any new mines were approved by a future Labor government. "I'll go all out to put forward the position which I think has the overwhelming support of the Labor party membership - there's been two branches in the whole nation I think that haven't supported the existing policy," he said. Former opposition leader Kim Beazley caused a split in the party last July when he announced his support for changing the 23-year-old policy, urging it be reversed at the conference. © 2007 AAP Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 11 Sydney Morning Herald: Power retailer AGL rejects nuclear power - www.smh.com.au April 22, 2007 - 3:19PM The head of Australia's largest power retailer, AGL Energy Ltd, believes a move to nuclear power will not happen in his lifetime because the power plants are uninsurable. AGL chief executive Paul Anthony made the comments on ABC Television as he described the company's aims to expand to hold 40 per cent of the market through organic growth. Mr Anthony said he was confident the company could do this despite the collapse of a recent $14 billion proposed merger with rival Origin Energy Ltd. The proposal was rejected by Origin in February and by March it was withdrawn. The nuclear power debate was a difficult one for Australia, Mr Anthony said. When asked if he thought he would live to see a nuclear power station in Australia, he said he did not. "Nuclear power stations are uninsurable so the insurer of last resort in all countries has to be the government. The government has to say we're going to underpin the uninsurable risk of the nuclear sector" he said. He added that nuclear power stations worked on a much larger scale of economy. "We're talking of thousands of megawatts of generation. It's a long-term investment and nobody really has effectively sorted out the long-term tailing costs of holding redundant nuclear stations for the next 300 years," he said. When it came to growing to AGL's maximum position in retail, Mr Anthony said this would mean expanding to five million customer accounts in a landscape where there was 12 million. That would be about 40 per cent of the market. Mr Anthony said that could happen without having to buy the NSW electricity distribution system from the government because, already, the company had 4.1 million customer accounts. "Whoever gets to that position first commands the lowest cost to serve," he said. "We are very close to our goal. Can we get there organically? I think we can." Reflecting on the Origin collapse, he said it was a complex transaction and involved fighting on two fronts. "... In other words, dealing with the anti-trust provisions and the hostile management of the takeover target," Mr Anthony said. While it had not been completely rejected, he said: "We look at it and say that it would be a very difficult position to place our shareholders in at this moment in time in opening ourselves up on two open fronts". He said the entire deregulation of the electricity markets could mean that the company could gain existing gas customers from its NSW market, where they had one million gas customers. "Once the process is taken through, we have the opportunity to convert the one million gas customers in New South Wales to electric customers," Mr Anthony said. "Even if we only achieve a 50 per cent success rate, that's half a million additional electric customers we could potentially get." In terms of the company's goal to quadruple gas production, he said there were numerous possibilities to get there and didn't rule out future acquisitions. © 2007 AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 12 Sydney Morning Herald: Decision on nuclear energy 'this year' - www.smh.com.au April 22, 2007 - 9:59PM The man who headed the government's nuclear task force believes Australia will make a decision this year on whether or not to embrace nuclear power. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) chairman Ziggy Switkowski helped formalise the nuclear debate in Australia when he headed a government task force last year. The task force predicted Australia could have its first nuclear plant in 10 to 15 years, with as many as 25 reactors supplying up to a third of the country's electricity by 2050. Labor has indicated it won't allow nuclear power in Australia if it wins government but Prime Minister John Howard is backing the concept of a local industry. Dr Switkowski told ABC radio's Sunday Profile he thinks some decisions on whether Australia will take the next step in the nuclear fuel cycle will be made this year. He said the nature of the debate about nuclear power had changed considerably from 12 months ago, when Mr Howard indicated that it was an issue the nation needed to think about. "It was literally a toxic subject ... it doesn't mean the needle has shifted in terms of community support for nuclear power but in terms of the nature of the discussion, the fact that most people now have a view and are prepared to engage," Dr Switkowski said. He believed there was a strong case for nuclear power, based on Australia's growing energy demands and the need for energy sources which were less damaging to the environment. "Australia, having nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium and making a substantial business out of that, not being part of the nuclear fuel cycle, while being concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, appears to be inconsistent," Dr Switkowski said. If Australia was to accept nuclear power, it would need a waste repository for the fuel cells which helped generate the energy. But Dr Switkowski said Australia had not even managed the issue of what to do with low-level medical and research waste very well. "To be brutally frank, Australia has made a meal out of this (medical waste) debate, where other countries have had to step up to it and have it resolved quite sensibly," he said. "(Medical waste is) distributed over hundreds of locations in hospitals and universities, in a way that is far from satisfactory. "They should all be collected and documented and stored in one location." © 2007 AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 13 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear is part of climate solution - PM - www.smh.com.au April 22, 2007 - 12:54PM The Labor Party needs to accept nuclear power is part of the solution to global warming, Prime Minister John Howard says. His comments come after Labor's resources spokesman Anthony Albanese earlier said he would push for the ALP's no new mines policy to be retained. The ALP's national conference, starting Friday, will canvass whether to reverse its long-standing opposition to opening any new uranium mines, known as the three mines, or no new mines, policy. Mr Albanese said he would push to ensure safeguards were put in place before any new mines were approved by a future Labor government. Mr Howard said the argument should have been resolved a long time ago. "I'm bemused because they are arguing about something we resolved 25 years ago," Mr Howard said. He said the Fraser government had worked out a way to safely mine and export uranium following the Ranger Enquiry. "The Labor Party is very blinkered and old fashioned and backward-looking when it comes to nuclear power," Mr Howard said. "If you're worried about the future of the climate, if you're worried about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you've got to be willing to look at nuclear power because it's the cleanest and greenest and over time it will become a cheapest source of electricity generation than anything else." © 2007 AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 14 Economic Times: US says no to changing its laws for N-deal with India PTI[ SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 2007 01:25:55 PM] WASHINGTON: Expressing frustration over the slow pace of negotiations on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, the Bush administration, however, has made it clear that some of the things insisted upon by India require changing American laws which cannot be accommodated. "Fair to say that there's probably some frustration on the part of the administration as well as the Congress on the pace of these negotiations," State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters here. His comments assume significance as they came days ahead of a scheduled visit of Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on April 30 and May one to Washington followed by a visit of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns to India in May to speed up the negotiations. Replying to a query on Burns' visit, he said "Nobody's questioning the Indian government's goodwill and good faith in this regard. And it's a useful opportunity to bump up the level of discussions to take stock of where we are right now, so you have essentially a political-level discussion, as opposed to just the experts-level discussion. And they're going to explore ways that we can energise the discussions so that we can get this done." "We still have faith that we're going to be able to get this agreement done, and we believe that the Indian government is committed to that. But we're at a stage in these particular negotiations where we think we need to raise the level of dialogue to a political level in order to move it forward," McCormack added, making the point that he will not go to the extent of saying that all hope is lost. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 15 Bangkok Post: New panel to pave way for nuclear-energy acceptance Monday April 23, 2007 McKinsey Quarterly Global Insights ELECTRICITY / ALTERNATIVE FUELS YUTHANA PRAIWAN Getting the public to correctly understand nuclear power projects and safety technology is the first task of a panel formed to supervise the country's first nuclear power plant, according to Kopr Kritayakirana, the panel's chairman. The National Energy Policy Council established the committee two weeks ago to conduct a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant. "Apart from the capital and personnel required before undertaking the project, a good understanding among the public is necessity when building a nuclear power plant," said Dr Kopr, an adviser to the Science and Technology minister and a senior adviser to the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). "Rules and regulations and international treaties to certify the use of nuclear power will also be prepared in advance." Under the 15-year power development plan (PDP) ending in 2021, Thailand is required to build power plants to generate 31,800 megawatts of electricity. Nuclear power is slated to produce 4,000 MW of electricity starting in 2020-21. Natural gas would account for 18,200 MW, while 2,800 MW will come from coal, 1,700 MW from small power producer projects and 5,100 MW from imports. Officials have said that a nuclear power plant would require up to 13 years to complete. Seven years are needed to prepare the location, technology, personnel, the nuclear waste dump site and the legal framework. Another six years would be needed for construction. The panel would also focus on advanced technologies that can be applied to safeguard the environment, the project's economic viability and a comparative study of other types of fuels, Dr Kopr said. He said that using nuclear power for electricity production was unavoidable given that world oil prices would likely stay above US$60 per barrel, while other renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind and solar power are costly. The use of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal for electricity production is also a threat to global warming. Nuclear energy would be a better option since the power plant would not emit carbon dioxide, he said. The committee plans to hold its first meeting within the next two weeks. Its members include senior officials from the Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Foreign Affairs and Education ministries, the National Economic and Social Development Board and the Budget Bureau. © Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2007 Privacy ***************************************************************** 16 West Australian: ALP nuclear policy change 'no done deal' thewest.com.au 22nd April 2007, 17:51 WST Kevin Rudd will ask his party to overturn its 25-year opposition to new Australian uranium mines at Labor's national conference but anti-nuclear champions deny change is in the bag. Uranium and industrial relations are shaping up as the two biggest challenges for Mr Rudd during the three-day conference, which begins on Friday. The new leader is a hit in the opinion polls but Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese believes Mr Rudd won't necessarily get it all his own way at the conference. Mr Albanese will be leading the push for Labor to retain its no new uranium mines policy, once known as the three mines policy. "I'll go all out to put forward the position which I think has the overwhelming support of the Labor Party membership," he told the Nine Network. "And in terms of electoral politics, I just think it is beyond belief to argue that there are people out there ... who say 'Gee I'll change my vote to Labor if only they change their policy on no new uranium mines.' "I just think that's an absurd proposition." West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter and Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett, who ran as a candidate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party in 1984, are other high profile ALP members who back the current policy. But few expect Mr Rudd to be rolled on uranium and many suspect the numbers on the conference floor are already fixed. A loss to the leader would seriously damage his standing and Labor's chances at the next election. Mr Albanese, however, denies it's a done deal. "I'll be seeking support for an amendment which says essentially that let's not put the cart before the horse," he said. "Before Labor considers any new uranium mines I think ... we need in place an effective nuclear non-proliferation regime." Industrial relations will be the other main headache for the ALP faithful next weekend, with Labor seeking to strike a balance between the needs of business and union demands in its policy. Mr Rudd last week offered a taste of Labor's industrial strategy but is refusing to say when exactly the full policy will be forthcoming. Australian Council of Trade Unions boss Greg Combet is demanding Mr Rudd reveal the detail of Labor's industrial relations policy at the conference. However, Mr Rudd will only commit to releasing the policy "before the election". The disagreement over timing comes days after Mr Rudd told Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union boss Doug Cameron he needed to move into the 21st century on industrial matters. But the government claims any kind of tensions between Mr Rudd and the labour movement is manufactured to make it appear the opposition leader is standing up to union bosses. AAP Subscriptions | Advertise with thewest.com.au West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 17 Independent Online: Critical review could call time on British Energy reactors - By Tim Webb Published: 22 April 2007 The fate of two of British Energy's troubled reactors could be sealed by the end of the month when the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) publishes its 10-yearly "Periodic Safety Review" into Hinkley Point B in Somerset and Hunterston B, on the west coast of Scotland. The two reactors, closed for the past six months after cracks were found on its boiler tubes, are due to shut down permanently in 2011. But British Energy, which generates around a fifth of the UK's electricity when all its reactors are operational, is understood to want to extend the lifetime of the reactors to ward off a looming generation gap in the next decade. It would have to start planning the extensions over the next 18 months. The regulator's report, though, could scupper these plans. The NII carries out comprehensive safety reviews every 10 years. It is a coincidence that the turn of these two reactors comes when they have been beset by serious technical problems that have dragged on much longer than expected. The report will be the first detailed public review of their performance and is expected to be highly critical. British Energy, the UK's largest power generator, is still waiting for NII permission to restart the reactors. It said in a trading statement on 10 April that it expected to get approval to resume generation at 70 per cent capacity this month. It has not been a good week for the UK nuclear industry. It emerged that at least 60 autopsies were carried out on deceased BNFL workers without their families' permission between 1971 and 1992. The Trade and Industry Secretary, Alistair Darling, announced an investigation. Some 20,000 occupation medical records of deceased BNFL workers will have to be examined to find out if similar autopsies were carried out. The Independent on Sunday has also learnt that another 20,000 occupational medical records of deceased UK Atomic Energy Authority workers will be reviewed. © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 18 Tennessean: As TVA prepares outline for future, skeptics gather - Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, 04/22/07 - Tennessean.com By ANNE PAINE Staff Writer The Tennessee Valley Authority is looking 10 years into the future to build a plan that will affect the environment and electricity ratepayers statewide, and a group of conservationists say the agency's view is not large enough. Their concern built when TVA gave notice April 18 that it was holding public meetings to talk about its draft 2007 Strategic Plan. One of the agency's first meetings is 6 p.m., Monday at the Cool Springs Marriott hotel. Kilowatt Ours, an energy-conservation group, has rented its own room there for a pre-meeting public gathering at 4:30 p.m. for a panel discussion. "We want to ensure that energy efficiency is at the top of TVA's strategy for meeting the growing demand for energy in the valley," said Alex Tapia, assistant director of Kilowatt Ours. "Right now, it's not," he said. "They're already proposing new nuclear sites. The largest, cheapest, cleanest, quickest source of new energy for the valley is in our existing homes and buildings through energy efficiency." TVA spokeswoman Barbara Martocci said energy conservation is under consideration, but there's more to the picture. "We also need to prepare for managing the 2 percent growth that continues in the Valley," she said. And nuclear plants provide a lot of energy at one site, she said. Coal-fueled power plants are one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming, and mercury, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TVA serves about 8.7 million people in the Tennessee Valley who will be affected by the plan. Nashville Electric Service and other Midstate electricity distributors get their electricity from the TVA. 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. All comments posted should comply with the Tennessean.com's terms of service TVA generates power for about 8.7 million customers in the Tennessee Valley. Sources of electricity are: Coal: 60 percent Nuclear: 27 percent Hydroelectric: 10 percent Other: 3 percent Contact Anne Paine at apaine@tennessean.com or 259-8071. Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Oshkosh Northwestern: Dominion seeks OK to build new reactor Richard Ryman column: Posted April 22, 2007 Dominion Resources Inc. moves a step closer to being allowed to build a new nuclear reactor with an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing Tuesday in Virginia. Dominion is among a handful of U.S. utilities pursuing government permission to build a nuclear plant. A new nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in more than 30 years. The Richmond-based company, which owns the Kewaunee Power Station, filed an application in 2003 for a site in Virginia where it also operates a nuclear power plant. If approved by the board, the permit would give Dominion between 10 and 20 years to decide whether to build additional nuclear plants at the Virginia site and get Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval to build and operate them. Dominion has not said it will build a new plant. Contact Richard Ryman at (920) 431-8342 or rryman@greenbaypressgazette.com Contact us at 920-235-7700. thenorthwestern.com is a Gannett Company website. ***************************************************************** 20 UPI: India nuke accord falters United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: April 21, 2007 at 10:57 AM WASHINGTON April 21 (UPI) -- A nuclear pact seen as a sign of India's deepening goodwill with the United States may be in jeopardy, it was reported Saturday. The accord has turned fragile as Indian officials argue about whether its limitations on their nuclear activities offend the country's sense of sovereignty, the New York Times reported. "We do not doubt their good faith. We are friends. We will get through this, R. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, told The Times. The accord, announced by President Bush last year and approved by Congress, hangs on whether or not India should be treated as a nuclear weapons state retaining the right to test its weapons and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Negotiators from both countries met this week at the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group in South Africa and are to continue discussions next month in Washington. The accord will determine whether India can buy nuclear fuel and reactors from the United States or anyone else. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: Jordan parliament clears way for nuclear power - Sun Apr 22, 3:08 PM ET AMMAN (AFP) - The Jordanian parliament passed legislation Sunday clearing the way for the small energy-poor kingdom to develop nuclear power, the official Petra news agency said. Jordan is the latest in a string of Sunni Arab countries to announce plans to develop civil nuclear programmes in the face of the controversial programme of Shiite Iran. Egypt and the pro-Western Gulf states have already unveiled similar projects. The new law "authorises the use of nuclear energy in the production of electricity and the desalination of water to meet growing demand in both areas," Petra said. Jordan, which currently depends on imports for 95 percent of its energy needs, plans to bring a first nuclear power station into operation by 2015. Power generation for water desalination is a major goal with the kingdom one of the 10 poorest countries in the world in terms of water resources. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 The Tribune: Nuclear deal: US not keen on more changes Chandigarh, India - Main News Ashish Kumar Sen writes from Washington The US is not willing to consider "any further changes" to its laws to accommodate Indian demands over the civilian nuclear deal, a State Department spokesman said on Friday. Speaking to reporters on the eve of foreign secretary Shyam Saran's visit to Washington, Sean McCormack said the Indian Government had raised "a series of issues" in the so-called 123 Agreement negotiations concerning US laws. He said New Delhi had suggested solutions that would require the US to change its laws. "We're not going to do that, we can't do that," McCormack said. "So we will suggest that we set aside that group of issues and let's focus on areas where the two governments can negotiate and come to agreement." President George W. Bush's administration opened itself up to criticism in 2005 when it struck the civilian nuclear deal with India, which is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In December, 2006, the US Congress passed the "Henry J. Hyde Act for civilian nuclear cooperation with India" that required changes to the US laws to make an exception for India. McCormack said Washington was "frustrated" by the slow pace of negotiations with India. A similar sentiment has been echoed by under secretary of state R. Nicholas Burns, the US point person on the deal. He said the US had suggested that the two sides focused on defining the "baskets of issues" that would require changes to the US law and “put those aside.” He said negotiators should “define and work on those issues that we can actually negotiate on.” Anupam Srivastava at the University of Georgia told The Tribune that India was seeking “consent right” to reprocess spent fuel that came from the US — “and by extension, the same rights from other Nuclear Suppliers Group members who will supply fuel to India.” “In principle, the US government is not opposed to granting the consent right, but there are a couple of inter-related issues on which the two sides have yet to finalise their positions — and until then 123 negotiations cannot be completed,” he said. A US source close to the talks told The Tribune that the main Indian obstacle in the path of the deal was the Department of Atomic Energy, which found it very difficult to live with the requirements of the US law. Menon is scheduled to visit Washington early next week. He will meet Burns and the two are expected to focus on the nuclear deal and the state of negotiations. McCormack said Burns would tell Menon there was “some frustration on the part of the administration as well as the Congress on the pace of these negotiations.” Adding to Washington’s frustration, a recent Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Cape Town didn’t yield the results the Bush administration had hoped for. Denying that these talks had broken down, McCormack said they just didn’t make the kind of progress that Washington had hoped for and that this matter should also be discussed with Menon. Despite the frustration, he was optimistic that the deal would still go through. “We still have faith that we’re going to be able to get this agreement done and we believe that the Indian Government is committed to that, but we’re at a stage in these particular negotiations where we think we need to raise the level of dialogue to a political level in order to move it forward,” McCormack said. ***************************************************************** 23 Telegraph: 'How we made the Chernobyl rain' By Richard Gray, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:55pm BST 21/04/2007 Russian military pilots have described how they created rain clouds to protect Moscow from radioactive fallout after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Major Aleksei Grushin repeatedly took to the skies above Chernobyl and Belarus and used artillery shells filled with silver iodide to make rain clouds that would "wash out" radioactive particles drifting towards densely populated cities. More than 4,000 square miles of Belarus were sacrificed to save the Russian capital from the toxic radioactive material. "The wind direction was moving from west to east and the radioactive clouds were threatening to reach the highly populated areas of Moscow, Voronezh, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl," he told Science of Superstorms, a BBC2 documentary to be broadcast today. "If the rain had fallen on those cities it would've been a catastrophe for millions. The area where my crew was actively influencing the clouds was near Chernobyl, not only in the 30km zone, but out to a distance of 50, 70 and even 100 km." In the wake of the catastrophic meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, people in Belarus reported heavy, black-coloured rain around the city of Gomel. Shortly beforehand, aircraft had been spotted circling in the sky ejecting coloured material behind them. Moscow has always denied that cloud seeding took place after the accident, but last year on the 20th anniversary of the disaster, Major Grushin was among those honoured for bravery. He claims he received the award for flying cloud seeding missions during the Chernobyl clean-up. A second Soviet pilot, who asked not to be named, also confirmed to the programme makers that cloud seeding operations took place as early as two days after the explosion. Alan Flowers, a British scientist who was one of the first Western scientists allowed into the area to examine the extent of radioactive fallout around Chernobyl, said that the population in Belarus was exposed to radiation doses 20 to 30 times higher than normal as a result of the rainfall, causing intense radiation poisoning in children. Mr Flowers was expelled from Belarus in 2004 after claiming that Russia had seeded the clouds. He said: "The local population say there was no warning before these heavy rains and the radioactive fallout arrived." © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms ***************************************************************** 24 Japan Times: Abe, Bush to boost post-Kyoto measures japantimes.co.jp Web Sunday, April 22, 2007 Kyodo News Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President George W. Bush will agree this week to boost cooperation on fighting global warming beyond the 2012 time frame for the Kyoto Protocol, Japanese government sources said Saturday. The agreement will be included in a joint document to be announced after the two leaders hold a summit Friday in the U.S., the sources said. The two nations are making final arrangements on such measures such as establishing a sub-Cabinet-level consultation body and jointly developing innovative energy-saving and other environment-related technologies. The agreement will follow an accord reached by Abe and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on April 11 to cooperate on creating an effective post-Kyoto framework from 2013. Tokyo has been working to beef up international efforts to fight global warming, an issue high on the agenda for next year's summit of the Group of Eight major nations to be hosted by Japan. By securing commitments from China and the U.S., which have not signed the Kyoto Protocol, Abe wants to take the lead in the annual G-8 summit, especially over the EU, which is also pushing post-Kyoto efforts, the sources said. Bush maintains that he will not support the Kyoto Protocol, but he stated a commitment to reducing gasoline consumption and taking other measures to fight global warming in his State of the Union address in January. Against this backdrop, the two nations decided to seek an agreement on post-Kyoto cooperation during this week's Abe-Bush meeting. However, uncertainties remain over whether Tokyo and Washington can agree to cooperate in the process of creating a new successor framework. At its summit in March, the EU adopted a comprehensive package of steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. Japan remains reluctant over the EU initiative because China and the U.S. are unlikely to agree to such an ambitious numerical target. The effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol because it does not cover major emerging countries such as China and India, while the U.S. refused to ratify the pact. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 25 Japan Times: Seven nuke utilities told to conduct new checks japantimes.co.jp Web Saturday, April 21, 2007 Kyodo News The government ordered four power utilities Friday to conduct additional checks, along with regular inspections, on seven nuclear plants in order to prevent further data falsifications and reactor defect and accident coverups in an industry that has been plagued with such misdeeds. Observers, however, see this administrative "punishment" as limp-wristed and indicative of the ministry giving the utilities special consideration. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry did not order any of the utilities' nuclear power plants shut down, saying that their latest inspections show they are safe. The order was part of a 30-point set of measures the ministry released the same day to ensure the nation's nuclear plants are safe and to rebuild public trust in atomic power after past accidents and coverups and recent revelations by two utilities that they concealed criticality accidents and other utilities came clean on defect coverups. The targeted utilities are Tokyo Electric Power Co., Hokuriku Electric Power Co., Chugoku Electric Power Co. and Japan Atomic Power Co. Not targeted, however, is Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., whose spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, has a design flaw, a miscalculation for earthquake resistance, that its maker, a subsidiary of Hitachi Ltd., allegedly kept secret for 11 years until it was reported Thursday. Officials at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, an arm of the ministry, will also carry out special monitoring and supervision of the seven plants. The seven are Tepco's Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 plants in Fukushima Prefecture and the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata Prefecture, Hokuriku Electric's Shika plant in Ishikawa Prefecture, Chugoku Electric's Shimane plant in Shimane Prefecture, Japan Atomic's Tsuruga plant in Fukui Prefecture and Tokai plant in Ibaraki Prefecture. The agency suspects the operations of nine reactors at the seven plants were in violation of the Electric Utility Law or other reactor laws. Meanwhile, the trade ministry ordered Tepco's Komukawa hydroelectric plant in Yamanashi Prefecture and Hokuriku Electric's hydroelectric plant in Ichinose, Ishikawa Prefecture, to be shut down until repairs they have done meet government standards. In the past, the ministry ordered tough punishments, including business license cancellations and suspended reactor operations, when utilities were found to have faked reports on reactor accidents and safety defects. In 2003, Tepco was ordered to shut down all of its reactors in order to perform inspections and repairs, after it was revealed by a whistle-blower that the utility had covered up reactor faults. At the time, however, it failed to disclose the 1978 criticality accident at its Fukushima No. 1 plant. Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari told reporters that he wants to remind management and employees at utilities once again that they are tasked with the vital undertaking of providing the public with a stable, and safe, electricity supply. He stressed the importance of atomic power, calling it the most promising and environmentally friendly energy source for the future. Asked if he thinks the latest steps are lukewarm since they don't entail punishment, including reactor shutdowns, Amari reckoned, without elaborating, that the utilities "have had enough social disadvantages." "It is most important (for the government) to disclose their irregularities, such as data falsifications, to society and to make them build an accountable system," he said. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 26 NLD: Waterford Defends Its Credibility In The Millstone Tax Appeal Case New London Day By Patricia Daddona Published on 4/21/2007 in Home »Region »Region News The town of Waterford did not seek a second appraisal of the Millstone Power Station in an attempt to pump up the value of the nuclear complex, an attorney for the town argues in a legal brief filed Friday. Dominion, Millstone's owner, had made the claim in an earlier filing in its long-running appeal of its tax assessment. In his brief, attorney Daniel Casagrande chides Dominion for speculating about the town's motives. He says the town's assessor, Michael Bekech, and other town officials maintained a “hands-off” approach in regard to numbers submitted by the town's first appraiser, John Goodman of AUS Consulting, of Milwaukee, Wis., and its second appraiser, Mark Pomykacz of Federal Appraisal & Consulting LLC of White House Station, N.J. Superior Court Judge Arnold W. Aronson of the state's Court of Tax and Administrative Appeals in New Britain is hearing the case, which dates to 2003, when Dominion first sued Waterford over the town's tax levy on Millstone, calling it excessive and unfair. The lawsuit covers the tax years 2002 through 2006. In 2002, the town assigned Millstone a fair market value of just under $1.2 billion. Dominion's appraiser, Michael Remsha of American Appraisal Inc. of Milwaukee, used three appraisal methods — cost, income and sales — in determining Millstone's fair market value as $1 billion. Pomykacz, the town's second appraiser, claimed the property was worth slightly more than $1.3 billion, the sum the plants sold for in 2001. In Connecticut, a property's assessed value is 70 percent of its fair market value. At stake are millions of dollars in tax revenue for the town. Dominion's claim that the town deliberately tried to inflate Millstone's value by changing the scope of Pomykacz's assignment after a decommissioned reactor at Millstone was found to have no value is “preposterous,” Casagrande says in his brief. Millstone's value dropped in 2002 by 60 percent, which he says shows the town was not trying to inflate its value. Casagrande also defends Pomykacz's use of the income appraisal approach as the best measure of a nuclear plant's value. The income approach relies on how much a property would fetch in the marketplace. Remsha's use of the two other appraisal methods — cost, and sales — is not credible because they are mere “academic exercises,” Casagrande says. Remsha favors the cost approach, which evaluates the cost to replace property and then discounts it for measurable losses like wear and tear and declines in economic value over time. In Dominion's earlier brief, attorney Charles Ray argues that the town ignored the conclusions of its first appraiser, Goodman, who favored the cost and sales methods over the income approach. Ray says that the use of all three methods is necessary when evaluating nuclear power plants. “While investors may place primary reliance on the income approach, they are making an investment in an operating business and not appraising a nuclear plant's tangible assets for property tax purposes,” Ray writes. Dominion also criticizes Pomykacz for portraying his analysis as conservative, saying it shows he “can be influenced to manipulate his data and conclusions in order to reach a desired result.” Remsha's report, which Dominion claims Goodman's analysis supports, is the only testimony “worthy of belief,” Ray concludes. p.daddona@theday.com Waterford Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 27 AU ABC: AGL plans to get bigger and greener Inside Business - 22/04/2007: Date : 22/04/2007 Reporter: Alan Kohler ALAN KOHLER: Well, one of the hot topics right now, of course, is global warming, which is combining with a new battle for scale to set the scene for a round of takeovers in the Australian energy business, especially after the failure of AGL to get up a merger with one of its main competitors, Origin Energy. I spoke to the architect of that scheme and one of the most aggressive deal makers around, AGL's Paul Anthony, about how he plans to get bigger and greener. Paul Anthony, you've adopted what you call a four-corners, big-goal strategy, which is quite ambitious in terms of generation capacity, customer numbers, gas production and so on, but now that the Origin Energy deal has fallen through, how will you achieve it? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, look, I think the Origin transaction, all that’s done for us was turbocharge that four-corners strategy. It got there virtually overnight but our big goal is to expand our business to its maximum position in retail, so that means about 5 million customer accounts in a landscape that has 12 million, so we're round about 40 per cent. Whoever gets to that position first commands the lowest cost to serve and - ALAN KOHLER: Did you pick that because the ACCC won't let you go beyond 5 million? PAUL ANTHONY: It's a general rule in any market that around about the 40 per cent mark, you start bumping up against anti-trust provisions, so that's usually the cap on any market constraints so, of course, bearing in mind the ACCC concerns, that's about the limit we'd like to get to. ALAN KOHLER: Do you think you'll have to come back with an actual takeover offer for Origin? I mean, that would turbo charge your goals as well? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, look, one of the things you learn in business is never say never but it is a very complex transaction, the Origin transaction. It did rely heavily on a consensual approach to craft something that would meet the ACCC concerns and if that's done in a hostile way, it's going to be very difficult to fight on two fronts, i.e. a hostile management of the takeover target and dealing with the very complex anti-trust provisions. ALAN KOHLER: So have you looked at it as a possibility or just rejected it completely? PAUL ANTHONY: No, we never reject anything out of hand but, you know, we look at it and say that would be a very difficult position to place our shareholders in at this moment in time, in opening ourselves up on two open fronts. ALAN KOHLER: So, you mentioned customer numbers. Five million is your goal - can you get there without buying the New South Wales electricity distribution system from the Government? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, yeah, look, I think organic growth is a good potential for us. If you look at our customer base today and where we were when we’d done the demerger with Alinta, we had about 2.7 million customer accounts. Well, where we stand today is about 4.1 million customer accounts, so we're very close to our goal. Can we get there organically? We think we can. At the moment, New South Wales may be contemplating a sale of their retail businesses but one thing that they have to contemplate is the entire deregulation of the electricity markets. We have about 1 million gas customers in New South Wales. We don't have many electric customers in New South Wales because it's not fully open to contestability. Once that process is taken through, we stand the opportunity of converting some of our gas customers to electric customers and even if we only achieve a 50 per cent success rate, that's half a million additional electric customers we could potentially get. ALAN KOHLER: You've committed to a big increase in gas production, like quadrupling your gas production. You can't possibly do that without acquisition can you, and big acquisitions? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, look, I think if you - again, if you contrast our business to where we were because that's the easiest way of looking at it - a year ago we had negligible gas interests at all. We were a very substantial purchaser of gas but our own equity interest in gas was negligible. Today, we stand with 1,000 PJs of equity gas, so we're a third the size of Origin already and we're a quarter of the size of Santos' indigenous gas reserves. But, of course, to continue that we would need somewhere in the region of quadrupling that position because we don't look at equity gassing for the next two years. We look at saying, ‘Well, 50 per cent of our gas needs over the next 20 years - wouldn't that be ideal if that was our own gas and that takes us up to the level of about 4000 PJs?’ But do we need to do that overnight? No, we've got sufficient gas reserves for the next 10, 15 years, so we've got a bit of time to play out our strategy, but like most business people I’m impatient. I want to get there. ALAN KOHLER: You could do it overnight by bidding for Santos? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, that's a complex one because of the 15 per cent withholding type of limit on their share register but look, there's numerous possibilities for us to get there. ALAN KOHLER: With electricity, I suppose the challenge is similar to the challenge for everybody and that is to find base-load power that isn't coal, and what do you think the answer is in relation to that, not just for AGL but for society generally? PAUL ANTHONY: Look, I don't think overnight we're going to displace coal. Coal is a very predominant feature in the electricity market in Australia but over time, we have to phase that out as a primary fuel unless we can find ways to abate the carbon emission, and it's my particular view that we're a little way off there. We're probably 10, 15 years away before we can find a reasonable low-cost means, technical means, of either abating or capturing CO2, so in the meantime, something has to fill that gap. With the energy demand growing at 2 to 3 per cent per annum in Australia compound, that means new capacity has to be brought online. I don't believe that coal will get there so gas has to be the substitute fuel of choice for generation. ALAN KOHLER: For base load? PAUL ANTHONY: Yeah, base load. If we stretch our minds forward to a carbon-constrained environment where producers of generation from brown or black coal are penalised for their carbon output, that'll reduce the output of coal-fired power stations. They may invest in flue gas clean up, like flue gas desulphurisation or other ways of scrubbing the emissions from power stations. That's expensive, it's capital intensive, it reduces the output of power stations as well, so in an increasing profile of demand, when you're reducing the output of coal, something has to fill the gap and I believe new gas fire generation will be the ideal solution to fill that. ALAN KOHLER: What about nuclear? PAUL ANTHONY: I think in nuclear, it's a difficult debate for Australia to use nuclear. One, nuclear power stations are uninsurable, so the insurer of last resort in all countries has to be the government, so the government have to take a deep intake of breath and say, ‘We're going to underpin the uninsurable risk of the nuclear sector’. Two, nuclear power stations generally work on a much larger scale of economy so you’re talking of thousands of megawatts of generation. It's a long-term investment and nobody really has effectively sorted out the long-term tail-end costs of holding redundant nuclear stations for the next 300 years. ALAN KOHLER: So, do you think you'll live long enough to see a nuclear power station in Australia? PAUL ANTHONY: No, I don't, personally. That doesn't mean to say I project a short life by the way. ALAN KOHLER: I should hope so. And the other technology that's had a bit of attention lately is hot rocks in South Australia. What do you think of that? PAUL ANTHONY: I think there's a whole basket of renewable technologies that are starting to emerge. ALAN KOHLER: But that in particular looks, you know, quite interesting. PAUL ANTHONY: It does look interesting. I mean the one thing with hot rocks, it has to - you know, electricity is like good wine, it doesn't travel very well, so generation has to be generated reasonably close to demand sources, so you need hot rocks which are close to major load centres. But in a portfolio of renewable generation which includes solar, it includes wind, it includes biomass, which I think is going to be an important sector, and it includes geothermal energy, potentially wave, even if it's submersible tidal wave form, you look at that as a whole and there's plenty of technologies that can meet a good proportion of the energy projections - maybe 15 to 20 percent of Australia’s demand. ALAN KOHLER: We'll have to leave it there. Thanks very much for joining us, Paul Anthony. VIDEO: The scene is set for a new round of takeovers in the Australian energy business, especially after the failure of AGL to get up a merger with one of its main competitors, Origin Energy. Alan Kohler spoke to the architect of that scheme and one of the most aggressive deal makers around, Paul Anthony from AGL, about how he now plans to get bigger and greener. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] ***************************************************************** 28 Forex News: China planner sees limited role for nuclear power ForexTV...The Source for Forex News Forex TV GLOBAL NEWS 04/21/07 12:03 pm (GMT) BOAO, China (AFX) - China is developing nuclear power as it looks for alternative forms of energy, but the role of the energy source will be limited by a shortage of uranium, a senior state planner said. Chen Deming, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said that nuclear energy will only be a provisional solution to meeting the nation's growing demand for energy. "Nuclear has a lot of advantages, but geographically-speaking for China it is not great as most reserves are overseas and there will not be enough to meet all of our energy demands," Chen told the Boao Forum for Asia, an annual regional conference. The means of disposing of radioactive material is another concern, Chen said, noting that even advanced countries like the US and France have to resort to burying waste underground, where it will remain toxic for centuries. "Nuclear cannot be a long-term solution, it is a provisional and partial solution for future needs. Also the burying of radioactive waste underground is one of the costs of development of the nuclear industry, and it is a cost that will be borne by our children," he added. China had seven mln kilowatts of installed nuclear capacity at the end of last year, Chen said, adding that more will come on line over the next few years, bringing the total to around 16 mln kilowatts. Just 1.92 pct of China's total energy was generated from nuclear energy in 2006. China will also build a strategic uranium reserve and seek uranium overseas. Two companies, the China National Nuclear Group and Guangdong Nuclear Group, are authorized to source uranium from overseas, Chen said. will.davies@afxasia.com © 2003-2006 Forex TV All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service ***************************************************************** 29 Business Standard: `India`s role abroad has diminished` Q&A: Jaswant Singh Aditi Phadnis / New Delhi April 22, 2007 Political direction in the navigation of the nuclear deal is missing, former Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh tells ADITI PHADNIS It is now clear that the civil nuclear energy agreement was not about energy alone but a peg by which to further Indo-US strategic relations. Is this your reading? This agreement is the outcome of a certain concept, theme, even dream of India and its position in the world. I don’t say this in self-adulatory mode but when I was invited to Oxford as a visiting professor, someone asked a similar question. He then remarked: What the NDA government’s foreign policy achieved was an actual expansion of India’s power. I use ‘power’ not in the military sense but in terms of global influence. He felt that we inspired in the citizens of India internally, a sense of self-confidence that he had not seen earlier. I was struck by this observation. This was the background against which the civil nuclear agreement was signed between India and the US. This itself comes from that confusing acronym, NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership). The details of the NSSP are precisely what the agreement put on paper as an announcement. It reiterated what the Republican government had already executed with the NDA in January 2004. In that period, the political leadership in the US remained constant. In India, it underwent a change. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returned to India after his trip and was queried in Parliament, and outside, about the civil nuclear agreement, he kept repeating that the centrality of the July 18 agreement was India’s quest for “energy security.” I’m sorry to say that this was disingenuous, prevaricative and totally misleading. I’ve said repeatedly to friends in the US that two very serious errors of management of foreign policy in a democracy were committed by both the US government and the American establishment and by this Indian arrangement at governance and the establishment. And these were? Just as in the US, neither the Congress nor the Senate knew the details of the agreement, neither the partners of the UPA government under the “good doctor” nor the Cabinet colleagues of the “good doctor” knew what was happening. There has been one beneficial fallout of the 1998 nuclear tests. A large cross-section of India – and not just the newspaper-reading public – has got a basic grasp of the essentials of the total nuclear question. As a participant in the 1998 event, I find that an extremely rewarding benefit. For one, I hold that no government, not even the subsequent ones, can keep Indian citizens in the dark about what it is doing on the nuclear issue. Subsequently, the dishonesty of the arrangement began to pull it (the nuclear deal) down—dishonesty on the part of the USA for its own reasons and on India’s part for its own reasons. The sad part is that on the Indian side, there is no political direction or leadership. Under pressure, while our prime minister kept singing the energy tune, Condoleezza Rice kept switching between non-proliferation, arms control and strategic partnership. The US President committed himself to improving the shared strategic partnership but did mention, as a PS (post script), alternative energy sources, presumably because of climate change considerations. This major disconnect has created conceptual difficulties. Because of this fracture, we now have different national purposes (for the agreement) coming to the surface. How do you reconcile them? Nicholas Burns is quoted as having said the …… I cannot comment on that. Frankly, I don’t know what is happening. I do have access, but regrettably, the source of my information is the United States. I am saddened that the government, even now, does not deem fit to keep us informed. I’ve said repeatedly that a strategic partnership with the US is in India’s national interest. But don’t make the nuclear deal an icon or symbol of Indo-US relations and fly only this on the top mast of the great Indian battleship called India. Under strategic partnership there is space, there is technical and scientific cooperation… This was only a question of time. This agreement would have come. It needed to be evolved in time, not hustled through in a garb that is so clearly not its true attire. What now? Even now, we need to recognise the essentials, some of which stare us in the face. From the US viewpoint, some political changes that have taken place on the non-proliferation front are very central and high in the larger US consciousness. Also, as things are going, there could be more political changes in the near future. In that situation, the same priorities will not obtain. Both sides have to change tack without abandoning essentials. We have to recognise realities and rearrange priorities. We have to take on board other concerns, of the representative of the people and the people themselves. The prime minister says, “I cannot conduct diplomacy in public.” I find this an offensively naive remark. Schedules have to be rearranged. The template on which the deal has been struck is not an ecclesiastical inscription. It has to be managed with dexterity and patience. Why not have a larger, fuller discussion on the entire nuclear question? The country is far more knowledgeable about these issues than the government thinks. How can India give up those integrals of power which were achieved in 1998 ? Suddenly and sadly, globally, India is diminished. I hate saying this but it is a reality. Our sphere of influence spreads nowhere. Internally, citizens are no longer filled with self-assurance, not arrogance, but a certain pride in being Indian. This is a great loss, for nothing. Do you see possibilities for a U-turn? That would be putting the clock back. But the government has to readdress… Who is handling the matter politically? Is it a technical question only ? Even among technical opinions, there are divisions. The diplomatic element of the agreement has to be managed. Personally, I feel officers serving or retired, must be careful of the system of special emissaries because the rest of the service begins to feel redundant. This is a very big theme, difficult to encapsulate our concerns. Updated:23-04-07 10:02 hrs IST Business Standard Ltd. Copyright & Disclaimer feedback@business-standard.com | Designed and Developed by E Dot ***************************************************************** 30 Leader-Post: Nuclear debate looms for NDP canada.com, Newspapers, TV, Radio Home News Sports Entertainment Murray Mandryk, The Leader-Post Published: Saturday, April 21, 2007 We need Al Gore in Saskatchewan to alert us to the urgency of global warming, according to what Premier Lorne Calvert told us two weeks ago. Certainly, the former U.S. vice-president's message in his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth is one of urgency, hammering home to politicians and others their "moral obligation" to deal with the global warming issue. But if the Calvert government now is suddenly convinced that Gore's message is so urgent, where is this NDP administration's own urgency? Why are we seeing the same banal approach to environmental concerns that that we've seen for the past 15 years? Is giving out a few free CFL light bulbs at Home Depot going to save the planet? Or is it time -- if the global warming situation is as urgent as the Calvert government now insists it is -- to make a much bolder statement? Isn't now the time to at least be having a public conversation about Saskatchewan and nuclear power? Let us, for a moment, take at face value Calvert's reasons for extending this invitation to Gore. Let's assume that Saskatchewan's premier has been truly captivated by the computer-generated graphics of An Inconvenient Truth that show melting polar ice caps swallowing some of the world's great coastal cities. Let's assume he's serious about creating awareness and debate, and addressing this issue. And let's set aside the significant "pushback" against Gore's documentary from those who call it blatant fraud to those who more generously characterize it as more sentiment than science. Let's accept the view of the vast majority of scientists who believe our recent highest-ever-recorded temperatures are the result of man-made activity, not cyclical weather patterns. What's the one thing that Calvert could address? What's the foremost moral obligation of Saskatchewan's foremost politician? Wouldn't it be replacing Saskatchewan's coal-fired power stations? And with our uranium supply, shouldn't nuclear power be the alternative? If we are to accept the magnitude of the global warming crisis, then isn't it time to be having a conversation about nuclear power? Well, apparently not, judging by what we've so far heard from this NDP government. Asked about nuclear power on the day of the Gore announcement, Calvert's well- respected legislative secretary for renewable energy and conservation, Peter Prebble, explained that nuclear power remains cost-prohibitive, and that conservation and wind power are far better alternatives. With all due respect to Prebble, wind power is actually more costly than our coal-fired alternative that caused Saskatchewan's 2004 greenhouse gas emissions to be 72 per cent higher than our Kyoto Accord goal. "I think we're there," said Wall, when asked if the Saskatchewan Party would consider the nuclear option. The Opposition leader said he still wants to see any SaskPower studies on the viability of nuclear power and stopped short of suggesting nuclear power would be part of any Saskatchewan Party platform. But the improved efficiency of smaller reactors, the concern with the amount of fossil fuel required to produce alternative synthetic fuels, the potential benefit of a reactor as part of oilsands development and the even greater potential to sell acessible power through an improved electrical grid all make the nuclear option at least worth exploring, said Wall, who has normally avoided such controversial issues. Ironically, Calvert's stated objective for inviting Gore was to stimulate conversation on energy alternatives. Well, it might yet do just that . . . but not necessarily the conversation for which Calvert had hoped. - Mandryk is the political columnist for the Leader-Post. c The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 31 NewsBlaze: NRC to Hold Regulatory Conference With Hirata & Associates, Inc. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a regulatory conference with Hirata & Associates, Inc., officials on April 25 to discuss an apparent violation of NRC requirements. The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will begin at 2 p.m. in NRC's Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas (9 a.m. HST). The public will have an opportunity to observe and ask questions of NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned. Members of the public can listen to the meeting via a special telephone line by calling 1-800-952-9677, and requesting to be transferred to the meeting. The NRC staff will discuss the results of inspections conducted last summer at a company facility in Aiea, Hawaii, and a temporary job site in Kapolei, Hawaii, which identified an apparent violation regarding the use and storage of radioactive materials. No decision will be made on the final significance, the apparent violation or any contemplated enforcement action during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. Source: NRC judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 32 The Australian: Nuclear chief expects energy decision * April 22, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP THE man who headed the Government's nuclear task force believes Australia will make a decision this year on whether or not to embrace nuclear power. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) chairman Ziggy Switkowski helped formalise the nuclear debate in Australia when he headed a government task force last year. The task force predicted Australia could have its first nuclear plant in 10 to 15 years, with as many as 25 reactors supplying up to a third of the country's electricity by 2050. Labor has indicated it won't allow nuclear power in Australia if it wins government but Prime Minister John Howard is backing the concept of a local industry. Dr Switkowski told ABC radio's Sunday Profile he thinks some decisions on whether Australia will take the next step in the nuclear fuel cycle will be made this year. He said the nature of the debate about nuclear power had changed considerably from 12 months ago, when Mr Howard indicated that it was an issue the nation needed to think about. “It was literally a toxic subject ... it doesn't mean the needle has shifted in terms of community support for nuclear power but in terms of the nature of the discussion, the fact that most people now have a view and are prepared to engage,” Dr Switkowski said. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 33 The Australian: Downer tries for nuclear reaction | * Pia Akerman * April 23, 2007 ALEXANDER Downer has attempted to muddy the waters ahead of Labor's debate on the future of its "no new mines" policy by calling on South Australian Premier Mike Rann to visit Chinese nuclear power plants to see the future destination of his state's uranium. As Mr Rann prepares to lead moves at Labor's national conference this week to overturn the party's opposition to new uranium mines, the Foreign Minister has written to him arguing that it would be "useful and prudent" for him to examine Chinese nuclear power production. This was particularly so in light of nuclear co-operation agreements between the two countries in January, which opened the door for Australian uranium exports to China. Mr Downer's suggestion is seen as an attempt to corner Mr Rann in the lead up to the Labor conference by highlighting his support for the export of uranium for the overseas production of nuclear power while opposing a domestic nuclear industry. "It would be useful and prudent for you to visit the ultimate destination of South Australia's uranium exports, to see how this resource produces clean, safe energy and for you to be briefed on the stringent safeguards standards that Australia imposes," Mr Downer wrote. He offered his department's support for any trips Mr Rann took to nuclear facilities in China or elsewhere. But South Australian Minister for Mineral Resources Development Paul Holloway yesterday rejected Mr Downer's invitation. "You don't need to visit nuclear plants to understand what the economics of nuclear energy are," Mr Holloway said. "Nuclear energy will cost a lot more to generate than the alternatives we have available to us here in Australia. It really isn't an option here." The Rann Government has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of a nuclear power plant in South Australia, despite the state's booming uranium industry. The state Government received $9.8 million in uranium royalties from mining in 2005-06, a figure which the proposed expansion of BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam would increase dramatically. South Australian Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith backed Mr Downer's invitation, saying Mr Rann's firm stance against nuclear power was inconsistent with his support for uranium exports. Mr Holloway expressed confidence that Labor's "no new mines" policy would be overturned at the party conference, which begins on Friday. "It will be a close vote, but I expect change will be made," he said. Mr Rann spent last week in Sydney and Melbourne lobbying delegates to support a reversal of the policy. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 34 Charlotte Observer: Radioactive material stolen | 04/21/2007 Courtesy of N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Here are examples of the property that was stolen. From left, the container, the inside of the container and the cylinder that holds syringes. Mecklenburg County Radioactive material stolen from Presbyterian Hospital Someone stole a potentially dangerous radioactive material from Presbyterian Hospital early Friday morning, authorities said. According to the N.C. Radiation Protection Section, someone broke into a delivery truck outside the hospital and stole six containers with syringes full of Technetium-99m, a substance used to diagnose some illnesses. The stolen containers are rigid, black nylon cases, about 1 square foot and weigh up to 15 pounds. Inside the containers are metal cylinders with the syringes. The containers are labeled with the radiation symbol and the word "radioactive." If you see the containers, stay at least 10 feet away and call police. Exposure can cause health problems. Technetium-99m's half-life is six hours, so the material will no longer be radioactive by Sunday evening. Anyone with information should dial 911 or call Crime Stoppers at 704-334-1600. -- Cleve R. Wootson Jr. * About Charlotte.com | ***************************************************************** 35 Reuters: US nuclear worker took software to Iran - FBI Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:51PM EDT LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A former engineer at the largest U.S. nuclear power plant was arrested on suspicion of taking software codes and using them to download details of plant control rooms and reactors while in Iran, officials said on Saturday. The software involved was used to train plant operators and there was no indication of a terrorist connection, said Deborah McCarley, an FBI spokeswoman in Phoenix. The FBI arrested Mohammad Alavi, who worked at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station outside Phoenix, earlier this month at Los Angeles International Airport when he arrived on a flight from Iran, she said. He is charged with a single count of violating a trade embargo that bars Americans from exporting goods and services to Iran. Electronic records show that Alavi's name and password were used to download software registration in October 2006 from a computer in Tehran, according to an FBI affidavit. Alavi, 49, a U.S. citizen who was born in Tehran, denies wrongdoing, his lawyer, Milagros Cisneros, told the Arizona Republic newspaper. On Friday a federal judge in Phoenix denied Alavi bail, saying he posed a substantial flight risk, the newspaper reported. Alavi is accused of removing the software -- which mimics plant operations -- before he quit his job at Palo Verde last August. Export of the software, without prior authorization, is illegal, according to the affidavit. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Al Jazeera: Egyptian-Canadian jailed for Israel spying - 4/21/2007 10:00:00 AM GMT (Reuters) File photo showing Attar escorted by police as he arrives for his trial in Cairo A Cairo court sentenced an Egyptian man with Canadian citizenship to 15 years in jail after he was convicted of spying for Israel, state prosecutors said on Saturday. Muhammad al-Attar, 31, was convicted of being an agent for the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. Three other Israeli Mossad agents tried in absentia on related charges were also convicted and handed 15-year prison terms. All four defendants were fined 10,000 Egyptian pounds. Al-Attar was arrested in Cairo on January 1 on charges of bribery, espionage and conspiring to “harm Egypt’s national interests”. Egyptian prosecutors said he confessed that Israeli agents had recruited him in 2001 when he was living in Turkey and that they helped him obtain a residency permit in Canada under a false name and found him a job in a bank, where he used his position to obtain information on specific accounts. They say he was paid $56,000 to spy on expatriate Egyptians and Arabs in Canada and Turkey. A transcript of Attar’s confession, which he claims was extracted under torture by Egypt’s intelligence officials, said he had recruited gay or impoverished Arabs in Canada for Mossad, a Canadian newspaper has reported. Attar denied being homosexual, although it was cited as a reason for an application he made for refugee status with the United Nations. Israeli officials have dismissed the case as a fabrication and said they only learned about it from the media. Attar’s conviction comes days after Egyptian authorities charged an engineer working at the country’s nuclear energy agency with spying for Israel. Two foreigners, one Irish and one Japanese, were also charged in the case and are being hunted. These aren’t the only cases of espionage involving the Mossad. In 1996, Egypt detained Azzam Azzam, an Israeli Arab textile worker, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison for spying for Israel. But he was freed after serving eight years as part of a deal that included the release of six Egyptian students in Israel. -- AJP and agencies An Egyptian engineer who works at Egypt’s nuclear energy agency has been charged along with two foreigners with spying for Israel. it's time the egyptian government recognizes whom they made peace with , and acknowledge that israel is never to be trusted , its true objectives being to pretend willing peace but in fact doing everything to delay any real steps towards peace...perhaps they belive Arabs are going to be ignorants forever , just because the israeli virus is dividing them now... ***************************************************************** 37 The Observer: Revealed: UK nuclear tests on workers Sellafield memos uncover fears over legality of making volunteers drink radioactive isotopes Jamie Doward, home affairs editor Sunday April 22, 2007 Workers at Sellafield, the nuclear plant at the centre of the missing body parts scandal, were subjected to secret Cold War experiments in which they were exposed to radiation, The Observer can reveal. One experiment, described in a confidential memo, involved volunteers drinking doses of caesium 134, a radioactive isotope that was released in fatal quantities following the Chernobyl disaster. Other experiments involved exposing volunteers to uranium, strontium 85, iodine 132 and plutonium. The revelation raises questions over whether the volunteers suffered early deaths or illness due to their exposure. The experiments, which started in the Sixties, were considered so controversial that Sellafield drew up a covert PR strategy to deflect possible media attention. Documents obtained by The Observer show that the experiments on the organs of the dead workers at Sellafield were being conducted at the same time as government scientists were using volunteer employees at the plant as guinea pigs. The papers, which also refer to experiments being conducted on staff at Dounreay and Winfrith nuclear power stations, and at the nuclear research centre at Harwell, highlight deep misgivings among the government's senior advisers about going ahead with the trials. A letter to Sellafield's then senior medical officer, Dr GB Schofield, from KP Duncan, the government's chief medical officer, dated 12 February 1965, states that 'any plan to deal with patients should be discussed with the legal branch before things get that far'. Duncan expresses surprise that work on the experiments has 'already started' and expresses 'genuine points for concern'. According to the documents, only those over 18 and 'of sound mind' could volunteer for the experiments following a medical examination. They defined what the scientists believed were safe exposure limits for the volunteers. However, a paper drawn up in 1965 by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the government body that oversees civil nuclear production and clean-ups, acknowledges there were serious risks with the experiments. It suggests that if 'a person volunteering to take part in the experiments subsequently developed ill-effects which could be shown to be due to his exposure, either voluntary or involuntary, he would have right of action for damages against the Authority'. Geoff Dolphin, the then secretary of the government's Radiobiology Research Panel, is recorded in another memo, written in May 1962, observing 'it could be argued, to take an extreme view if something went wrong, that one had actually committed an offence'. Dr David Lowry, a nuclear expert who uncovered the documents, said they showed there had been an alarming culture of secrecy within the British nuclear industry at the time. 'These documents place a large question mark against official reassurances given by the nuclear industry to successive public inquiries,' Lowry said. 'We need to know when these experiments ended and how many people were involved.' One memo from the government's Medical Research Council Radiobiological Unit, written in 1962, describes the need to experiment on three types of volunteer: 'pregnant women and all persons under 18'; 'patients with non-fatal illnesses and volunteers'; and 'patients in hospitals and volunteers who are undergoing tests under appropriate medical supervision with regard to any possible effects from radiation'. The document suggests that the recommended limit for a volunteer's exposure to radiation could be exceeded 'in exceptional cases, for example patients with fatal illnesses and research workers who are well informed about the risk from ionizing radiations'. Another document, marked 'Official Use Only', states: 'The question arises whether the fact that the [Atomic Energy] Authority are now starting such experiments should be publicly announced... on balance it would be preferable for our public relations staff to be briefed with material for use only if the experiments become public knowledge.' Greenpeace's Jean McSorely said the human experiments were yet more evidence of the nuclear industry's 'bizarre and unsettling' behaviour during the Sixties. 'We know they experimented with discharging radioactive liquid into the seas during the Fifties. So it's maybe not that surprising they decided to experiment on humans, too.' A spokesman for BNFL, the company that now runs Sellafield, declined to comment while the independent investigation into the removal of organs from bodies of former workers at the plant was still under way. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 38 GU: Organs from bodies of Sellafield workers had raised plutonium levels Guardian Unlimited James Randerson , science correspondent Saturday April 21, 2007 Research carried out on organs removed during the autopsies of Sellafield workers and local people in Cumbria in the 1980s found higher levels of plutonium than in people from other parts of the country. The data also provided "strong circumstantial evidence" that local people were being affected by aerial discharges from the plant. The raised plutonium levels are well below that which would have an impact on health. But the research papers give a unique insight into studies at Sellafield by medical officers and scientists up to the early 1990s. On Wednesday Alastair Darling, the trade and industry secretary, announced an inquiry into 65 cases between November 1962 and August 1991 in which tissues were taken from the bodies of Sellafield workers during autopsies and analysed at the site. That inquiry will hinge on what legal authority or permission from relatives was given for tissue samples to be taken, but an important question remains: what were the samples used for? The research papers point to an informal programme aimed at answering questions of public health. "It would appear that there was a system whereby if someone died who had worked at Sellafield ... samples were sent to Sellafield to check out whether there was contamination with radioactive substances, particularly plutonium," said Peter Furness, vice-president of the Royal College of Pathologists and honorary professor at Leicester University. He said pathologists at the local hospital may have been keen to provide samples to eliminate the possibility that radiation exposure had contributed to the death. "This does not smack of some sort of sinister cover-up," said Gary Smith, nuclear industry national officer for the GMB union. "It could be that these samples were taken in a legitimate way. Perhaps it could have been handled better, but we will only know when the inquiry reports back." Two studies, by the then chief medical officer at Sellafield, Geoff Schofield, and his successor, Adam Lawson, looked into whether plutonium levels in urine tallied with levels in the body by analysing organs after death. These studies - the second of which involved data from 61 former Sellafield workers - were published in 1982 and 1989 in the Proceedings of the International Symposia of the Society for Radiological Protection. Workers at the plant give regular urine samples to check whether they have accidentally received a high dose of plutonium. The studies aimed to find out whether the levels in urine were a true representation of what was in their bodies. "It gave us some handle on whether what we were doing was useful or not," said Jennifer Woodhouse, a senior manager at the plant from 1969 to 1982 who worked with Dr Schofield. "People have talked about it as though there was some sort of formal research project going on, which in my view was not the case ... this was a Geoff Schofield pet project I suspect." A third study by the National Radiological Protection Board in Chilton, published in the Radiological Protection Bulletin in July 1986, said plutonium levels were higher among people who had worked at Sellafield. A fourth paper, published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry in 1989, included data from tissues extracted from four ex-BNFL workers. David Taylor, a radiation expert who advised unions at Sellafield in the early 1990s, said the work involving organs taken from workers "was of interest to everybody, including the workers, BNFL and the radiation community in general." Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 39 Sunday Herald: Humans In Secret Radioactive Tests April 23, 2007 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor Official documents reveal volunteers drank and inhaled infected material to assess contamination risks DOZENS OF people drank, inhaled or were injected with radioactivity as part of a series of secret experiments carried out by the nuclear industry in the 1960s, according to official documents passed to the Sunday Herald. Tests exposing humans to radioactive caesium, iodine, strontium and uranium were conducted despite doubts about their legal and ethical implications. One proposal even envisaged injecting plutonium into elderly people to help assess contamination risks. The new evidence could form part of the government inquiry launched last week into the industry's shady past. The trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, appointed Michael Redfern QC to investigate concerns that body tissue from dead nuclear workers had been removed for tests without the consent of relatives. Tissue from organs and bones were taken from 65 deceased workers at Sellafield in Cumbria and other nuclear plants between 1962 and 1991. They were sampled for radioactive contamination to help improve understanding of the health risks. Now documents from the National Archives in London have shed new light on other scandals involving the nuclear industry. A memo from the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) in August 1965 summarised a series of "experiments involving exposure of volunteers to radiation". It said 10 volunteers from Harwell in Oxfordshire drank a liquid containing caesium-132 and caesium-134 in November 1962. Two volunteers from Sellafield, then known as Windscale, also ingested some strontium 90 to investigate "uptake by the gut". A further 18 volunteers at Harwell in 1964 breathed in a vapour of methyl iodide-132 to test its retention in the thyroid gland. If anyone became ill as a result, the memo said, they would be able to sue for damages, though the risk was dismissed as "negligible". A letter from May 1968 mentioned moral and practical concerns raised over two uranium tests planned for the Springfield nuclear plant near Preston. Another memo from 1962 referred to highly controversial US experiments in which elderly and sick hospital patients were injected with plutonium. It suggested carrying out a similar experiment in the UK, mentioning old people as potential candidates. The nuclear researcher and consultant who unearthed the documents, Dr David Lowry, has offered to submit his evidence to the Redfern inquiry. "The revelations put a large question mark against official reassurances given by the nuclear industry to successive public inquiries that radiation protection measures were adequate," he said. Lowry, co-author of a forthcoming book on nuclear power, is particularly concerned about the way he alleges the UKAEA planned to spin the human experiments. "The nuclear industry must learn that the public demands the whole truth not half-truths when it comes to public health and safety," he said. One memo from January 1963 recommended against announcing experiments before they began. Instead it suggested providing a brief for public relations staff "for use only if the experiments become public knowledge". An earlier meeting in 1962 was keen to keep plans to do whole body monitoring for radiation under wraps. "The least possible publicity should be given to the process of volunteering," the meeting concluded. Further evidence of tissue sampling for radioactive contamination comes from a nuclear historian at the University of Manchester, Dr Emm Barnes. She pointed out that a variety of studies were discussed at a meeting at the Department of Heath in October 1984. The draft minutes of the meeting, marked "in confidence", quoted a scientist from the government's then National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). "The NRPB had been collecting and analysing human tissue samples from Cumbria and several other parts of the country for some time," he said. "Samples of tissue from lungs, liver and bone were collected and analysed for plutonium and other radioactive wastes," the report said. "Some, but not all, samples were obtained from coroners' post-mortems." Scientists had also "obtained tissue samples from children dying in road accidents, and were trying to obtain foetal tissues and placentae". The meeting also discussed the "ethical problems" of feeding radioactively contaminated whelks from near Sellafield to children. According to Dr Barnes, scientists proposed to use stillborn babies and aborted foetuses in some tests, without informing parents of the results. The UKAEA is investigating whether any tissue from workers who had died at the Dounreay nuclear plant in the north of Scotland had been involved in the experiments. It is expecting to make a statement next week, and submit evidence to the Redfern inquiry. A UKAEA spokesman also confirmed that radiological exposure experiments had taken place, but stressed that all the volunteers were members of staff who had given their informed consent. The proper medical protocols of the time had been followed, and exposures were low. The need to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons were "adequate justification" for exposing workers, one 1963 memo said. "The proposal to expose volunteers to radiation to improve radiobiological knowledge is no more than a simple extension of the same principle." Posted by: Iain Somerville, Perth Australia on 4:47am Sun 22 Apr 07 My father was an employee at Dounreay for several years - 1967 to 1973. He died in 1973 from a heart attack. He was an extremely fit & health individual. UKAEA to my knowledge never gave any comment on his death and I have wondered for many years as to whether or not his death was related in anyway to his years at the nuclear plant. I do look forward to hearing more about this 'Redfern' report but am confident that it will be typical UK Government, half baked attempt to suppress the natives. The sooner Scotland becomes self governing (not the half baked 'Devolution' things will get better. I would seriously consider moving back to Scotland if this happens (and it could this year!!!!!!)That is an aside but lets be honest Scotland has been the English Governments dumping, testing and furthest from London Nuclear zone - between Power stations & Submarines of the Royal Navy. My father was an employee at Dounreay for several years - 1967 to 1973. He died in 1973 from a heart attack. He was an extremely fit & health individual. UKAEA to my knowledge never gave any comment on his death and I have wondered for many years as to whether or not his death was related in anyway to his years at the nuclear plant. I do look forward to hearing more about this 'Redfern' report but am confident that it will be typical UK Government, half baked attempt to suppress the natives. The sooner Scotland becomes self governing (not the half baked 'Devolution' things will get better. I would seriously consider moving back to Scotland if this happens (and it could this year!!!!!!)That is an aside but lets be honest Scotland has been the English Governments dumping, testing and furthest from London Nuclear zone - between Power stations & Submarines of the Royal Navy. Posted by: Colin Punler, UKAEA Dounreay on 3:29pm Sun 22 Apr 07 I am sorry to learn that Mr Somerville has anxieties about an occupational link to his father's death. If he would like to get in touch with me at colin.punler@ukaea.org.uk, I can arrange for him to communicate with our health and safety people who may be able to assist in understanding whether there is cause for concern. Following disclosure of the issues surrounding the tissue sampling cases in Cumbria, UKAEA is reviewing its records for all UKAEA sites for any relevant data. Tissue sampling of the sort described is not current in UKAEA and the review will focus on historical data. UKAEA wants to ensure that full information is available to reassure families of former employees, who may be worried by the reports. UKAEA will be happy to participate in the inquiry and to furnish it with any relevant UKAEA data. Colin Punler Communications Manager Dounreay I am sorry to learn that Mr Somerville has anxieties about an occupational link to his father's death. If he would like to get in touch with me at colin.punler@ukaea.org.uk, I can arrange for him to communicate with our health and safety people who may be able to assist in understanding whether there is cause for concern. Following disclosure of the issues surrounding the tissue sampling cases in Cumbria, UKAEA is reviewing its records for all UKAEA sites for any relevant data. Tissue sampling of the sort described is not current in UKAEA and the review will focus on historical data. UKAEA wants to ensure that full information is available to reassure families of former employees, who may be worried by the reports. UKAEA will be happy to participate in the inquiry and to furnish it with any relevant UKAEA data. Colin Punler Communications Manager Dounreay Quote | Report this post Posted by: Dr David Lowry, stneleigh, surrey on 7:20pm Sun 22 Apr 07 As a minor correction to Rob Edwards' article, the book, of which I am a contributing author, is not "forthcoming", rather it was published in February with the title of 'Nuclear or not? Does nuclear power have a place in a sustainable energy future', edited by Professor David Elliott, by Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-230-00800-3 Dr David Lowry Stoneleigh Surrey As a minor correction to Rob Edwards' article, the book, of which I am a contributing author, is not "forthcoming", rather it was published in February with the title of 'Nuclear or not? Does nuclear power have a place in a sustainable energy future', edited by Professor David Elliott, by Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-230-00800-3 Dr David Lowry Stoneleigh Surrey Quote | Report this post Posted by: David, USA on 2:01am today While we are on this topic... Most people do not realize that since 1943 through 1992 the USA has tested around 1300 Atomic blasts. Some above ground, some deep in the earth. Some in the ocean. And some in space. The radiation released in the ocean affects all of us the most. It has gotten into the sea food chain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg&mode=related&search= Here on American soil, there are cattle being raised for the food supply, on land where nuclear blasts were detonated in the not so distant past. No wonder we have so much cancer cases reported in America. Since 1943 there have been over 3500 nuclear blast test worldwise. *Quote* "In a typical city of Russia and America, it (geiger counter)will read 10-12 microroentgen per hour. In the center of many European cities are 20 microR per hour, the radioactivity of the stone. 1,000 microroentgens equal one milliroentgen and 1,000 milliroentgens equal 1 roentgen. So one roentgen is 100,000 times the average radiation of a typical city. A dose of 500 roentgens within 5 hours is fatal to humans. Interestingly, it takes about 2 1/2 times that dosage to kill a chicken and over 100 times that to kill a cockroach. This sort of radiation level can not be found in Chernobyl now. In the first days after explosion, some places around the reactor were emitting 3,000-30,000 roentgens per hour. The firemen who were sent to put out the reactor fire were fried on the spot by gamma radiation. The remains of the reactor were entombed within an enormous steel and concrete sarcophagus, so it is now relatively safe to travel to the area - as long as one do not step off of the roadway and do not put nose in a wrong places......." *Unquote* Quoted from "Elena", a girl that rode through the area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear accident. You can view her pictures and commentary here: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/ While we are on this topic... Most people do not realize that since 1943 through 1992 the USA has tested around 1300 Atomic blasts. Some above ground, some deep in the earth. Some in the ocean. And some in space. The radiation released in the ocean affects all of us the most. It has gotten into the sea food chain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg&mode=related&search= Here on American soil, there are cattle being raised for the food supply, on land where nuclear blasts were detonated in the not so distant past. No wonder we have so much cancer cases reported in America. Since 1943 there have been over 3500 nuclear blast test worldwise. *Quote* "In a typical city of Russia and America, it (geiger counter)will read 10-12 microroentgen per hour. In the center of many European cities are 20 microR per hour, the radioactivity of the stone. 1,000 microroentgens equal one milliroentgen and 1,000 milliroentgens equal 1 roentgen. So one roentgen is 100,000 times the average radiation of a typical city. A dose of 500 roentgens within 5 hours is fatal to humans. Interestingly, it takes about 2 1/2 times that dosage to kill a chicken and over 100 times that to kill a cockroach. This sort of radiation level can not be found in Chernobyl now. In the first days after explosion, some places around the reactor were emitting 3,000-30,000 roentgens per hour. The firemen who were sent to put out the reactor fire were fried on the spot by gamma radiation. The remains of the reactor were entombed within an enormous steel and concrete sarcophagus, so it is now relatively safe to travel to the area - as long as one do not step off of the roadway and do not put nose in a wrong places......." *Unquote* Quoted from "Elena", a girl that rode through the area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear accident. You can view her pictures and commentary here: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/ ©2007 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Albanese vows to stand by uranium policy ABC Australian Capital Territory | Local News (ACST)Sunday, 22 April 2007. 13:06 (AWST) Anthony Albanese has vowed to oppose a push to overturn the long-standing Labor policy to restrict uranium mining. (File photo)Insiders Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese says a potential fight at next weekend's ALP national conference over uranium policy will not damage the party's standing in the electorate. Mr Albanese has vowed to oppose a push by party leader Kevin Rudd to overturn Labor's long-standing policy to restrict uranium mining. Frontbencher Anthony Albanese says the majority of party members support the current policy. He has told Channel Nine it is an issue of principle. "Whilst you can guarantee that uranium produces nuclear waste but you can't guarantee it won't lead to nuclear weapons," he said. He says he does not think his stand will embarrass Mr Rudd at the conference. "I'll go all out to put forward the position which I think has the overwhelming support of the Labor Party membership, and in terms of electoral politics, I just think it's beyond belief to argue that there are people out there who voted for John Howard at recent elections who say, gee I'll change my vote to Labor if only they change their policy on no new uranium mines," he said. Prime Minister John Howard says Labor has a blinkered and old-fashioned view on nuclear power. "I'm bemused because they're arguing about something that we resolved 25 years ago," he said. Mr Howard says you can not tackle climate change without considering nuclear energy. ***************************************************************** 41 Itar-Tass: Ivanov Inspects a Secret Factory Monday, April 23, 2007. Issue 3642. Page 1. By Anna Smolchenko Staff Writer Grigory Sysoyev / Itar-Tass Ivanov picking up a centrifuge component in a workshop at the Kovrov plant as Kiriyenko, right, watches on Friday. KOVROV, Vladimir Region -- First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov flew by helicopter to a top-secret plant playing a key role in Russia's uranium enrichment program -- and promised that Iran would never get its hands on the plant's technology. Ivanov traveled on Friday to Kovrov, 250 kilometers northeast of Moscow, to get a first-hand look at how the Kovrov Mechanical Plant has transformed from making machine guns to gas centrifuges, the equipment used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants and weapons. While the trip provided a rare peek into a secretive plant, it also offered some insight into how Ivanov, widely considered a top presidential contender, is positioning himself ahead of the March election. Ivanov's popularity has surged as he has toured factories and defense bases across the country in recent months, receiving significant coverage on state television at each stop. His apparent main rival, fellow First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, has also taken up a punishing schedule of visits that have gotten generous airtime. State television reporters and cameramen joined about 50 journalists late Thursday for a bus ride from Moscow to the Kovrov plant. Ivanov arrived Friday by helicopter with Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or RosAtom. Federal Security Service officers kept a sharp eye on the gathering. "This is our know-how. These are our people," Ivanov proudly told the reporters in the courtyard of the plant. Nearby loomed a statue of Lenin. Ivanov said Iran would never get a look at the plant's centrifuges. "This technology will never be transferred to anybody," he said. Taking a dig at the West, Ivanov said Russia was in full compliance of international law, unlike Europe's Urenco, a manufacturer of enriched uranium. Iran has said the centrifuges in its controversial nuclear program are based on Urenco designs. Reporters were barred from viewing a completed centrifuge because, as Ivanov said, it was "a commercial secret." It is a security precaution as well, said the plant's chief designer, Alexander Samorodsky. "If we declassify everything, then people would start making centrifuges and enriching uranium in their backyards," he said. He added, however, that "there are some talks" to export the equipment, possibly to China. Centrifuges were made available to China about a decade ago, and the Chinese took them apart but still could not figure out how they worked, said an official with Tenex, the state nuclear fuel trader. The Kovrov Mechanical Plant in January converted to centrifuges after building guns for more than 60 years. More than 300 million rubles ($11.5 million) was spent moving centrifuge production out of the adjacent Degtyarev plant, and the arms production into the Degtyarev plant, Kiriyenko said. The swap placed control of the nuclear equipment completely in state hands. Kiriyenko said that more than 1 billion rubles would be invested into the Kovrov plant in the next few years, allowing it to quadruple production to 5 billion rubles in centrifuges. He did not provide more precise figures, but said the plant would build 2.6 billion rubles worth of centrifuges for the RosAtom this year, twice what it had built last year. The plant swap is part of a government drive to gather disparate nuclear assets into a state-owned holding, Atomprom, as it seeks to revive the country's nuclear sector and better compete abroad. Centrifuge production is taking on urgency, with the government planning to build up to 40 nuclear power plants over the next two decades. The plans call for nuclear power to account for one-quarter of all national power generation, compared to one-sixth now. Kovrov is one of only two Russian plants that make centrifuges. The other, Tochmash, is also based in the Vladimir region. Centrifuges from the two plants are shipped to the country's four uranium enrichment facilities. Kovrov director Maxim Kovalchuk gave Ivanov and Kiriyenko a private tour of the plant's classified premises. "Russia is 15 years ahead of the United States and European countries," he told them, RIA-Novosti reported. Reporters were allowed into one workshop that makes components for centrifuges. The deputy director for the Vladimir region's branch of the Federal Security Service told the visitors to stay together and not wander around the premises. Workers, mostly women wearing white headscarves and blue gowns, stood at workstations, lathing parts for the centrifuges. "There are elements that still can't be mechanically produced, and only the tenderness of a woman's hands can feel the microns," Kiriyenko said. The centrifuges are designed to work for up 30 years nonstop. Ivanov and Kiriyenko were walked through a maze of lettuce-green equipment in the shop. The machines were stopped to allow the directors to explain the plant's work. Ivanov stopped at one point to talk to the female workers. "Do you have any requests or questions?" he asked one. "Everything is fine," she replied. Speaking to a reporter afterward, Nadezhda Bolshakova, a lathe worker, described Ivanov as kind and understanding. Her co-worker Nadezhda Aleksandrova said she liked that he had stopped to speak with them. She added that she had not decided whom she would vote for in the presidential election next year, but said she liked Medvedev. With the country nearing the election season, the Kremlin seems to be making sure that Ivanov, Medvedev and, more recently, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Naryshkin get roughly the same amount of coverage in the state media. On Friday, Naryshkin unveiled the start of production of a Fiat model at Severstal-Avto's plant in Naberezhnye Chelny. On Wednesday, Ivanov together with Putin unveiled a $1 billion nanotechnology initiative in Moscow. Ivanov started the week by presiding over the launch of the long-awaited Yury Dolgoruky nuclear submarine in the Arctic town of Severodvinsk. While Medvedev spent an uncharacteristic day out of the media spotlight Friday, he is likely to re-emerge this week as Ivanov takes a short break. "Thank God. No trips will take place this week," a source close to Ivanov said Sunday, noting that the past month had been particularly hectic. On Friday, Ivanov is to preside over a meeting of the United Aircraft Corporation, the state aviation holding that he heads, the source said. « Previous article Back to top Next article » © Copyright 2006. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Beacon News: Debate over nuclear waste heats up April 22, 2007 BY BILL BIRD Staff Writer If the discussion had only stayed centered on the federal government's proposed transportation of spent nuclear reactor fuel, there might not have been quite as much commotion as there was. Brian J. Quirke, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, came close to promising west suburban residents Friday night that the area would be bypassed should trucks eventually begin hauling the used fuel to Argonne National Laboratory near Darien and a new nuclear waste facility in Morris, 60 miles southwest of Chicago. Electricity in northeastern Illinois is generated in large part by nuclear power plants in Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Zion and the Quad Cities area. Only the Byron and Zion facilities lie north of Interstate 88. The others are closer to Interstate 80, as is Morris. "I-80 will be a major (spent fuel) shipment route for trucks" bringing tons of the material to the Morris facility and ounces of it to Argonne, where it will be used in research under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Quirke said. He added it was "very unlikely" any of the used fuel would be shipped to either destination via I-88. Fewer than 20 people turned out for Friday night's public hearing on the issue, held in Nichols Library near downtown Naperville. The session was organized by the Naperville-based grassroots group Nuclear Waste Containment Campaign. But those attending gave energy department officials an earful, voicing their concerns over the potential perils of the shipping plan and nuclear power in general. Differing viewpoints Quirke was joined in the discussion by Dave Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, which has been highly critical of the transportation plan and related proposals. Kraft and Quirke found themselves in agreement that the spent fuel does not constitute "highly radioactive, weapons-grade plutonium," as had been characterized in some printed material. The men also concurred that burying the used fuel rods on the site of their power plant of origin -- which has been highly touted in some quarters -- was a bad idea. But disagreement sprouted throughout much of the 2-1/2-hour hearing. Quirke, at one point, contended nuclear power would have to play a key role in meeting the nation's energy needs, which he said were expected to double by 2030. The Energy Department envisions construction of as many as 300 new nuclear power plants nationwide by the end of the century. Kraft gently chided Americans with the words, "We are all electricity addicts." He contended alternative energy sources and conservation should be pursued over the construction of more nuclear power plants. Health risks Federal officials, according to Quirke, also are considering construction of one or more of the following in Morris: a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research facility. Audience members noted Argonne is in the orbit of a densely populated area, and that Illinois has more nuclear reactors than any other state. One woman said Illinois residents already assume more nuclear waste-related health risks than residents of any other part of the country. Kraft conceded he and his organization "don't have a place in mind yet" that might prove acceptable for the storage of all of the nation's spent nuclear fuel, although the group is opposed to the idea of warehousing it within Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He also aimed a barb at President Bush, a proponent of nuclear fuel recycling, which is generally abhorred by environmentalists. "You guys think it's so safe?" Kraft challenged proponents of the current spent fuel storage proposals. "Store it under Congress, or some guy's ranch in Texas." beaconnewsonline.com: Feedback | Contact Us | About Us | Advertise © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy ***************************************************************** 43 Green Left: Rudd pushes uranium bosses' agenda Zoe Kenny 21 April 2007 It now appears certain that the ALP’s national conference, to be held in Sydney from April 27-29, will drop the party’s “no new uranium mines” policy, adopted in 1998. This will satisfy the big mining companies’ desire to expand uranium mining. Labor leader Kevin Rudd and his “left-wing” deputy, Julia Gillard, are leading the push to scrap the policy. A decision to scrap the current policy would fly in the face of public opinion — a May 2006 Newspoll showed that 66% of Australians, and 78% of ALP voters, are opposed to any new uranium mines or want uranium mining to stop altogether. But with the market price for uranium at record highs, major mining companies are falling over themselves to make big profits from Australia’s vast, low-cost uranium deposits — 40% of the world’s total. Labor’s uranium push is driven by its need to prove itself a loyal servant to the interests of big business in order to get corporate backing in this year’s federal election. The widely expected latest Labor “U-turn" on uranium will not be as big a betrayal of ALP voters’ wishes as its backflip in the early 1980s. A year after winning the 1983 federal election, Labor’s parliamentary caucus forced the dropping of party’s position of outright opposition to the mining, processing and export of uranium — a policy Labor had held for seven years and which was a major contributing factor to its March 1983 election victory. In its place, the “three mines” policy was adopted. This allowed the continued operation of the Ranger, Nabarlek and Olympic Dam uranium mines. Although uranium had been mined in Australia since the start of the 20th century, opposition to it did not become popular until the 1970s. The impetus for a mass movement against uranium mining was a new wave of uranium exploration and prospecting that began in 1967. Some of the biggest uranium deposits were discovered in the Alligator Rivers area in the Northern Territory, in particular the Ranger and Jabiluka deposits. As more uranium was discovered in the region, the projected boundaries for the proposed Kakadu National Park continued to shrink until the park was half its original proposed size. However, unlike earlier uranium mining pushes, this time the desire of mining companies to fully exploit the resources was met with a growing awareness of, and opposition to, the dangers of uranium mining. The experience of the Rum Jungle mine in NT contributed to this opposition. During its lifetime, from the early 1950s to the early ’70s, this mine discharged hundreds of tonnes of mineral pollutants into the Finniss River, including enough radium to cause 90 million cases of bone cancer, according to a 1975 report by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Trade unions were also increasingly concerned about the health effects on their members working in or around uranium mines. Since the early ’20s it was known that radon gas caused high levels of mortality from lung cancer among mine workers. Between the mid-’70s and the mid-’80s, a mass movement developed that mobilised hundreds of thousands of people against uranium mining. This movement was given considerable support by the trade unions as well as the rank-and-file members of the ALP. The anti-uranium movement was strengthened by the lessons gained by many left activists in the successful mass campaign against the Vietnam War. The anti-war movement had shown them the power of repeated mass street demonstrations around clear demands to draw large numbers of working people into extra-parliamentary political action, exerting growing political pressure for a change in government policy. In 1976, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Friends of the Earth and the Movement Against Uranium Mining (MAUM) declared that they would mount a campaign as big as that waged against that Vietnam War, with the campaign as a whole deciding in November to demand a five-year moratorium on the mining and export of uranium. The anti-uranium movement grew rapidly. The first demonstrations were held on Hiroshima Day in August 1976. By October of that year, a national day of street marches mobilised 70,000 people across the country. Demonstrations of tens of thousands of opponents of uranium mining became regular occurrences through to the end of the 1970s. In 1975, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) voted at its national congress to ban all uranium mining except for biomedical use. Acting in accordance with the ban, in 1976 the Australian Railway Union called a 24-hour national stoppage that successfully forced the reinstatement of a railyard supervisor in Townsville who had been fired for refusing to allow the delivery of chemicals to the Mary Kathleen uranium mine in Queensland. However, while the sentiment of many of the unions affiliated to the ACTU was for upholding the 1975 congress line, the ACTU’s ALP-aligned leadership continually pushed for a watering down of opposition to uranium mining. This tension led to the situation where in early 1978, at the same time that 10 unions participated in a MAUM national consultation and almost 3500 wharfies voted unanimously to reject all uranium shipments, a special ACTU conference, led by ACTU president Bob Hawke, adopted a compromise position allowing existing uranium contracts to be fulfilled although not supporting the opening of any new mines. Despite the rightward pressure of the ACTU leadership, the union movement’s opposition to uranium mining continued to grow. A February 1981 meeting of 24 unions covering workers with possible connections to the uranium mining industry voted to enforce work bans on all uranium mines. This was in clear defiance of the Hawke-led resolution of the 1978 special conference. The bans seriously hurt the uranium industry. Shipments due to leave through Darwin were brought to a standstill, forcing the Fraser government to organise its own airlifts of uranium out of the country. The profits of Queensland’s Mary Kathleen mine dropped from $6 million in the second half of 1980 to $1.7 million in the first half of 1981. Mass demonstrations continued around the country to support the union bans. However, the industry was saved by the intervention of the ALP leadership. In November 1981, federal Labor leader Bill Hayden announced his opposition to the bans. In December, the ACTU executive fell into line, voting to lift all bans until the following February. In its preparation for the 1983 federal election, the ALP leaders worked hard to satisfy big business that they could be relied on to keep the existing highly lucrative uranium mines going, regardless of what the ranks of the ALP wanted. Already, in the 1980 federal election, the ALP had played down the issue of opposition to uranium mining, even though in the previous election it had been a vote winner. The ALP also intervened to allow the Olympic Dam uranium mine to go ahead. In the early ’80s, as Washington escalated its Cold War nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union — with plans for a Strategic Defence Initiative missile “shield” to neutralise the Soviet nuclear missile deterrent — the anti-uranium mining movement was strengthened by a renewed opposition to nuclear weapons Until the mid-’80s, protests involving hundreds of thousands of people calling for an end to the nuclear arms race were a regular occurrence. In 1983, Labor won the federal election with Hawke as its leader. Hawke soon made it clear that ALP opposition to the uranium mining was a thing of the past. While France was conducting nuclear bomb tests in the south Pacific, Hawke opposed cutting uranium exports to France. He also reaffirmed the ALP’s support for the Australia-New Zealand-United States military alliance, including visits to Australian ports by US nuclear-armed naval vessels. Hawke’s minerals and energy minister granted export licences for uranium from the Ranger and Nabarlek mines in the NT. In late 1983, Hawke forced a pro-uranium resolution through the federal Labor caucus and completed the ALP’s betrayal of the movement and its own ranks at the 1984 ALP national conference. The “three mines” policy was adopted. Following the Coalition parties’ electoral victory in 1996, the ALP replaced the “three mines” policy with a “no-new-mines” policy. This barred a future federal Labor government from revoking the mining licence on any uranium mine approved by PM John Howard’s Coalition government. The anti-uranium campaign in the 1970s and '80s showed that a mass movement aligned with a mobilised and militant trade union movement could succeed in almost shutting down Australia’s part in the nuclear fuel cycle. But it also shows that the unions’ close links with and political subordination to the pro-business ALP were the major reason for the eventual defeat of the campaign. The experience of the 1984 sell-out should have put to rest the idea that the ALP can ever be a real friend to the environment movement. Unfortunately, many in the environment movement still hold illusions in Labor governments as a vehicle to combat the corporate polluters. Many environmental organisations, such as ACF, which in the ’70s formed part of the militant leadership of the anti-uranium campaign, devote most of their campaigners’ hours on lobbying ALP conference delegates. This approach narrows the movement into the pro-uranium mining framework of the ALP. Any decision to scrap the last remaining vestiges of an anti-uranium policy at the upcoming ALP conference will only confirm that the ALP seeks to govern on behalf of the big business magnates at the expense of the environment and the wellbeing of working people. The only way to defeat the nuclear menace is to build a movement that is genuinely independent of the meddling of pro-corporate ALP and Coalition. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW. Site by Kiwa Systems ***************************************************************** 44 San Bernardino County Sun: Rialto's water-cleanup costs will be examined Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 04/22/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT RIALTO - With the tab climbing to the $20 million mark, the City Council has agreed to get an audit of its expenditures to clean up drinking water contaminated with perchlorate. The city's cleanup strategy has relied heavily on lawsuits against dozens of corporations and government entities it has accused of contributing to the problem, which could cost $200 million to $300 million to clean up. "We need to assure the public that it's being spent wisely and properly," said Councilman Ed Scott, who said he called for the audit. The audit is only intended to make sure no money is being wasted, not to question the city's legal strategy, Scott said. At a recent council meeting, Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said the warrant resolution the council was supposed to approve showed an identical payment being made twice. That turned out not to be the case, but Scott said he thinks the audit is important "to make sure billing and invoicing has been done properly." He said he also wants to make sure the attorneys are actually working the hours they say they are and that more than one attorney or consultant are not doing the same work. Baca has also complained that he doesn't know exactly where the money is going. The city does not disclose all that the law firms are paid in the warrant resolutions to keep that information from the parties it is suing, said City Attorney Bob Owen. The audit comes at a critical time during the city's efforts to clean up the chemical, which can be harmful to humans by interfering with the thyroid gland. In July, the city's legal team is scheduled to argue before the State Water Resources Control Board at hearings that could force three corporations to clean up much of the contamination. "Now is not the time to blink," said Owen. He said he is confident the audit will show the money is being spent properly. In addition to the state board hearings, in 2004 the city sued 42 entities, including the Defense Department, San Bernardino County and a number of corporations, to get them to clean up the contamination. Last year, Rialto filed an additional suit against the county in state court. Although Scott insisted that the majority of the council still supports the lawsuits and that the audit to be conducted by the firm McGladrey & Pullen LLP will have a narrow focus, Baca has used the opportunity to call into question the city's strategy. "I'm concerned about there being a blank check out there for the attorneys," Baca said. He said he wants to know exactly where the money is being spent, whether it is the wisest use of city resources and if there are other ways besides the lawsuits to clean up the perchlorate. He said he also wants to find out if city staff can do some of the work the city is paying attorneys and consultants to do. Mayor Pro Tempore Winnie Hanson agreed with Scott that the audit is narrowly intended to make sure the money is being spent properly. "It's not about the strategy," she said. The $20 million number includes the cost of the attorneys, experts to investigate the contamination, treatment systems to remove perchlorate from the drinking water and an informational campaign to keep the community informed. The number reflects the amount the city has spent since 1998, Owen said. The city's water department charges a perchlorate fee to its customers to provide funds for the effort. If the city wins its suits, it will reimburse the ratepayers for those costs. A few months ago, the council transferred $5 million from the General Fund to speed up the federal lawsuit, but Scott said the lawsuits have not been sped up, and he doesn't want the city to pay an additional $5 million every year. Before the audit begins, Scott and Hanson, the members of the council's perchlorate committee, will meet with the auditors on Monday to discuss the scope of the audit. The cost of the audit should be clearer at that point. Baca, who was elected to the council in November, has been critical of the city's strategy to clean up the perchlorate. He said the city should consider scaling back the lawsuits. Other members of the council and Owen have said that the litigation is necessary in order to make sure the polluters - not taxpayers - pay to clean up the perchlorate. Owen also argues that without the information the city has uncovered through the lawsuits, it would not have the evidence necessary to convince the state water board to order the polluters to clean up the perchlorate. Owen warned against "playing politics with this important public health issue." He said he is also concerned the suspected polluters will think there is dissension on the council over whether to continue pursuing them right before the state board hearings. "It's very irresponsible for somebody to begin doing that," he said. Updated: April 21, 2007 11:57:28 PM PDT Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 45 ITAR-TASS: RF develops 9th generation uranium enrichment centrifuges 20.04.2007, 14.30 KOVROV (Vladimir region), April 20 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian First Vice-Premier Sergei Ivanov stated that Russia is developing uranium enrichment centrifuges of a new ninth generation. “We are certainly developing a new generation of these sophisticated devices, equipment,” Ivanov told journalists on Friday. According to him, Russia “deservedly remains the world leader in this sphere (creation of uranium enrichment technologies – Itar-Tass).” © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store in any medium (including in any other websites), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior written permission of ITAR-TASS. Contacts 20.04.2007, 20.01 ***************************************************************** 46 AU ABC: Analyst looks at uranium boom Inside Business - 22/04/2007: Reporter: Alan Kohler ALAN KOHLER: In another big week in the booming uranium sector, the besieged board of Queensland explorer Summit lowered the drawbridge and recommended shareholders accept a $123 billion offer from Paladin Resources, while the new boss at one of the world's largest producers, ERA’s Chris Salisbury, warned that the whole yellowcake boom looked overcooked to him. For his take, I spoke to one of the most highly regarded analysts of the sector, Warwick Grigor of Far East Capital. Well Warwick, perhaps you can just set the scene for us a bit, what's the uranium market been doing this year? WARWICK GRIGOR: This year it's just been going up and up. It's part of a three, four-year bull market that we've been experiencing. Uranium has actually come from down around about $US10 a pound. A couple of months ago, it was $95 a pound and then it's suddenly jumped to $US113 a pound about a week ago. ALAN KOHLER: And what's been driving that? WARWICK GRIGOR: Basically, there's no uranium around. There's a major shortfall. The anticipated needs for uranium over the next five years can only be satisfied as to 60 per cent by mine production. The rest of the uranium is coming from reducing stockpiles, converting weapons-grade uranium back to power station uranium, but basically we've gone through a period of probably 20, 30 years where there's been no investment in the uranium sector. There's been no exploration. It's been a total departure from the industry and that’s left us in a critically short position today. ALAN KOHLER: The chief executive of ERA, Chris Salisbury, says the market in uranium is looking overheated. Do you agree with that? WARWICK GRIGOR: Well, it's certainly very strong. Whether it's overheated, there's nothing to suggest the uranium price is going to go any lower at this point in time. As far as ERA is concerned, I suppose they're not getting any benefit from these high uranium prices because they've got long-term contracts and they're getting substantially less so, as far as ERA is concerned, the way they look at it, I’m sure they'd say it would be overheated. ALAN KOHLER: Well, how high do you think the price can go? WARWICK GRIGOR: It could quite conceivably get to 150 a pound before the end of this year. At that level, it does start to look a bit toppy and there would be enormous profit margins to be made by producers that could come on stream, so if it peaks at 150, I would expect - what the managing director of ERA said was that in three years’ time, you would expect it to be somewhat softer than it is today and that is reasonable to expect if we do get a supplier response but there's not going to be much of a supplier response for at least two to three years and so the uranium price will stay strong for that period. ALAN KOHLER: With the uranium price where it is now and what you think it's going to do in the future, do you think that uranium stocks generally are expensive or cheap? WARWICK GRIGOR: You need to look at the difference between potential producers, which can actually cash in on the high prices and exploration stocks. We're seeing a lot of unsophisticated buying of uranium exploration stocks and a lot of them have got success already factored into their share price. You've got a number of companies that are selling for $150 million to $200 million and they don't have one pound of resources. Well, those stocks have to deliver or they'll come down a long way. On the other side of the equation, you've got a lot of emerging companies which, if you have a look at what they could earn, what their cash flows could generate at these prices, they're still cheap. So the market needs to become a bit more sophisticated and look for value and be careful about hype on the exploration side. ALAN KOHLER: And what are your top three stocks? WARWICK GRIGOR: Looking at the potential producer category, I think that a company like Uranium King, which is looking at bringing on stream one or two mines in the USA - very good value; Contact Resources has got a high-grade ore body in Peru which could well be a producer; and Monero Mining, a company in which I disclose a vested interest in as a director, I think that's got a lot of very under-priced uranium assets in the Kirgiz Republic and remember, that's a major uranium producing part of the world. So they're my top three. ALAN KOHLER: Thanks very much for joining us, Warwick. VIDEO: It has been another big week in the booming uranium sector. The besieged board of Queensland explorer Summit has recommended shareholders accept a $123 billion takeover offer from Paladin Resources, while the new boss at one of the world's largest producers, ERA, warned the whole yellowcake boom looked overcooked. Alan Kohler spoke to one of the most highly regarded analysts of the sector, Warwick Grigor of Far East Capital. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] ***************************************************************** 47 The Australian: Gillard confident on mines policy This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * April 23, 2007 DEPUTY Opposition Leader Julia Gillard is confident Labor's 25 year opposition to new uranium mines will be overturned at the party's national conference this weekend. Uranium and industrial relations are shaping up as the two biggest challenges for Labor leader Kevin Rudd during the three-day conference in Sydney, starting on Friday. Ms Gillard said Mr Rudd will face some tough opposition from a number of Labor Party members. "I expect it to be a pretty tough debate on uranium mining," Ms Gillard told ABC radio today. "There are a lot of deeply held views across the Labor Party and we will see those views put and put with vigour." But, at the end of the debate, Ms Gillard said Mr Rudd's plans will be supported by the majority. "I believe that Kevin Rudd will prevail in this debate - but I expect it will be a vigorous debate and that's appropriate," she said. "Labor is a democratic party, we value people's views, and the national conference is the time for people to put them." Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese said Mr Rudd won't necessarily get it all his own way at the conference. Mr Albanese will be leading the push for Labor to retain its no new uranium mines policy, once known as the three mines policy. Ms Gillard said she is not surprised Mr Albanese opposes the plan, as he has deep and long-held views about uranium mining. "But in terms of more uranium mines, I think it's important that this country can exploit it's natural assets," she said. I'm from South Australia originally - I know how important uranium mining is to the economy of that state and consequently I believe that we can get all of the safeguards right but have further uranium mining." © The Australian ***************************************************************** 48 The Australian: Labor expected to overturn mining ban This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * April 23, 2007 OPPOSITION resources spokesman Chris Evans says he expects Labor will overturn its 25-year opposition to new Australian uranium mines. Mr Evans said today he would support Labor Leader Kevin Rudd's plan to dump the ALP's uranium policy at the party's national conference which starts on Friday in Sydney. "The current Labor Party policy has failed," Mr Evans said. "During the life of the policy uranium mining has trebled, three new mines have opened and we are about to become the largest uranium miner in the world. "I think there is a mood for a change in the Labor Party ... we have been debating it for 30 years ... the policy hasn't worked." The party might be divided on uranium policy but it was united in support for strengthening international nuclear safeguards, he said. "We are very worried about (Prime Minister John) Howard's plans to sell uranium to India, outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but my expectation is that the conference will change the policy. "I have been wrong before but am hopeful that we will change the policy." Mr Evans's stance is at odds with that of his colleague Peter Garrett, the party's environment spokesman. Mr Garrettt said today he would stand firm against any policy change. Mr Garrett, a one-time Senate candidate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, said Mr Rudd would have a fight on his hands. "I have always said that we are into nuclear as far as we ought to be, I won't be supporting any proposals to expand uranium mining in Australia and we'll have a discussion at the conference when these amendments come forward," he said on ABC radio. Mr Garrett said he was one of thousands who campaigned vigorously against uranium mining in the 1980s and he was not going to stand down from his position. "Any proposals to significantly expand the amount of uranium mining that can take place in Australia brings us back into a contributor to the nuclear fuel cycle overseas," he said. "Critically it seems to me that the case that was made against expanding uranium mining many years ago is still a strong case." © The Australian ***************************************************************** 49 The Modesto Bee: Military has left a deadly legacy Modbee.com | Old and forgotten Navy, Army bases filled with environmental hazards By RUSSELL CAROLLO THE SACRAMENTO BEE Last Updated: April 22, 2007, 04:24:08 AM PDT First of two parts. SACRAMENTO -Time bombs lurk beneath California, from the Mexican border to the Oregon state line, under hills, valleys and coastlines, poised to contaminate wells, pollute waterways, jeopardize property values and endanger human lives. Hundreds of locations already have been polluted, and how much more of the state is at risk, no one really knows. What is known is that more than 1,000 confirmed and suspected military sites, the largest number in the country, are spread across California, covering an area more than twice the size of Connecticut. Many were abandoned decades ago but may still be contaminated with toxic chemicals, bombs and other munitions or even radioactive waste, a six-month examination by The Sacramento Bee found. Additional parts of the state are at risk from pollutants migrating through groundwater, soil and open waterways, and the threat of toxic waste dumped decades ago becomes more dangerous as developers spread thousands of homes and businesses on and around former bases. With so many sites, encounters with military debris and even munitions are becoming commonplace. "I don't think there is a base in the state of California that hasn't had some kind of environmental problem," said Alameda Assistant City Manager David Brandt, whose efforts to develop the site of a former Navy base on the city's waterfront stalled after the unexpected discovery of old military contamination. Under current funding, it could take more than 300 years to clean up all the former U.S. military sites, The Bee found. The newspaper, using hundreds of thousands of military records contained in seven databases obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act, found that the majority of California's sites are potentially the most dangerous because they predated strong environmental laws and stringent record-keeping requirements. The Army Corps of Engineers' Formerly Used Defense Sites database of military sites closed prior to 1988 identifies 1,094 sites in California. Only two-thirds of the locations, including some operated by civilian contractors, are identified by size. They cover about 7,300 square miles. Bases closed after 1988 and active bases cover an additional 4,300 square miles. The Army identified at least one in three of the older state sites as needing environmental cleanup. Although most of the rest are not believed to be contaminated, no one is really sure. The Army, for example, found no record that a site near Del Monte Beach in Monterey Bay was ever owned, leased or even used by the military. But about 10 years ago, under 70 feet of water, scuba divers found more than 100 .50-caliber cartridges and other hazardous ordnance and explosive waste. Corps records indicate the site apparently was in the path of machine-gun fire coming from Fort Ord across Monterey Bay, and is believed to have been used for amphibious training. "People tended to just look the other way when old munitions or fuel was just dumped wherever they felt like it," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst. Trying to get out of cleanup Despite calls for more vigilance, the military repeatedly has sought to exempt itself from the country's environmental laws during the past several years. Congress refused. Cleanup of the military's former munitions ranges alone potentially is the largest environmental project in history, and California has more of themthan any other state, 376, or 16 percent of the 2,307 suspected munitions sites in the United States and territories. In addition, half of all U.S. sites contaminated with perchlorate, a major component of rocket fuel, are in California and Texas. "People didn't know that these contaminants posed a threat," said Beatrice Griffey, a geologist with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. "They conducted their activities in accordance with procedures that were acceptable at that time. They're not acceptable now." In a prepared statement in response to The Bee's findings, Alex Beehler, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense overseeing environmental issues, denied that funding for environmental programs has declined. Beehler said that for nearly a decade, military funding of environmental programs "remained at constant levels." "In fact, in the area of environmental conservation, the DOD (Department of Defense) has never spent more to preserve the character of the land we use," Beehler's statement says. California's former military sites extend from a secret World War II training site at Toyon Bay on Catalina Island, where Office of Strategic Services agents were taught to plant explosives beneath enemy ships, to the former state fairgrounds in Sacramento, once a military storage facility and now the eastern half of the University of California at Davis Medical Center and part of Tahoe Park. The Bee analysis found that California sites are scattered across hundreds of cities. San Diego has the most, followed by Los Angeles. Among the state's sites are some well-known places, including Alcatraz Island, Point Reyes Lighthouse, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the San Diego Convention Center and part of Bodega Bay. Colleges, schools, golf courses, shopping areas, parks, airports, farms and hundreds of homes were built on land once used by the military. More and more areas that once were bombing ranges, training areas or fuel depots are being developed and opened to the public. In 2003, Air Force officials confirmed the military had stored nuclear weapons at Castle Air Force Base near Atwater and that radioactive waste might still be buried on the land, near where a federal prison now stands. The military still can't identify all the former sites in the state. On a trip to find a site in Southern California, one Army investigator wrote: "None of the sources provided the exact location. ? Many of them contradicted each other." Hard to prove health effects Long-term health consequences of the military's toxic legacy are largely unknown, the evidence contradictory. The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry investigated at least 28 former California military sites in the past decade and found evidence of health hazards at five. But the threshold to establish a scientific link between contamination and illness is high, the science needed to establish that link requires information that is frequently unavailable, and the science itself still is developing. "It's very, very rare to have a site (where) we can conclusively determine that contamination from this location hurt these people," said Susan Muze of thefederal registry's California regional office. Courts have a different threshold, and hundreds of Californians have filed claims in 15 years alleging that military waste sites across the state caused cancers and other illnesses or ruined property values by polluting wells. One Sacramento-area defense contractor, Aerojet-General Corp., agreed last May to pay a $25 million settlement. A jury found the contractor responsible for the deaths of three former Rancho Cordova residents and the illnesses of four others who drank tap water contaminated with perchlorate and two other chemicals linked to the production of rockets. Before Aerojet occupied the site, 15 miles east of Sacramento, it was leased to the military from 1956 to 1961 for the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, which covered 3,591 acres. In Pasadena, dozens of people living around the Jet Propulsion Laboratory sued in 1997, claiming contamination from the defense contractor spread cancer through their neighborhoods. "They dumped a lot of chemicals, and I think over the years it got into the groundwater," said Barbara Silcott, who joined the lawsuit after her daughter, Amy, was diagnosed with leukemia. "I personally know about a half a dozen people who had leukemia." Though the federal government concluded there was no health hazard at the site, JPL settled with Silcott and 57 other area residents. Clifford H. Pearson, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said environmental cases against the military or its contractors are expensive and complicated. "There are very few lawyers in the country that can afford to take these cases," Pearson said. Contamination linked to military waste has caused economic harm, too. "They took everything away from us," said Janet S. Lewis, 77, of Stockton. "Even my lawn dried up." She and her husband, Curtis, had a herd of about 1,000 Black Angus cattle on more than 300 acres his family used for five generations. The property, in Lathrop, borders the former Sharpe Army Depot, which until 1976 was a maintenance depot for heavy equipment and aircraft. In the 1980s, studies found high levels of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, both suspected carcinogens, and other volatile organic compounds in soil and groundwater there. The contamination forced the couple to shut down all 14 of their wells used to water cattle and irrigate alfalfa for feed. In 1993, they filed a claim for damages, which Janet Lewis estimated at $640,000, and the case dragged on for years. "We fiddled around with those people for nine years," she said. Lewis said the couple spent about $18,000 fighting the case, but after her husband died in 1997, she took the government's $42,000 offer. Filling in information gaps America built the bulk of its military sites when fighting World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War was more important than keeping records on the waste those efforts generated. The result is that investigators looking for toxic waste and private contractors who want to build at former sites must try to fill large information gaps. An Army investigator sent to Newhall to look for signs of military waste in the Los Angeles suburb reported that the site had never been used by the military. But he wasn't sure. "Construction of the residences, recreation centers and park eliminated any evidence of potential Department of Defense use," the investigator wrote in a report to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Government Accountability Office found that military records on sites contaminated by radioactivity were so incomplete that it couldn't identify all of them. In 1992, the GAO found the military had identified 271 sites; months later it amended the number to 420. The Defense Science Board Task Force reported that unexploded military munitions cover about 1,400 sites and 10 million acres. But much of what is buried is undocumented. "Records and archives have been lost, and some munitions tests were never documented," the board wrote in a 2003 report. Environmental surprises related to former and current U.S. military bases have become commonplace in California, across the United States and the world. Many of the discoveries come as developers build over and near former military sites. In 1999, workers expanding a parking lot for a San Diego hotel came across 200 3˝-inch practice rockets. Six years later and just a few hundred yards away, workers installing a fence near new student housing at the University of California at San Diego, found more than a dozen pieces of military debris. Bob Dempsey, a civil engineer who has conducted hundreds of environmental investigations at former military sites for the Army Corps of Engineers, said he found environmental hazards at a number of sites that were supposed to be safe. "I've probably found issues at 10 to 15 percent of them," he said. The Department of Defense found that about 4,000 of the more than 9,000 sites in the United States and territories closed prior to 1988 did not have environmental hazards requiring further cleanup by the military, including 402 sites in California. But in 2002, the GAO found the corps did "not have a sound basis" for declaring 1,468 of the sites safe. How long will cleanup take? Predictions of how long it will take and how much it will cost to fix the environmental damage caused by the military are filled with superlatives and qualifiers. "Part of my problem is that I have over 400 sites, and I have a minimum budget, which equates to about $16 million a year," said Jerry Vincent, a section chief overseeing former defense sites for the Corps of Engineers' Sacramento office. "I have a $2 billion cleanup," Vincent added, "so if you do the math, I'll be doing this for at least 150 to 200 years." Active bases, he said, appear to get the most attention and funding, and bases closed after 1988 seem to be second. Bases closed before 1988, known as Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS, get the least attention, he said. Numerous government auditors found that the military has not accurately estimated the costs of cleaning up. During the cleanup of the Seneca Army Depot Activity in New York state, cost estimates increased from $532,000 to $3.6 million, the U.S. Army Audit Agency found, and the time to complete the job increased from 3˝ months to three years. Cleanup of just munitions, considered by the EPA to be potentially the largest environmental cleanup in American history, could take between 75 and 330 years, a 2003 GAO report found. That same year the Defense Science Board found that munitions cleanup was underfunded at $200 million annually, given that there are 10 million acres involved and that the cost of digging up and disposing of a single piece of ordnance can range from $2,500 to $16,000. MONDAY: Public inherits land, hazards. Copyright © 2007 The Modesto Bee. About The Bee | ***************************************************************** 50 Rocky Mountain News: Lawyer fees mount in legal wrangling over Flats Taxpayers pay bulk of tab in sweetheart deal Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant near Boulder in 1995, before being leveled. By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News April 21, 2007 Companies that made nuclear weapons at Rocky Flats polluted Colorado's land and air, but taxpayers have picked up most of the legal tab for the resulting lawsuits and investigations. Since 1989, the government has spent $78 million defending Rockwell International and Dow Chemical. That's because it promised for decades to cover any damages arising from the dangerous process of building nuclear weapons during the Cold War. No company would have touched the job without such assurances. And now the cost to taxpayers could mushroom. If a 2005 jury verdict stands against appeals, the government is expected to pay up to $354 million for damages to property values near Rocky Flats, in addition to attorney fees. In contrast, Rockwell has paid $22.7 million to the government for polluting. That includes $18.5 million in criminal fines after the company pleaded guilty to 10 environmental crimes and $4.2 million in civil damages in a whistle-blower fraud suit. "I think it's absurd," longtime activist Leroy Moore said. "It's a kind of invitation to wrongful behavior." Rockwell declined to comment. Dow, which is part of the case concerning neighboring land, pointed to continued residential development near Rocky Flats as proof that property values were not harmed. Much of the evidence about pollution started with whistle-blower Jim Stone, a former Rocky Flats engineer who died recently. Ranging all over the secretive plant from 1980 to 1986, Stone was told to find problems and fix them, said his attorney, Hartley Alley. When Rockwell would not change practices that were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals into the environment, Stone went to the FBI, Alley said. Stone told stories that seemed unbelievable: Rocky Flats was disposing of plutonium-contaminated waste by burning it at night, when no one could see the smoke. And he said that the plant was trying to solidify radioactive liquids with cement but it didn't use enough, so the concrete blocks dripped radioactive contamination onto the ground. Armed with evidence from Stone and others, the FBI raided the plant in 1989, seeking evidence of environmental crimes. Three years later, Rockwell pleaded guilty to some of the charges and paid $18.5 million in fines. Stone filed his whistle-blower lawsuit, and in 1999, Rockwell was found to have defrauded the government by taking bonuses for doing a good job running Rocky Flats, when it was actually polluting. Today, 20 years after Stone's first allegations, the legal wrangling continues. So far, the government has paid: ? $68 million in legal costs for the property values case. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., urged the U.S. Department of Energy to settle last year. Because the case is being appealed, legal fees continue to rise. ? $10 million for an investigation of criminal charges against Rockwell in 1989. Rockwell's guilty plea covered only 10 environmental charges that arose in 1990 and later. The government resisted paying the legal fees for Rockwell but lost on appeal. Still in dispute is $15 million plus interest for Rockwell's defense in the Stone case - the one in which Rockwell was found to have defrauded the government. In that case, federal lawyers argue that both law and Rockwell's contract changed in the mid-1980s. Both bar payment of attorneys fees where the company is found liable for fraud, the government says in court documents. Rockwell countered that it was the Energy Department's policy "to provide a virtually risk-free arena for its management and operating contractors." In court documents, Rockwell says it sensed that this tradition was about to change, so it negotiated a cover for itself. Rockwell points to another part of its 1986 contract, which says that the government will pay for liabilities, damage costs and penalties relating to cleanup of contaminated materials. Rockwell argues that it was just following the Energy Department's orders. The company says that its contract includes activities "that are determined, after-the-fact, to be violations of environmental laws." Thus they should be paid by the Energy Department. Rockwell also says that the Energy Department provided funds to make atomic bombs, but not enough to protect the environment from the radioactive and toxic chemicals used in the process. In court documents, the company said that in 1986, the federal government provided just $400,000 for eliminating environmental hazards. That was in Rocky Flats' annual budget of $363 million. In a related case, the government could not even make stick its attempt to cut Rockwell's fee for running Rocky Flats in 1989, the year of the FBI raid. In January of this year, Rockwell won back $3 million that Energy Department bosses had cut. The appeals court said that only one person was allowed by the contract to set Rockwell's fee. That person was Bruce Twining, the Energy Department's Albuquerque district manager, who was pulled from oversight of Rocky Flats because he was a potential party to the investigation, according to court documents. The government said that the larger fee set by Twining could be seen as a favor to keep Rockwell from implicating him in wrongdoing. Feds pay legal fees for pollution cases For decades, the U.S. government promised companies operating Rocky Flats that it would pay all costs arising from the dangerous process of building nuclear weapons. So today, taxpayers are picking up the costs - or being asked to - in three lawsuits concerning the companies' pollution. ? Case: Class-action lawsuit for property damage to Rocky Flats neighbors. ? Status: Jury awarded $354 million in 2005, which taxpayers may have to pay. Rocky Flats operators Rockwell and Dow Chemical are appealing the decision. ? Attorneys fees: $68 million paid by taxpayers to date, and rising. Case: Criminal defense for environmental pollution investigation against Rockwell during 1989, and for criminal defense of its employees. Status: Employees were never charged, and company pleaded guilty only to charges that arose after that date. Attorneys fees: Federal government resisted paying defense costs, saying it was not liable for defending criminal charges. It lost on appeal, and taxpayers paid $10 million plus interest. Case: Jim Stone's whistle-blower case seeking fraud damages for federal government because Rockwell collected fees for doing a good job running Rocky Flats while violating pollution laws. Status: Jury ordered Rockwell to pay $4.2 million in damages in 1999. Attorneys fees: Federal government resisted paying Rockwell's legal fees of $15 million and rising, on grounds of fraud. Case is on appeal. imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5438 Site Map | Photo Reprints | Corrections 2007 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 51 Rocky Mountain News: Whistle-blower's attorneys want high court to revisit case Justices denied $1 million share of fraud damages By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News April 21, 2007 Attorneys for Rocky Flats whistle-blower Jim Stone are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to admit that it was wrong. They are asking the high court to make a rare reconsideration of its March 27 decision. The court denied Stone a $1 million share in fraud damages paid to the U.S. government by a former operator of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. Stone attorney Hartley Alley, who filed the rehearing petition Friday, said the Supreme Court has not granted one for many years, and may take months to decide whether to take it up. A court spokeswoman said such petitions are filed only three or four times a year. Court rules say a majority must agree to the rehearing. Stone, a former Rocky Flats engineer, died at the age of 82 on April 11, just two weeks after the high court ruled against him in a landmark case. His widow, Virginia, now takes over as petitioner. The court's ruling made it harder for people who blow the whistle on fraud against the federal government to collect a share of the winnings. Stone sued Rocky Flats operator Rockwell International in 1989. He alleged that it committed fraud by collecting high fees for doing a good job running the nuclear weapons plant outside Denver, while in fact it was contaminating the environment with radioactive and toxic pollution. The U.S. government eventually joined the lawsuit and won $4.2 million in fraud damages. Rockwell took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Stone from collecting his share. Rockwell's victory against Stone in the Supreme Court also meant Rockwell did not have to pay legal fees of $11 million to the attorneys who filed the case for Stone and helped the government win it. Rockwell spokesman Jim Bernaden said he didn't know it was possible to ask for reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision. He declined further comment. The high court decided Stone didn't meet a requirement that whistle-blowers be the "original source" of the specific act for which the government collected damages. The petition for rehearing says this was an erroneous finding of fact. Normally, findings of fact are made at the trial court, and the Supreme Court is limited to findings of law, the petition says. The high court said Stone alleged that a plan to harden radioactive pond sludge with cement would fail but that Stone was wrong because an employee testified at trial that he succeeded in hardening the "pondcrete" blocks by using extra cement. The petition says the jury made no such finding. The jury instead found Rockwell committed fraud by collecting fees and never decided why the pondcrete failed. The petition also says the court misunderstood Stone's allegation: that piping sludge would require varying amounts of cement, and therefore some pondcrete blocks would fail. Alley said that many of the pondcrete blocks did fail, and they leaked onto the infamous 903 pad at Rocky Flats. The 903 pad was one of the worst areas of outdoor pollution cleaned up in the $7 billion decontamination and demolition of Rocky Flats. Memorial service ? The life of Rocky Flats whistle-blower Jim Stone, who died April 11, will be remembered in a public ceremony at 1 p.m. Saturday, April 28, at the Arbor House of Maple Grove Park, 14600 W. 32nd Ave. in Golden. imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5438 ***************************************************************** 52 lamonitor.com: Former director's talk declassified The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor Sudden change of plans Last fall, Harold Agnew was invited to give a talk in the Heritage Lecture Series, which was inaugurated during the 60th anniversary activities of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2003. A few days before Agnew's mostly historical talk was to take place on Nov. 16, 2006, it was "classified" by the laboratory. The venue was abruptly changed and the public was prohibited without explanation. "The talk is classified as secret/restricted data and no foreign nationals may attend," said a forbidding lab announcement. Only Q-clearance badge holders were allowed to attend and only those with specialized security ratings known as "Sigmas." A declassified version of the talk was recently made available to laboratory employees and to the Monitor. While there are many insider pieces of information in the unclassified DVD made available by the laboratory, the presentation was seamless and any redactions that may have been made in the disc, a little longer than an hour in length, were not apparent to a viewer. Unconventional wisdom, Manhattan-Project style Agnew was the laboratory's third director, who came to Los Alamos because he was working with an experimental physics team under Enrico Fermi at Columbia University and then helped build a nuclear chain-reaction pile in Chicago at Stagg Field. He also flew as the scientific officer on the Enola Gay that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. Now in his mid-80s, Agnew is surely the most humorous of the laboratory's nine directors, and also retains one of the sharpest minds. His heritage presentation last fall, as recorded and edited on video by the laboratory, was anecdotal and punctuated by many funny sketches of some of the greatest scientists of the era, focused especially on the Fermi, the Italian physicist, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1938. He also took the opportunity to fan the flames of an old historical debate on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Manhattan Project's founding director. "My hero in all this business is really Fermi," Agnew said. Fermi's Nobel Prize almost instantly recognized the importance of his theoretical investigations of the atomic nucleus in the process of radioactive decay and the role of a little-known particle that he named the neutrino. The Nobel Prize, Agnew noted, enabled Fermi to obtain permission to leave fascist Italy and come to New York, where he worked on a graphite reactor, joined by Agnew. Agnew joked about his days crawling around in the graphite - he preferred beryllium and radium. Once he got his tie caught in a sprocket. Fermi's lectures on reactor technology reminded Agnew of stories about Leo Szilard, the Hungarian scientist whose letter to Roosevelt is generally credited with having started the Manhattan Project. One night at the University of Chicago Faculty Club, Szilard announced that he had applied to get his fingerprints back, Agnew recalled. When people wanted to know why, Szilard said, "Well, I might resort to an activity of crime and I don't want to be handicapped." Agnew's stories featured anecdotes about the "risk-averse" culture of the early days of the laboratory. Activities included stirring up radioactive concoctions in a Coor's evaporating dish that was then "put in a mayo jar with Kleenex to see if it was leaking." On Tinian Island waiting for the bombing mission, Agnew learned a lesson. "Don't ever try to help the feds," he said, to general laughter in the auditorium. "Be honest. But don't try to help them." He showed a picture of himself holding a canister that contained part of the plutonium core used at Nagasaki, which was stored in his hut on the island. Later, back in Chicago he said, "The feds came by and said they thought I had classified material. Trying to help, I said I had these slides." Agnew tried to help them by pointing out the one with the Nagasaki plutonium core. "I said, 'Maybe this is what you're looking for' and they said, 'Oh yeah, that's it,' but they hadn't a clue what I was talking about," Agnew recalled. Agnew showed a slide of the special B-29 bombers that were flown to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They had reversible props and all the guns were taken off to save weight. They also had large black arrows painted on the tails. On the day before the raid on Hiroshima, Agnew said, Tokyo Rose (the Japanese radio propagandist) came on the radio with a message for the "black arrows": "She said, 'We know who you are and what you are up to and we are ready for you.' When we went out to our planes that night, we didn't have black arrows any more; we had numbers and letters like all the other planes. I thought it was a little chicken, but..." Knocking Oppy and RRW Agnew's talk concluded with some remarks about Edward Teller and Oppenheimer that were, characteristically, somewhat against the grain. Agnew said Teller's criticism of Oppenheimer, during the famous hearings on his security status by Lewis Strauss in 1954, was not as bad as it was made out to be. "Listen to what Teller said," Agnew said, "that [Oppy] had done a great job as lab director, but if he had to do it again, [Teller] would not have been happy to have Oppy advising the government." Agnew noted that Oppenheimer wanted to close down Los Alamos, was against the development of nuclear energy for power, against the hydrogen bomb and advised against the nuclear-powered submarine, all virtual heresies in Agnew's view. After a standing ovation from a packed auditorium in the administration building, Agnew answered several questions, including one about a published statement he had made expressing skepticism over the Reliable Replacement Warhead. LANL employees had not yet learned at the time that their proposal would not win the competition for a controversial redesign concept for the nuclear weapon inventory, for the replacement warhead that would not violate arms control treaties because it would not have to be tested. Agnew did not provide the answer many wanted to hear. "You're willing to build something you've never built before, using codes that have never been used before in this context, materials that have never been used before, instead of rebuilding something that has been tested and that has been built before," he said. "Don't put it in the stockpile without testing it." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 KnoxNews: Workers added to K-25 site cleanup 50 more to be hired this year, then an additional 250 will come on in 2008 By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com April 21, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Despite pressures on the government's cleanup budget, work is ramping up at the World War II-era K-25 plant. Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Department of Energy's cleanup manager, has about 700 people working on the decommissioning of the old uranium-enrichment facilities. The company and its subcontractors plan to add another 50 crafts workers before the end of the year and then hire about 250 more in 2008, bringing the cleanup work force at the site to about 1,000. "It's certainly proven to be a monster," said John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs chief in Oak Ridge. "We've had to deal with things we certainly didn't envision beforehand." Among the unwelcome surprises was a worker falling through a second-story floor in early 2006, resulting in serious injuries. That accident illustrated the serious deterioration that had taken place at K-25, a milelong, U-shaped structure that was the world's largest building under one roof when it was constructed in the early 1940s. "It's in terrible, terrible shape," said Dennis Hill, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs. DOE has made the dismantlement of K-25, along with a sister building, K-27, the highest priority of the Oak Ridge cleanup program. "You can't ignore it," Hill said, noting that the big building is far and away the biggest project at the site now known as the East Tennessee Technology Park. The goal is to turn the old nuclear site into a private industrial park, and the K-25 reclamation is the centerpiece of that effort. "We did get more money added in (for the rest of fiscal 2007), so that work is ramping up some," Hill said. Some work was put on hold earlier this year because of funding issues while Congress debated a continuing budget resolution to decide on federal spending levels. The K-25 project is as complicated as it is large. The cleanup effort is made difficult by the fact that it houses uranium-enrichment equipment that remains classified and must be protected. It also houses deposits of highly enriched uranium, which conceivably could be converted into atomic bombs if stolen or diverted. The project has been stalled on multiple occasions, and the cleanup strategy was revised drastically after the accident, basically eliminating the presence of any workers on the weakened second floor and adding other safety measures. The project was originally scheduled to be finished by the end of fiscal 2008, but that now been stretched by another 18 months to two years. And more delays could occur if federal funding doesn't come through as hoped. "Everybody is going to have a great feeling of accomplishment when that building is gone. You're going to see a lot of people celebrating," Shewairy said. Although demolition of the old facilities is ramping up, the north portion of K-25 - the bottom of the "U" - is being preserved for possible use as a historical museum and visitors attraction. K-25 was completed near the tail-end of World War II, and it later enriched most of the uranium was used in Cold War nuclear weapons. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************