*****************************************************************
05/29/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.126
*****************************************************************
   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 AFP: China lashes critical Pentagon report - 
2 Xinhua: No fast economic fix from China-U.S. talks
3 UPI: China attacks U.S. military report
4 China Post: China says Pentagon report 'totally unjustified'
5 csmonitor.com: China, nuclear technology, and a US sale | 
6 US: GE: Panel backs whistleblower rights for Defense contractors 
7 DW: US on Collision Course With G8 Partners Over Climate Agreement |
8 AFP: Rice to push Iran, Kosovo, Darfur at G8 ministers meeting - 
9 DTI: Energy white paper: meeting the energy challenge - 
10 Reuters: Russia tests new rocket to beat missile defenses | 
11 AFP: Russia tests missile able to 'penetrate' defences - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
12 US: toledoblade.com: The Davis-Besse dance
13 CBC News: Opinions differ on safety of possible nuclear plant
14 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 2 shut down because of problems with 
15 London Times: Haven't we been here before?
16 US: The Coloradoan: No such thing as green nuclear energy
17 IHT: Indian prime minister sets 2012 as deadline to end power shorta
18 Calgary Sun: Nuclear power debate rages
19 Guardian Unlimited: Budget cuts delay decommissioning of ageing nucl
20 US: HT: Browns Ferry safety system fails test; no immediate shutdown
21 SCMP: Guangdong Nuclear in Anhui plant deal
22 The Herald: Ban would place Scotland in a precarious position
23 US: San Francisco Bay Guardian: Nuclear greenwashing
24 UPI: India's NTPC seeks help for project
25 US: Hemscott: Westinghouse revises plant design 
26 BBC NEWS: Miliband faces climate criticism
27 Jamaica Gleaner News: Looking at nuclear energy - 
28 US: Decatur Daily: Plant restart renews debate about nuclear power
29 Sydney Morning Herald: Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear -
30 NewsRoom Finland: Greenpeace activists scale crane at Finnish nuclea
31 US: PRN: Westinghouse Submits NRC Application to Revise AP1000 Desig
32 Hindustan Times: N-deal awaits final push by PM, Bush- 
33 Digital Chosunilbo: KEDO to Shut Down for Good
34 News & Star: Top safety awards joy for nuclear workplaces
35 allAfrica.com: Botswana: Nuclear Boom 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
36 US: NEPA News: NRC seeks to keep nuclear plant guards more alert wit
37 SMH: Asia-Pacific nuclear authority plan scuttled after safety debat
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
38 US: [v911t] Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective //DU PROFITS
39 Scotsman.com: Health - Minister urged to end leukaemia row
40 US: Gallup Independent: Matheson requests hearing on RECA expansion 
41 US: NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of 
42 News & Star: Nuclear firm tests beaches
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
43 US: Athens NEWS: Meeting on nuke waste storage plan threatens to mel
44 US: CP: Cameco signs nuclear fuel deal with Kazakhstani national ato
45 Reuters: Nuclear dump to leave Taiwan tropical isle 
46 Magnetic Island News: Greens seek to protect troops at Shoalwater
47 US: Gallup Independent: Matheson pushes for Atlas cleanup - 
48 US: AU ABC: Uranium miner struggles to find Honeymoon workers. 
49 AU ABC: Owners made right decision on waste dump - nuclear physicist
50 US: PRN: Northwestern reports 1.0% uranium mineralization on its Nig
51 Hindustan Times: Right to reprocess spent fuel major snag- 
 
                           PEACE
 
52 US: Illinois Wesleyan: Workshop on the Nuclear War Legacy to be Held
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
53 KnoxNews: ORNL processing spent fuel
54 Santa Fe New Mexican: New Los Alamos plutonium lab on hold
55 Albuquerque Tribune: Plutonium lab plan put in cold storage 
56 Tri-City Herald: Umatilla depot commander leaving post with rockets 
57 KFDA: Strike Over for Pantex Guards
58 Hanford News: PNNL, UW team up on climate change study
59 Hanford News: Top officials to negotiate Hanford cleanup guidelines
60 Hanford News: Bulk vit test under way to resolve issues
61 Hanford News: Audit criticizes layoff bonuses for nuclear workers
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 CP: Cameco signs nuclear fuel deal with Kazakhstani national atomic company

Published: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 3:24 PM ET

Canadian Press

SASKATOON (CP) - Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO) has signed a memorandum of
understanding with Kazakhstani national atomic company Kazatomprom
to co-operate on building a uranium conversion plant and expand
uranium production.

Cameco said Monday it and Kazatomprom will study the feasibility of
a plant to convert uranium into nuclear fuel "in Kazakhstan and
elsewhere."

The Canadian uranium-mining giant would provide the technology and
potentially own up to 49 per cent of the plant, with the rest held
by Kazatomprom, which is owned by the government of the central
Asian country.

"We are pleased to build on the long-standing and strong business
relationship we have with Kazatomprom," stated Cameco CEO Jerry
Grandey.

The memorandum of understanding provides for doubling eventual
production from the Inkai uranium deposit - owned 60 per cent by
Cameco and 40 per cent by Kazatomprom - to 10.4 million pounds
annually "on a timeframe to be confirmed." A Cameco-Kazatomprom
joint venture expects to begin commercial production at Inkai next
year, reaching 5.2 million pounds annually in 2010.

Cameco said it expects binding agreements will be signed this year.

Š The Canadian Press, 2007

Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
AFP: China lashes critical Pentagon report - 

Mon May 28, 2:49 AM ET

BEIJING(AFP) - China lashed back Monday at a US report on its 
military might, saying the Pentagon was playing up the issue for 
ulterior motives and warning Washington against selling weapons 
to Taiwan.

"The US Defense Department's report exaggerates China's military
expenditures out of ulterior motives and continues to disseminate
the 'China threat' theory," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu
said in a statement.

"It seriously violates the norms of international relations and
rudely interferes in China's internal affairs. China expresses its
strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition."

Jiang also called Taiwan "an inseparable part of China's territory,"
urging the United States to "stop weapons sales and military
exchanges with Taiwan and not send any wrong signals to Taiwan
pro-independence forces."

China has insisted that Taiwan is a part of its territory since
Nationalist armies fled the mainland for the island in 1949
following civil war. Beijing has vowed to use force to retake Taiwan
should the island ever declare formal independence.

Jiang's statement was the first direct government response to
Friday's Pentagon report, following scattered commentary in the
state-run media over the weekend.

The Pentagon report, issued Friday, expressed concern at the
deployment of long-range ballistic nuclear missiles, and a
ballooning and non-transparent budget.

China's pursuit of weapons strategies "is expanding from the
traditional land, air and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield
to include space and cyberspace," the report said.

Jiang responded Monday by calling China "a peace-loving country" and
"an important force for peace in the Asia-Pacific and the world."

"It's the duty of any sovereign nation to maintain a necessary
defence ability in order to protect its national security and
territorial integrity. The American report's dissemination of the
so-called 'China threat' theory is misleading and fruitless," she
said.

China's national budget has projected an increase in military
spending in 2007 of 17.8 percent to about 45 billion dollars,
although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute.

Copyright Š 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Budget cuts delay decommissioning of ageing nuclear reactors 

Mark Gould
Tuesday May 29, 2007

The government's timetable for decommissioning Britain's ageing 
civil nuclear reactors has been pushed backwards with delays to 
the clean-up of two sites and the potential redundancy of 200 
senior scientists and engineers as a result of cash constraints.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority says financial cuts 
will mean that the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors at 
Harwell in Oxfordshire and Winfrith in Dorset will face delays of 
up to five years.

Workers at the stations, some of whom have only recently been
recruited, have been told that redundancies are a possibility.
Prospect, the scientific and engineering union, says the two sites'
combined budget will have fallen from Ł101m this year to Ł85m in
2007-8 and Ł60m by 2008-09 leaving more than 200 jobs of senior
scientists and engineers at risk.

The cuts will also have an impact on the government's plans to build
a new generation of nuclear stations outlined in the government's
white paper last week. The best locations for the new plants would
be the sites of existing nuclear stations but, if the clean-up is
delayed, new locations will need to be investigated.

As reported in the Guardian last week, this means building new
nuclear stations on the sites of existing coal and gas stations in
the south-east of England, which could lead to long planning
inquiries.

The timetable slippage comes at an awkward time when a newly
resurgent privatised nuclear industry is trying to persuade the
public that it could build new power stations on time and on budget.

Under plans for competition within nuclear decommissioning, Harwell
and Winfrith will become a single site licence company, with a new
parent body owner.

Prospect's branch chair for the sites, Peter Simpson said: "In its
rush for privatisation at any cost the government does not seem to
care about the damage it causes to people who have given years of
loyal service and have put up with change after change and cut after
cut."

Financial cuts stem from the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant
in Sellafield, which has been shut for more than two years following
a leak of radioactive fuel. Thorp's Ł560m yearly earnings from
reprocessing overseas fuel were a significant part of the revenue
stream of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is
overseeing the clean-up.

The NDA has also taken a financial hit from the temporary shutdown
of one of its elderly Magnox power stations at Oldbury in
Gloucestershire which sells electricity to the National Grid.

A spokesman for the UKAEA confirmed that plans for full
decommissioning at Harwell and Winfrith by 2018, 30 years earlier
than planned, will be put back until around 2023 as part of a
revised work programme to accommodate the cuts. It has told workers
that some form of "early release" scheme may be required once the
new work programme has been set next month.

The spokesman added: "There are no specific figures on redundancies,
I really don't know if it would be 200, and if job losses were to
occur they would be as voluntary redundancies - it is still very
early yet."

David Luxton Prospect's national secretary, says the Department of
Trade and Industry should come up with more money to bail out the
sites. He blames the DTI for poor financial planning of the
decommissioning contract given that it was aware of the loss of
revenue from Thorp.

Mr Luxton said: "The financial model on which decommissioning is
relying is based on a revenue stream from, among others, Thorp and
that is not happening. The DTI caused the problem and is making the
NDA tighten its budgets and still deliver on public service
agreements made with bigger budgets."

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 Š Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Xinhua: No fast economic fix from China-U.S. talks

www.chinaview.cn 2007-05-28 09:41:05

    BEIJING, May 28 --How should we evaluate the second round of the
China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) held in Washington May
22 to 23?

    Carlos Gutierrez, U.S. commerce secretary, got it right: The
strategic economic dialogue focuses on the overall situation, not on
resolving particular issues. Therefore, no short-term results should
be expected.

    The China-U.S. Joint Economic Committee and other joint
committees are already in place to handle particular economic
matters. The strategic economic dialogue is needed to address the
two countries' long-term economic relationship from a wider
perspective. The goal is to develop sustainable mutually beneficial
economic ties.

    This task goes beyond the functions of limited-focus joint
committees. The eagerness for immediate results does not work here.

    The Washington dialogue strengthened mutual trust through
intensive discussion on issues of deep concern to both sides. This
is the big yield of the dialogue.

    Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi, who headed the Chinese delegation,
emphasized the intensive discussions on the service industry,
energy, the environment, balanced economic growth and innovation.
Energy and environmental protection were the most serious issues
discussed. Cooperation in these two areas has great prospects and is
expected to inject vitality into both economies.

    Also, both sides agreed to promote balanced growth of their
economies through macroeconomic policies and to encourage innovation
through policy exchanges and technological cooperation.

    In his opening statement, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
said both China and the U.S. face challenges of domestic
protectionism and questions about the merits of trade and
globalization. He went on to say: "There is a growing skepticism in
each country about the other's intentions. Unfortunately, in
America, this is manifesting itself as anti-China sentiment."

    This is worth attention.

Editor: Gao Ying
*****************************************************************
 3 Reuters: Nuclear dump to leave Taiwan tropical isle 

Mon May 28, 2007 9:24PM EDT

By Ralph Jennings

ORCHID ISLAND, Taiwan (Reuters) - Taiwan will shut a nuclear waste
dump on sparsely populated Orchid Island by 2016, eliminating a
toxic risk and a source of friction with indigenous people on this
tropical paradise in the Pacific Ocean.

The decision to move the dump from this island 65 miles

east of Taiwan follows a complex, 25-year battle between the site's
operator, Taiwan Power Co., and Orchid Island natives who believe
they have been poisoned.

It was a classic case of hazardous waste dumps located in a sparsely
populated, isolated region despite protests, the same sort of
problem that has addled communities in Japan and South Korea.

"They tend to locate in far-off islands and isolated communities, in
fact in places where the local governments can be bought off," said
Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace
International in Asia.

Greenpeace says the site contains "a soup of highly radioactive
poisons," even as Taipower insists the waste there contains low
levels of radiation.

What the Lan Yu Storage Site does contain is 97,672 barrels of
semi-solid nuclear waste in a poorly marked former millet-growing
area along the rocky coastline. That waste will move to one of three
sites on Taiwan's main island.

Many of the island's 3,100 aboriginal Tao people welcome the
departure plan, because they suspect nuclear waste has caused an
increase in stomach cancer, mutated fish caught in the Pacific Ocean
and contaminated soil where they grow taro and yams.  Continued...

Š Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
UPI: China attacks U.S. military report

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - 

Published: May 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM

BEIJING, May 28 (UPI) -- China Monday accused the United States of
exaggerating its military strength, saying the U.S. report is a
wanton interference in its internal affairs.

The strongly-worded statement was in response to the U.S. Pentagon's
annual report to Congress last week on China's military buildup.

The Pentagon had reportedly said China is "engaged in a sustained
effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and
expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western
Pacific," and that China's development of nuclear and conventional
weapons could pose credible threats to modern militaries operating
in the region.

"The report exaggerates China's military strength and expenditure
with ulterior motives," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang
Yu said, the official Xinhua reported. "It disseminates the 'China
threat' theory, severely violates norms of international relations
and wantonly interferes with China's internal affairs."

Jiang said the international community "has a fair judgment that
China is an important force in promoting peace in the Asia-Pacific
and the world."

She also said "Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory
and China firmly opposes any country that interferes in its internal
affairs through any means."

Š Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 UPI: China attacks U.S. military report

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - 

Published: May 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM

BEIJING, May 28 (UPI) -- China Monday accused the United States of
exaggerating its military strength, saying the U.S. report is a
wanton interference in its internal affairs.

The strongly-worded statement was in response to the U.S. Pentagon's
annual report to Congress last week on China's military buildup.

The Pentagon had reportedly said China is "engaged in a sustained
effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and
expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western
Pacific," and that China's development of nuclear and conventional
weapons could pose credible threats to modern militaries operating
in the region.

"The report exaggerates China's military strength and expenditure
with ulterior motives," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang
Yu said, the official Xinhua reported. "It disseminates the 'China
threat' theory, severely violates norms of international relations
and wantonly interferes with China's internal affairs."

Jiang said the international community "has a fair judgment that
China is an important force in promoting peace in the Asia-Pacific
and the world."

She also said "Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory
and China firmly opposes any country that interferes in its internal
affairs through any means."

Š Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
China Post: China says Pentagon report 'totally unjustified'

, Taiwan , News , Taiwan newspaper

2007/5/28 BEIJING, AFP

China hit back Sunday at a US defense report voicing concerns about
its military build-up, saying the document was "totally unjustified"
and designed to mislead international opinion.

In Beijing's first official reaction, the People's Daily said the
Pentagon report propagated a "China threat" theory even though China
was only covering its legitimate defense needs. "A report that
misleads international opinion," denounced an opinion piece in the
Communist Party mouthpiece.

"The report pays no attention to the actual state of affairs, and in
a premeditated fashion exaggerates the so-called Chinese military
threat," it said. "It is totally unjustified." The Pentagon report,
issued Friday, expressed concern at the deployment of long-range
ballistic nuclear missiles, and a ballooning and non transparent
budget.

China's pursuit of weapons strategies "is expanding from the
traditional land, air, and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield
to include space and cyberspace," the report said.

But the People's Daily retorted that China was simply trying to
cover "an objective self-defense need." It said: "It is legitimate
behavior aimed at protecting national security and territorial
integrity and will not cause a threat to any other country."

China's national budget has projected an increase in military
spending in 2007 of 17.8 percent to about 45 billion dollars,
although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute.

Copyright Š 1999~2007 The China Post.
*****************************************************************
 5 SMH: Asia-Pacific nuclear authority plan scuttled after safety debate -

The Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au

Marian Wilkinson in Darwin May 30, 2007

A plan to set up a regional nuclear safeguards authority for the
Asia Pacific has been ditched after an intense debate at the APEC
energy ministers conference in Darwin which centered on the
importance of nuclear safety.

The proposal was dropped from the final declaration of the
conference, despite being included in earlier drafts. But the
Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, denied there had been a "bitter
debate" over the issue after Singapore raised questions over nuclear
safety.

The discussion on the role of nuclear power as an option to lower
greenhouse gas emissions in the APEC region was strongly supported
by the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, Clay Sell. Mr Macfarlane said
Singapore had requested that any decision by an APEC country to
pursue the nuclear mix should be made in consultation with their
neighbours.

Officials from both Vietnam and Indonesia told the APEC conference
their countries were studying the option of nuclear power stations
that could come on line in the next decade.

The final declaration contained a watered down clause encouraging
APEC members to join the organisation's nuclear technologies group
to ensure the "safety, security, seismic health and waste handling
aspects" of nuclear power were "adequately addressed".

The final declaration by the 21 APEC countries also supported
sharing technologies on energy efficiency, biofuels, clean coal and
renewable energy as well as measures to increase energy security in
the growing APEC region. But there was little support for a regional
carbon trading emissions scheme that would put a price on greenhouse
gas pollution from fossil fuels across APEC.

A report on emissions trading is set to be delivered to the Prime
Minister, John Howard, tomorrow. But it is now believed it will be
unlikely to set hard targets for Australia to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions. Mr Macfarlane strongly signalled in Darwin that the
targets will be left to another economic committee to assess how
they can be achieved without cutting into economic growth.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters any target will depend on the
technology capable of achieving it. "The challenge at the moment is
not to set targets, the challenge is to actually have the technology
to achieve targets."

Labor has set a long-term target of reducing Australia's greenhouse
gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, based on emissions in the year
2000 which the Government has dismissed as irresponsible.

Tomorrow's report will, however, pave the way for Australia to
finally establish an emissions trading scheme that will put a price
on Australia's greenhouse gas pollution.

The importance of clean coal technology in achieving a target for
greenhouse gas cuts was highlighted yesterday when a slanging match
broke out between Mr Macfarlane and the Queensland Premier, Peter
Beattie, over his state's high profile "zero gen" clean coal project.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters in Darwin the project has "collapsed"
but Mr Beattie said he had "no idea" what Mr Macfarlane was talking
about. "Why would the coal industry invest $600million in clean coal
if they weren't serious?" Mr Beattie said. "Ian Macfarlane is
repeatedly trying to undermine clean coal technologies?"


Copyright Š 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
csmonitor.com: China, nuclear technology, and a US sale | 

from the May 30, 2007 edition

Critics of a deal to sell China cutting-edge reactors hope to stall
it in Congress by questioning the sale's taxpayer-backed financing.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Page 1 of 3

China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a
nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has said it is
willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans
and pave the way for a "nuclear [power] renaissance in the US."

But critics of the mammoth $5 billion-plus sale are raising concerns
that China might not use the advanced technology strictly for
peaceful purposes, perhaps intending to "reverse engineer" pieces of
it for military purposes.

That worry surfaced this month in a letter four members of Congress
sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The May 18 letter asked
whether the sale of four nuclear-power reactors to China, approved
by the administration in December, could end up enhancing Beijing's
military, including its ability to produce nuclear fuel for bombs
and increase the stealthiness of its submarines.

"This transaction presents potential security concerns that Congress
will have to consider," wrote Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R) of
Nebraska, Ed Royce (R) of California, Christopher Smith (R) of New
Jersey, and Diane Watson (D) of California. All serve on foreign or
international relations committees of the House of Representatives.

The sale of US civilian nuclear technology to China has long been a
matter of contention. The debate is intensifying now because
Westinghouse Electric Co. is expected within weeks to apply for up
to $5 billion in loans from the US Export-Import Bank to finance the
sale of the reactors to China. When it comes, the application will
trigger a review by Congress, where critics of the deal hope to
raise enough questions about it to hold it up, perhaps for good.

If approved, the deal would be the largest by far in the history of
the bank, a taxpayer-supported entity charged with creating and
sustaining jobs by financing sales of US goods to international
buyers.

                      Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright Š 2007 The Christian Science Monitor.
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Tri-City Herald: Umatilla depot commander leaving post with rockets destroyed

Published Monday, May 28th, 2007

By Jeannine Koranda, Herald Oregon Bureau

HERMISTON -- Lt. Col. Donna Rutten has no problem picking her
proudest moment during her time in charge of the Umatilla Chemical
Depot -- the day the final shipment of GB sarin-filled M55 rockets
were delivered to the incinerator.

"I'm so happy with the rockets because that is where the risk was,"
she said.

For the past two years, Rutten has commanded the Army depot near
Hermiston. On July 12, her successor, Lt. Col. Robert Stein, will
take over.

When Rutten took command, the depot and its incinerator had been
destroying sarin-filled rockets for almost a year. With the end of
her time in Hermiston approaching, she could oversee the Oregon
site's final shipment of the sarin-filled projectiles.

But not even that will top getting rid of the rockets, she said.
That's because one exploding rocket could potentially detonate
several others, sending a vapor cloud of sarin into the air and
those were the most dangerous to the community, she said.

During her tenure, about 3,368 steel reinforced shipping containers
have ferried sarin-filled munitions to the site's incinerator where
the weapons are drained and burned. About 155 shipments remain until
all the sarin-filled weapons are out of their protective storage
bunkers.

"It could be right down to the wire," she said.

The depot command change-over is a biannual event and has not
influenced the processing or shipping schedule, said Bruce
Henrickson, depot spokesman.

In her final months, Rutten has been focused on preparing the depot
staff and surrounding community for the next part of the campaign --
VX nerve agent.

Both sarin and VX attack the central nervous system and are
potentially deadly but they are slightly different. GB sarin
evaporates at the same rate as water so it can spread quickly in a
vapor cloud, Rutten said.

VX is more like a thick oil with very little vapor, she said. It is
more deadly if it comes in contact with the skin.

Rutten has started talking to emergency responders near the depot
about the differences they can expect with the new agent.

She hopes her successor will continue a similar dialogue.

"It is important to keep communication open with the leaders of the
communities," she said.

When Rutten leaves Hermiston, she will be moving to a staff position
at U.S. Northern Command in Colorado Springs which monitors threats
in Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the continental United States.

Her successor, Stein, graduated from Washington and Jefferson
College in Washington, Pa., in 1988 and entered the Army. Since
2005, he has been serving in the Republic of Korea as the U.S.
Forces Korea/Combined Forces Command chemical officer.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
GE: Panel backs whistleblower rights for Defense contractors 

(5/29/07)

-- www.GovernmentExecutive.com

By Brittany R. Ballenstedt bballenstedt@govexec.com May 29, 2007

A Senate panel last week approved a provision that would enhance
whistleblower protections for Defense Department contract employees
who report potential waste, fraud or abuse.

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the language as an
amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization bill, during a
closed markup session that ended Thursday.

The amendment, offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., would
provide a jury trial in federal court for company employees who are
subject to retaliation for exposing possible misconduct in Defense
contracts. Contract employees could pursue the trial if they do not
receive an administrative ruling from the Defense secretary within
90 days of bringing a reprisal allegation to an inspector general.

"Jury trials for cases of whistleblower retaliation are a
whistleblower's only genuine opportunity for a fair day in court --
with justice decided by the taxpayers the employee is trying to
defend," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government
Accountability Project, a Washington-based advocacy group.

According to a statement from McCaskill's office, the amendment is a
result of recent oversight hearings that identified loopholes in the
law that end up denying federal contract workers the same
whistleblower rights as those granted federal employees.

"Employees of private contractors in Iraq have witnessed all kinds
of fraud, waste and abuse," McCaskill said in a statement. "They
desperately need stronger whistleblower protection so they can help
us stop the incredible waste of taxpayer dollars."

The provision would expand the definition of the information that
can be revealed by a contract employee, protecting any disclosure
that the employee "reasonably believes" is evidence of gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or a substantial danger to
public health or safety.

The language also would require that employees working on contracts
worth more than $5 million be notified of their rights and
protections. It would make the Defense Department hold contractors
accountable for protecting employees by withholding award payments
from companies that retaliate against whistleblowers.

The whistleblower provisions, however, are not included in the House
version of the authorization bill, approved May 17. The Senate
version, should it clear the floor, would be sent to a House-Senate
conference committee to reconcile differences.

But according to Adam Miles, legislative representative for GAP, the
House is likely to support the whistleblower provisions in the
Senate bill. The House passed similar protections for contract
employees in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985)
in March by a 331-94 vote, he noted.

"The McCaskill amendment provides a precedent for Senate support of
similar reforms passed already in the House this year -- with a
veto-proof majority," Miles said.

The House legislation seeks to reform the 1989 Whistleblower
Protection Act, which, since 1994, has been weakened by a series of
rulings in the Federal Circuit Court. The bill would restore what
many advocacy groups consider Congress' original intent, by
protecting federal employees and contractors at all agencies who
disclose wrongdoing in the performance of official duties, "without
restriction to time, place, form, motive or context."

But the Bush administration has argued that expanding whistleblower
protections could increase the number of frivolous complaints and
compromise national security. The president has threatened to veto
the House bill on the grounds that it would authorize any employee
to make a classified disclosure to members of Congress.

Still, Miles argued that because McCaskill's amendment does not
authorize contractors to make such disclosures to Congress, it
likely would not draw a veto threat from President Bush.

(C) 2007 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
*****************************************************************
 7 The Herald: Ban would place Scotland in a precarious position

Web Issue 2847 May 30 2007   

I profoundly disagree with the arguments posited by Duncan McLaren,
chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland (It's time to give
us the power to decide on energy, May 29). He claims that "as a
result of accidental shutdowns, we have seen already that the
Scottish electricity system can continue to meet peak demand while
neither Hunterston nor Longannet is in production."

In fact, had it not been for the unseasonably warm temperatures when
these two plants were forced to close for repairs last winter, we
would have faced blackouts across Scotland. The government had even
prepared contingency plans for phased switch-offs. That is how close
we came to disaster.

Mr McLaren voices our common concern about climate change and the
need to cut carbon emissions. But then he suggests that "clean coal"
production at Longannet is his preferred alternative to nuclear
power. "Clean coal" technology is so-called because it reduces
sulphur emissions by 90%. However, its impact on CO2 is much more
limited, with reductions at only 20%. Nuclear power, on the other
hand, is virtually CO2 emission free and currently provides around
40% of Scotland's baseload electricity. It makes no sense for Mr
McLaren to claim that we can meet our CO2 targets and avoid
blackouts by banning nuclear plants in Scotland. Indeed, the pledge
by the SNP and its Green allies that they will refuse to sanction
replacement nuclear capacity in Scotland, has placed us in a
precarious position.

Of course renewables and clean coal will have a vital role to play
in a diverse energy mix in the future and Scotland has a chance to
become a global leader in wind, tidal and wave power and even, if we
get our act together, carbon capture and storage (CCS). But such
forms of energy production cannot be relied upon to provide constant
baseload. Wind farms, for example, can be unreliable electricity
suppliers because they are dependent on a specific range of wind
speeds, and these speeds cannot be guaranteed to occur during times
of peak demand.

With the technology for storing electricity in bulk not yet
available, it is still necessary to have traditional generating
capacity as back-up to provide security of supply. Nuclear plants
are the best way to provide this generating capacity and we should
exploit Scotland's 50 years of nuclear experience in providing a
safe and reliable source of energy, by commissioning new nuclear
plants for the future.

Struan Stevenson MEP, The European Parliament, Brussels.

Duncan McLaren (May 29) clearly demonstrates why no new nuclear
power plants are required in Scotland and why control of energy
policy must immediately be devolved to Scotland. However, his focus
on existing electricity production ignores the energy consumed by
transport in the form of petrol and the need to eliminate this major
source of CO2 production.

According to the Scottish Energy Study produced by the Scottish
Executive, Scotland consumed 175 TeraWatt Hours (TWh) of energy in
2002, 47 TWh (27%) being in the form of petrol used in transport.

By contrast, we produced 40 TWh of usable electricity, (a further 70
TWh of energy was lost in power generation and the grid).

As a by-product of vehicle petrol 8.69 MT of CO2 were produced, 19%
of Scotland's total CO2 emission. Overall, oil produces 33% of
Scotland's CO2.

To tackle CO2 significantly we need to plan now to run transport,
particularly cars and lorries, on a mix of electric and
hydrogen-based vehicles.

The demonstration car released last week by BMW shows the technology
for hydrogen-fuelled cars is now available as it is for electric
cars. Both will require increased power generation facilities and,
in hydrogen's case, electrolysis plants. The rolling out of
infrastructure to support refuelling will require possibly 15 years.
However, we need to start now.

Even taking account of improved energy efficiency in existing
electricity users and vehicles, say 30%, we will require to increase
electricity generating capacity to usable capacity of around 60 TWh
to meet demands for existing users plus electric or hydrogen
vehicles. That is an increase of around 50% on existing capacity.
This requires a much more dramatic investment in renewable energy
than the figures assumed in Duncan McLaren's report.

Fortunately, as the Friends of the Earth report shows, wave and
tidal could produce at least 79 TWh and offshore wind 82TWh. Tidal
energy from particularly the Pentland and Solway firths is
relatively constant and predictable and could meet Scotland's
requirement for baseload generation.

The Scottish Executive must demand control of energy policy, then
exercise its powers to make huge long-term investments in wave and
tidal power, electrolysis, hydrogen fuel cells, battery storage and
other technologies required to become a post-petroleum economy.
Moreover, it is in our strategic interest that the executive does so
in a way that ensures Scotland's energy infrastructure is owned and
controlled by the people of Scotland.

Gordon Morgan, 1 Maybank Street Glasgow.

Š All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
DW: US on Collision Course With G8 Partners Over Climate Agreement |
Germany | Deutsche Welle | 27.05.2007

The US objects to the Germany-proposed climate agreement on many
levels

The prospect looms of a major clash between the United States and 
its G8 partners over global warming, with Washington's view 
threatening to block agreement at next month's summit of the 
leading industrial nations.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel Saturday criticised the
US climate policy in a newspaper interview, saying it "was going to
difficult to achieve success" at the June 6-8 session hosted by
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has made climate change a priority
during Germany's presidency of the Group of Eight.

The environmental protection group Greenpeace Saturday published a
leaked document showing that the United States had raised serious
new objections to a proposed global warming declaration prepared by
the German hosts.

It looked to observers as though US objections in the form of
amendments had drained the substance from the German statement.

"The United States still has serious, fundamental concerns about
this draft statement," the document stated.

Washington rejects the idea of setting mandatory emissions targets,
as well as language calling for G8 nations to raise overall energy
efficiencies by 20 percent by 2020.

Merkel's proposed climate statement calls for limiting the worldwide
temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting
global greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by
2050.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall
position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply
cannot agree to," the US document said.

Sources close to negotiations told AFP the US amendments seek to
remove any idea of an urgent problem of climate change requiring a
firm international response.

US rejects climate change as an 'urgent problem'

Bildunterschrift: The US denies the scientific evidence is conclusive

"The preliminary sessions clearly indicate the American desire to
minimalise (the draft)," said one European diplomatic source.

The US was refusing to take account of findings by an
Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change, whose latest
conclusions have been used by the Germans in their draft climate
statement, the source said.

"I can't remember any major international climate meeting with that
kind of complete divergence of views," said Phil Clapp, head of the
National Environment Trust in Washington. "There is a fundamental
disagreement between the EU and the Bush administration positions.
It's hard to see how governments could sign the sort of statement
that Washington wants."

Clapp added that "at this point we don't see signs that the (Bush)
administration will change its position... and as a matter of fact
the signs go in exactly the opposite direction."

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino played down the
document leaked by Greenpeace while acknowledging differences. "We
believe that there are many different approaches to climate change,"
she said. "By no means is there a final document."

Washington does not recognise the UN Convention on climate change as
an appropriate forum for multilateral negotiations on global
warming, but only as one of several possible forums.

Kyoto successor also in doubt

Bildunterschrift: A follow-up climate protocol to Kyoto could also
be in danger

This also does not augur well for a conference scheduled in Bali in
December at which states signatory to the Convention will have to
negotiate a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which
runs out in 2012. The US has not signed the protocol.

"These latest proposals display a complete absence of reconciliation
between the American technological approach and that of the EU..."
said the diplomatic source.

"And all this despite appeals by major American companies and
Republican Party personalities like Arnold Schwarzenegger."

On May 18, senior US lawmakers wrote to Bush expressing deep concern
over reports that his administration was seeking to weaken a G8
declaration on climate change.

"US leadership is critical to tackling this global threat.... But we
need an executive branch that engages the rest of the world to solve
this problem rather than stubbornly ignoring it," the 15
heads of congressional committees wrote in a letter.


DW staff (nda)


DW-WORLD

* 

  Report: US Rejects Germany's G8 Climate Declaration

  The United States has raised new serious objections to a proposed
  global warming declaration prepared by Germany for next month's
  Group of Eight summit, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
  (26.05.2007)
* 

  Merkel Sets G8 Agenda, Doubts Concrete Results

  Climate change, development aid and hedge-fund transparency would
  top the agenda at the G8 summit on June 6-8, said Chancellor
  Angela Merkel Thursday, but she wasn't confident that much
  progress would be made. (24.05.2007)
* 

  "We Are Taxing the Lives of Future Generations"

  Jakob von UexkĂźll founded the World Future Council to provide a
  voice for future generations on topics like climate change,
  poverty and fair trade. People are waiting for integrated answers
  to global crises, he told DW. (10.05.2007)
* 

  EU Leads Clamor for Carbon Cuts After UN Climate Report

  Europe led demands for a deal to slash global greenhouse gas
  emissions after the UN's top scientific panel said early, deep
  cuts could avert the worst of long-term climate damage -- and at a
  modest cost. (05.05.2007)

1. Š 2007 Deutsche Welle

*****************************************************************
 8 San Francisco Bay Guardian: Nuclear greenwashing

Nuclear greenwashing: Global warming has suddenly put nukes back on
the agenda ? but there's a lot the industry isn't telling you

BY AMANDA WITHERELL amanda@sfbg.com

Patrick Moore's presentation isn't as slick as Al Gore's. The 
slides he shows lack a certain visual panache and don't compare 
to the ones in An Inconvenient Truth. Moore himself seems a 
little frumpy, particularly as he peers out across the audience 
recently gathered in the Warnors Theatre in Fresno.

But attendees paid $20 to hear the former Greenpeace leader extol 
the benefits of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable, 
economic, and ? perhaps most important to the current political 
and media focus on global warming ? emissions-free source of 
power.

It's hard to imagine Moore at the helm of an inflatable boat
steering into the line of a whaling ship's fire, but that iconic
Greenpeace image is exactly what he wants you to associate with him.
The Vancouver, British Columbia, native is quick to tell you he's a
former leader of one of the most effective international activist
organizations ever.

But he said he's older now and wants to be for things instead of 
against them.

What's Moore for? Warding off the warming of the world. What does 
he think will do it? More nuclear power plants.

If there's any great and unifying issue thrumming through the 
national psyche, defying political party lines and flooding the 
media filters these days, it's global warming. While leaders 
argue left and right about nearly every issue that comes before 
them, there is at least consensus that something must be done 
about climate change.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped on that bandwagon last 
September when he signed into law Assembly Bill 32, mandating a 
25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.

Thirty-one states recently agreed to join a voluntary greenhouse 
gas emissions registry similar to California's, 10 northeastern 
states are creating a cap-and-trade market, and already half the 
country has laws requiring that a certain percentage of local 
power portfolios come from renewable energy.

The alternative-energy troops who've long been waiting in the 
trenches have stepped up to fight, armed with the tools they've 
been honing for years: solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power, 
and biofuels. They say new options and innovations abound for 
weaning the country off its fossil fuel habit.

But there are already critics who say those approaches aren't 
going to be enough ? and that we need to go nuclear against this 
planetary threat. And now they have some unlikely new allies.

Maybe you've seen the headlines touting the new nuclear push, 
running in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los 
Angeles Times, and all the daily syndicates. They all claim the 
same questionable facts: Nuclear power is clean and emissions 
free. It's safe, reliable, and cost-effective. It isn't 
contributing to global warming ? and these days even the 
environmentalists like it.

Lovelock, the renowned Gaia theorist, thinks nuclear energy will 
be essential to power the developing world. On a Sept. 13, 2006, 
airing of KQED's Forum, he told host Michael Krasny, "I would 
welcome high-level nuclear waste in my backyard."

During the hour-long program he said the dangers of radiation 
were exaggerated; there wasn't that much waste generated; and in 
order to mitigate the increasing effects of climate change, we 
should "look at nuclear as a kind of medicine we have to take."

Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, thinks nothing 
is more doomsday than global warming and told the Guardian he 
advised Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to start touting nuclear 
power as a solution.

"The nuclear industry needs a new green generation," he told us. 
"My fellow environmentalists ought to be grateful to the nuclear 
industry for supplying 20 percent of our electricity.


"

And then there's Moore, the 15-year Greenpeace veteran who once 
put his body in the way of a seal hunter's club and wrote in an 
April 16, 2006, Washington Post op-ed, "My views have changed and 
the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, 
too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that 
can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic 
climate change.

"Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy 
source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to 
satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so 
safely."

The bio for the Post piece identifies Moore as cochair of "a new 
industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, 
which supports the use of nuclear energy."

It's one of the few articles that make such a disclosure, 
although more probably should. A survey by Diane Farsetta, a 
senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, came 
across 302 recent articles mentioning Moore and nuclear power as 
a possible option for mitigating the effects of global warming.

Only 37 - a mere 12 percent - said he's being paid to support 
nuclear power by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national 
organization of pro-nuke industries that's hired Moore to front 
its nuclear renaissance.

Only the Columbia Journalism Review has drawn the further 
connection that Hill and Knowlton has been paid $8 million to 
help the NEI spread the word that the nukies have the silver 
bullet for solving global warming.

Hill and Knowlton knows a little something about pushing 
dangerous products. The company created the tobacco industry's 
decades-long disinformation campaign about the effects of 
smoking. Veterans of that campaign then helped ExxonMobil try to 
bury the truth about global warming.

Before laughing these folks out of the reactor room, consider 
this: Nancy Pelosi and ...

Dianne Feinstein, who've been against nukes in the past, are now 
suggesting nuclear energy needs to be considered in light of 
global warming.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have also made similar recent 
murmurings. Of all the major 2008 presidential candidates, only 
Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards have offered up energy plans 
that don't include more nukes.

Eight states are working on pro-nuclear legislation, and although 
a bill to lift the moratorium on new plants in California was 
shot down in the Assembly's Committee on Natural Resources, its 
sponsor, Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), told us he intends to introduce 
it again and again until it passes.

In the meantime a private group of Fresno investors has signed a 
letter of intent with a nuclear power company to put a 
1,600-megawatt nuclear plant in the San Joaquin Valley. So far 
the only thing stopping the group is the state's 30-year-old 
moratorium, which says no new nuclear power plants may be built 
in California until a permanent solution to the waste is 
established.


The investors are already working on a November 2008 ballot 
measure to end the ban and allow new nuclear plants.

A new nuclear plant hasn't been built in the United States since 
1978, when concerns about safety, cost, and the long-term waste 
management challenge (nuclear rods will still be deadly hundreds 
of thousands of years from now) overwhelmed the industry.

But if there were ever an opportunity for a nuclear renaissance, 
the threat of climate change has created one. And the poster 
child is Moore, a relatively innocuous Greenpeace exile who's 
traveling around the country with a B-movie version of Gore's 
Oscar-winning documentary, speaking to communities and drumming 
up what he calls a grassroots coalition of mayors, business 
leaders, and community activists. He's steadily convincing them 
we need more nuclear power by trading the classic doomsday 
scenario of a massive radioactive explosion for the creeping 
killer global warming.

"I'm aghast," Dr. Helen Caldicott, an Australian who helped found 
Physicians for Social Responsibility and is one of the most 
prominent international critics of the dangers of nuclear energy, 
told us.

Caldicott, who's authored several books on the subject, most 
recently Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (2006), said, "I've 
never seen a propaganda exercise which is so fallacious. Both the 
politicians and the media are buying it."

She and other nuclear watchdogs who've been patrolling the 
industry for more than 30 years say it's anything but a safe, 
reliable, economic, and emissions-free silver bullet.

Let's look at the facts.

SAFETY

When it comes to safety, Moore told us, "US nuclear power plant 
employees enjoy the so-called healthy worker effect: people 
employed at the plants have lower mortality rates from cancer, 
heart disease, or other causes and are likely to live ...

onger than the general population."

To support this claim, he cited a 2004 Radiation Research Society 
study of 53,000 workers. After reviewing it, Caldicott said, "I'm 
very suspect. There's nothing here about people who are living 
with cancer."

Caldicott admits there's a void of data about the health of 
nuclear workers and people who live near plants. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission doesn't mandate baseline studies of cancer 
rates in areas surrounding the sites of nuclear facilities.

But people living near Three Mile Island, the Pennsylvania plant 
that came within minutes of a catastrophic meltdown in 1979, 
demanded studies, which found evidence of increases in thyroid 
cancer in the region. And Caldicott, in her recent book, pointed 
out that there are a number of things the government doesn't want 
to admit. "To this day there is no available information about 
which specific isotopes escaped nor the actual quantity of 
radiation that was released," she wrote, going on to detail how, 
for lack of sufficient data about the distance the radiation may 
have spread, scientists studied the rates in the livestock of 
nearby fields and found supporting evidence that the plume of 
poison spread as far as 150 miles away.


And of course, there's Chernobyl, where a 1986 nuclear-plant 
disaster caused lasting health problems and contaminated a huge 
swath of what was then the Soviet Union.

The unavoidable fact is that the industry thus far has had two 
terrible, nightmarish accidents, one of which was catastrophic 
and the other very nearly so.

And every part of the nuclear-power cycle involves serious health 
risks.

"You want to get really sad?" asked Molly Johnson, a lifelong 
environmental justice activist and San Luis Obispo County 
resident. "Go to New Mexico, go to Arizona, see the families that 
are dying because of the uranium mining. Their water is 
irradiated from the uranium tailings that are still there.... Why 
would we continue that?"

These days intentional attacks are even more of a concern. But 
Moore isn't sweating. He said he thinks a plane colliding with a 
power plant is unlikely, even though the 9/11 Commission Report 
found that al-Qaeda operatives at one point considered aiming for 
the Indian Point reactor in New York.

Even if a jet hit a plant, Moore insists, the plant would be 
strong enough to withstand a collision. "If you drove an airplane 
into that, it would just be one messed-up airplane you'd have to 
deal with," he said.

Not exactly, say the critics.

"He is just dead wrong about reactor security. Breathtakingly 
misinformed," said Dan Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a 
public interest group that's been studying nuclear power and 
proliferation issues for nearly four decades. "Virtually no 
reactor containment in the US was designed to withstand a hit by 
a jumbo jet. Significant ...

parts of the plant essential to preventing a meltdown are outside 
containment anyway."

Hirsch is speaking of power lines, which transmit electricity 
from the plant and also carry electricity to it - power that's 
used to keep dangerous components cool and safe. If that power 
were cut off for any length of time, a meltdown could occur in 
the pools where explosive spent fuel is kept.

These spent-fuel storage areas - essentially big swimming pools 
where radioactive waste is kept underwater until a long-term 
storage facility is built - rely on a steady pumping of water to 
cool the superheated waste. All you'd have to do is stop that 
water pump, and there'd be a meltdown. And the storage areas 
don't necessarily have the same fortified structures as the 
reactors.

Hirsch said, "A successful attack on a nuclear plant or, even 
worse, a spent-fuel pool would be the worst terrorist event to 
ever occur on earth by far, capable of killing over 100,000 
people immediately and hundreds of thousands of latent cancers 
thereafter, contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania for 
generations.


"

There's no immediate solution in sight for long-term storage, so 
these pools of deadly waste will likely remain on reactor sites 
for many years.

San Luis Obispo County's Mothers for Peace recently sued the NRC 
over the newly established laws regarding protection against 
terrorist attacks, which only require plants to be able to ward 
off five potential external terrorists on the ground. It took 19 
people to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks. The 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals in San Francisco ruled that power plant operators must 
also consider the possibility of an air attack when designing 
spent-fuel storage tanks.

Mothers for Peace is fond of noting that existing security 
measures aren't what you'd call foolproof. During a recent 
earthquake, 56 of 131 sirens in the San Luis Obispo area - 
designed to alert residents of a possible accident at the plant - 
didn't go off because the power was out and they aren't backed up 
by generators or batteries.

When Mothers for Peace and the Alliance for Nuclear 
Responsibility brought the failure to the attention of the NRC, 
the agency said that nothing is perfect and that the sirens over 
the course of 1,000 hours worked 99 percent of the time.

"Except the five hours you'd actually want them to work," David 
Weisman of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility said.

Nuclear power is either a creeping killer or a sitting bomb. Wind 
farms and solar-panel arrays are not leaching poisons into the 
environment. They're not direct targets for terrorist attacks, 
and if they were, the result wouldn't be all that horrible. 
Imagine cleaning up a bombed wind farm versus a nuclear power 
plant.

"Wind farms are on nobody's list of targets," Weisman added. "If 
a windmill falls and there's no one there to hear it, do you need 
an ...

emergency evacuation plan?"

RELIABILITY

A centerpiece of the pro-nuke argument is that nuclear power is a 
baseload source, meaning it can generate energy all day, every 
day. Solar and wind, of course, rely on the cruel (and 
unpredictable) forces of nature to generate power.

But one could argue the same about nuclear power plants. They're 
run by people - and the record of those operators isn't 
encouraging.

Moore expressed great confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission: "They have very, very stringent requirements and 
regulations. It's all there for anybody to see. All of these 
reactors are inspected regularly. There is no reason in my 
estimation to suspect the NRC of anything other than being a 
responsible watchdog agency. If you want to take the time to dig 
into it, you can find out what's going on."

David Lochbaum does take that time - and he's found out a lot.


After working for 17 years as a consultant to the NRC, he joined 
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as a nuclear-safety 
engineer. He spends his days combing NRC reports and documents 
and compiling studies on the safety of the industry. His 
experience and research have caused him to conclude that the 
commission can't stay on top of the 103 plants in the country.

"We get a lot of calls from workers in the plants, and NRC 
employees that have safety issues they're afraid to raise," he 
said. "We had three calls last week. That's a little more than 
usual, but we usually get 50 to 60 whistleblower calls a year." 
He said sometimes the workers have already raised the issue 
internally but need an ally to force a remedy at the plant. Other 
times they're afraid to speak about what they've seen without 
fear of retaliation.

Lochbaum authored a September 2006 study for the UCS titled 
"Walking the Nuclear Tightrope" on the issues of safety and 
reliability. It's a chilling read; it carefully outlines how 
regulators have been complicit in allowing plants to operate far 
longer than they should and how these overstressed plants 
eventually have to be shut down for years to restore safety 
standards. He found that in the last 40 years plants have ground 
to a halt for a year or more on 51 occasions. In most cases it 
wasn't a spontaneous incident but an overall decaying of 
conditions that compromised safety.

"Some observers have argued that the fact no US nuclear power 
reactor has experienced a meltdown since 1979 (during which time 
45 year-plus outages have occurred) demonstrates the status quo 
is working successfully," Lochbaum wrote. "That's as fallacious 
as arguing that the levees protecting New Orleans were fully 
adequate prior to Hurricane Katrina by pointing to the absence of 
similar disasters between 1980 and 2004."

One of the most recent and chilling examples is the 2002 outage 
of the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio, where a hole the size 
...

of a football was discovered in the vessel reactor head. Only a 
half inch of steel remained to prevent a massive nuclear 
meltdown. The plant was overdue for a shutdown and an inspection 
and had been granted the extension by the NRC.

When asked what he thought about that close call, Moore said, "I 
didn't think it was a close call. I thought it was a mechanical 
failure that should have been caught sooner. It was caught long 
before it became an accident or anything like that."

"When you say close call, that means that nothing actually 
happened," he concluded.

But when there's a facility where an accident could lead to mass 
deaths, even close calls are grounds for concern. That's why we 
have to hold nuclear plants to such high standards. And the fact 
that plants have to close so often to avoid disastrous accidents 
doesn't say much for the reliability argument.

EMISSIONS

This may be the issue on which the pro-nukers make the most 
headway.


Moore cites a number of international studies, posted on the 
NEI's Web site, that show nuclear plants competing only with 
hydropower when it comes to emitting the lowest level of carbon 
dioxide. Even solar panels and wind turbines, when one factors in 
the entire energy process, emit more greenhouse gases, according 
to these studies, though all these power sources release 
significantly less than burning coal or natural gas.

The anti-nuke crowd says a true study has never been completed 
that quantifies the CO2 emissions from mining uranium and turning 
it into usable nuclear fuel. Both are heavily energy intensive. 
Additionally, they argue that transporting waste will incur even 
more CO2 emissions, whether it's shipped across the sea for 
reprocessing in Europe or trucked across the country for burial 
in Yucca Mountain.

But the waste itself is also a huge issue. Although nuclear power 
plants don't have bad breath, they do emit toxins - and it's an 
unresolved issue as to where to put them. The current forecast 
for opening the Yucca Mountain repository is 2021. Senate 
majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada opposes building the 
facility, and he's pushing a bill that would require plants to 
keep the crud in their backyards.

"They've had 50 years to work on the waste issue," Weisman said. 
"And the best solution they've come up with is, who do we not 
like enough to send it to?"

Either way, Moore thinks waste is not a problem. If anything, it 
should be reprocessed - he likes to call it "recycling." Under 
that process, spent fuel is bathed in acid to separate out the 
usable plutonium. That can be followed by vitrification - a 
complex, energy-intensive process of suspending the highly 
radioactive and corrosive acid in glass, which is then sealed in 
expensive trash cans of steel and concrete and buried underground 
for at least 300 years, after which point he predicts it should 
no longer be a problem.

"It ...makes more fuel," he said.

Actually, Hirsch said, "it makes more weapons-grade plutonium." 
He argues that the last thing the nation should do is allow 
nuclear-plant operators to separate the plutonium and put it on 
the market, where it can be leaked for bomb making.

Additionally, there are a number of waste sites around the 
country that are slowly emitting what they've been designed - or 
not designed in some cases - to contain.

The worst is probably in Hanford, Wash., where decades' worth of 
reprocessed spent radioactive fuel pushed the area beyond 
Superfund status into a "national nuclear waste sacrifice zone.

"Hanford is the most contaminated site in North America and one 
of the most significant long-term threats facing the Columbia 
River," Greg deBruler, of Columbia Riverkeeper, wrote in the Fall 
2006 issue of Waterkeeper, the group's quarterly journal.


"It's difficult to comprehend the reality of Hanford's 150 square 
miles of highly contaminated groundwater or its 53 million 
gallons of highly radioactive waste sitting in 45-year-old 
rotting steel tanks."

Much of that waste includes leftover reprocessed spent uranium 
fuel, which ate through its casks and poisoned the community's 
drinking water.

Moore said, "It's not as if everyone is dead. The nuclear waste 
has been contained."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

ECONOMICS

"The economics of nuclear power are well proven around the world. 
It is one of the most cost-effective forms of energy," Moore 
said.

Just check the record. Of the 103 reactors that were built in the 
United States, 75 ran a total of $100 billion over budget. India 
more recently went 300 percent over budget on its 10 reactors. 
Finland is already 18 months behind and $1 billion over on a 
reactor.

Given this track record, the Department of Energy's Energy 
Information Administration "Annual Energy Outlook 2005" reported 
that "new plants are not expected to be economical." They're so 
risky, in fact, that not a single plant could have been built 
without the 1957 Price-Anderson act, which moves the liability 
for a nuke plant off its owners and onto US taxpayers. "If they 
were really economical, they'd be able to get insurance," Weisman 
said. The bill was recently renewed.

The nuclear industry forges on unperturbed, claiming that new 
plants have been streamlined for easier construction. 
Additionally, the siting and licensing laws for plants have been 
changed to speed up the process by precluding public input. 
(Given the industry's safety record so far, that's not 
comforting.) Experts predict it will now take 10 years to build a 
new nuclear plant. Thirty-four licenses are currently pending at 
the NRC as utility companies race to secure the $8 billion the 
federal government set aside for subsidies.

"Imagine ...how many wind turbines that could buy," said Harvey 
Wasserman, a longtime anti-nuke activist who recently authored 
the book Solartopia, which outlines a plan for completely 
renewable energy by 2030. In fact, renewables are far cheaper. 
Building the facilities to create one gigawatt of wind power 
costs about $1.5 billion; about two gigawatts could replace the 
Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

THE BOTTOM LINE

In the end, it comes down to money, and that's where nuclear 
power may be the most vulnerable.

Sam Blakeslee, a Republican Assembly member from San Luis Obispo, 
introduced a bill last year that calls on the California Energy 
Commission (CEC) to conduct an in-depth study of the true costs 
of nuclear power to assess its viability as part of California's 
future energy plans. The bill passed unanimously, and 
Schwarzenegger signed it.

"This will be cradle to grave," said Weisman, of the Alliance for 
Nuclear Responsibility, which has focused its scrutiny on the 
industry's costs.


The group has long been suspicious of PG&E's financial woes, 
which came to a head this past March when the California Public 
Utilities Commission allowed the company to use $16.8 million 
from ratepayers to fund its in-house study of relicensing its two 
nuclear plants. "The licenses won't be up until 2023 and 2025, so 
why are they looking at relicensing now - and why does it cost 
$16.8 million when the state's study is projected to cost 
$800,000?" Weisman asked.

Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is introducing a bill 
this year that will undercut PG&E's study before the CEC's 
analysis is completed, which is expected to occur around November 
2008.

"Our very simple idea here is that before any relicensing of our 
aging nuclear power plants can proceed, the CEC study be 
completed," Leno said. "Clearly, PG&E is very eager to move 
forward its relicensing process. They have many years to 
accomplish that task."

Leno said the stakes are too high and the inherent risks of the 
toxins already accumulated in seismic zones along the coast need 
to be carefully weighed against the prospects of generating even 
more waste. "We should proceed with absolute caution, 
forethought, and consideration."

NOWHERE TO RUN

Those risks, that caution, are something that never leaves the 
minds of the people who live in the plants' fallout zones, areas 
as vast as a steady breeze or trickling flow of water can make 
them. That's really the problem with nuclear power plants. After 
50 years there are still too many unknowns. In Moore's lectures 
and during interviews and debates, the former Greenpeace activist 
likes to say more people are killed by car accidents and machetes 
than by nuclear power plants, but that mocks the magnitude of a 
meltdown.

A car accident kills at most a few people. A machete attack might 
kill one person. ...A nuclear accident has the potential to 
inflict casualties in the tens of thousands, maybe even millions, 
and to render entire cities uninhabitable. And while most of the 
time, most of the plants may be perfectly problem free, it only 
takes one accident to wreak environmental havoc.

These days opposition to nuclear energy isn't about mass protests 
in the streets. "When KQED calls and asks for the sounds of a 
protest, I say that's not how it happens," Weisman said while 
showing a DVD of a Jan. 31 San Luis Obispo County Planning 
Commission meeting that droned on for more than 12 hours. The 
meeting ultimately resulted in what he'd hoped for: a continuing 
delay of PG&E's permit to site new dry-cask storage tanks for 
thousands of tons of nuclear waste accumulating at the Diablo 
Canyon Power Plant. He and Rochelle Becker, the group's director, 
sat through the whole thing. "That's what protesting is now," he 
said.


Becker, a pert, soft-spoken woman with the aging visage of the 
youngest grandmother in the room, said correctness is crucial. 
"Never, ever exaggerate. When they want to talk about safety 
issues and isotopes, we refer them to someone else because we 
don't have that expertise. All we have is our credibility, and if 
we lose our credibility, we don't have anything."

THE PLUTONIUM PAYCHECK

Which makes what Moore is doing look like such a travesty.

"Maybe we should hire Hill and Knowlton," joked James Riccio, 
Greenpeace's nuclear-policy analyst in Washington, DC, on 
thinking about gearing up for a new wave of anti-nuke activism.

To Riccio, Wasserman, Weisman, Hirsch, Caldicott, and many others 
who spoke with the Guardian, Moore is nothing but a dangerous 
distraction who's getting the wrong kind of attention. Wasserman 
disputed Moore's credentials as a Greenpeace founder in the 
Burlington Free Press article "The Sham of Patrick Moore."

When questioned by the Guardian, Moore called Wasserman a jerk. 
Moore said he's still an activist - and in addition to parroting 
for the nuclear industry, he runs a sustainability consulting 
company, Greenspirit Strategies, which advises industries on 
controversial subjects like genetically modifying organisms, 
clear-cutting, and fish farming. His clients include hazardous 
waste, timber, biotech, aquaculture, and chemical companies, in 
addition to conventional utilities that process nuclear power and 
natural gas.

Moore insists he's not hiding anything. "In every interview I do 
the reporter already knows that I'm cochair of the Clean and Safe 
Energy Coalition and that I work for the nuclear industry," he 
told us.

But Moore did not identify himself as such during a lengthy 
interview with us until we asked. The disclosure was also missing 
during the long biographical presentation given to the folks in 
Fresno on Feb. 22, which did ...include pictures of his Rainbow 
Warrior days. Again, on May 24, Moore didn't mention his 
plutonium paycheck during a radio debate on KZYX. Neither did the 
moderator, and it was only when Hirsch, his debating partner, got 
a moment to speak that it was revealed. "Let's be clear here, 
Patrick," Hirsch said. "You're being paid by the industry." *

Joseph Plaster, Andrew Oliver, and Sam Draisin helped research 
this story.

In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
2007-05-29 23:50:15

Site design by Topaz Design - Engineered by eLine.com - Copyright 
Š2006 San Francisco Bay Guardian - Powered by PHP, Smarty, and 
AFP: Rice to push Iran, Kosovo, Darfur at G8 ministers meeting - 

by Sylvie Lanteaume Tue May 29, 6:44 PM ET

BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived 
here late Tuesday for a G8 foreign ministers meeting where she 
hopes to gain support for UN resolutions on Iran's nuclear 
programme, Kosovo and Darfur.

Rice plans to make the case for new sanctions against Tehran which
has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which the
United States suspects Iran is secretly using to develop a nuclear
weapon.

"We are firm about the need to suspend. We are firm about the need
to continue to increase the pressure and we are firm that, should
Iran make a different choice, we are prepared to go that way as
well," Rice told journalists on the plane during the flight to
Germany.

She rejected a suggestion from Mohammed ElBaradei, the director
general of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), to engage in talks with Iran before a suspension. Tehran
says its nuclear work is strictly for peaceful purposes.

"As to the ElBaradei comments, the key here is that the IAEA is not
an agency that is negotiating with the Iranians. That is being done
under a Security Council resolution by six states," Rice said,
referring to the permanent Council members (US, Russia, China,
Britain and France) plus Germany.

"I think it is appropriate for those six states to determine what
the a diplomatic course ought to be."

Rice did not specify what new sanctions might be brought against
Iran, and she added that the six states were waiting for the results
of a new round of talks between European Union foreign policy chief
Javier Solana and chief Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani in Madrid on
Thursday,

Rice will meet Wednesday in Potsdam, Germany, with her counterparts
from the Group of Eight countries which also include Germany,
France, Britain, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia.

She also said she plans to discuss with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov Moscow's opposition to UN negotiator Martii
Ahtisaari's proposal to give internationally supervised independence
to Serbia's ethnic Albanian majority province of Kosovo.

She admitted that "a lot of work" still needs to be done about
protecting minority rights, refugees and managing Kosovo's
transition to independence.

"But the basic underlying point is that it is time to recognize the
very fact that Ahtisaari has done as much as he can possibly do --
and that I think any negotiator could do -- on dealing with the
(Kosovo) status issue and we have to act on it," she said.

Rice has also been charged to seek a new UN resolution on Sudan's
war-torn Darfur region by President George W. Bush, who on Tuesday
imposed new unilateral sanctions against the regime in Khartoum.

"We are going to start talking about what kind of Security Council
resolution we might pursue," she said. "We are open to discussions
at this point."

The violence in Darfur has left at least 200,000 people dead and
forced more than two million people from their homes, according to
the United Nations. Sudan disputes those estimates, saying 9,000
people have died.

The goal of the US sanctions is to force Sudan to allow the full
deployment of a UN peacekeeping force, disarm the Janjaweed militias
and let humanitarian aid reach the region, which is roughly the size
of France, US officials say.


AFP/File Photo: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, pictured 01


Copyright Š 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 csmonitor.com: China, nuclear technology, and a US sale | 

from the May 30, 2007 edition

Critics of a deal to sell China cutting-edge reactors hope to stall
it in Congress by questioning the sale's taxpayer-backed financing.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Page 1 of 3

China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a
nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has said it is
willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for Americans
and pave the way for a "nuclear [power] renaissance in the US."

But critics of the mammoth $5 billion-plus sale are raising concerns
that China might not use the advanced technology strictly for
peaceful purposes, perhaps intending to "reverse engineer" pieces of
it for military purposes.

That worry surfaced this month in a letter four members of Congress
sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The May 18 letter asked
whether the sale of four nuclear-power reactors to China, approved
by the administration in December, could end up enhancing Beijing's
military, including its ability to produce nuclear fuel for bombs
and increase the stealthiness of its submarines.

"This transaction presents potential security concerns that Congress
will have to consider," wrote Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R) of
Nebraska, Ed Royce (R) of California, Christopher Smith (R) of New
Jersey, and Diane Watson (D) of California. All serve on foreign or
international relations committees of the House of Representatives.

The sale of US civilian nuclear technology to China has long been a
matter of contention. The debate is intensifying now because
Westinghouse Electric Co. is expected within weeks to apply for up
to $5 billion in loans from the US Export-Import Bank to finance the
sale of the reactors to China. When it comes, the application will
trigger a review by Congress, where critics of the deal hope to
raise enough questions about it to hold it up, perhaps for good.

If approved, the deal would be the largest by far in the history of
the bank, a taxpayer-supported entity charged with creating and
sustaining jobs by financing sales of US goods to international
buyers.

                      Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright Š 2007 The Christian Science Monitor.
All rights reserved.
DTI: Energy white paper: meeting the energy challenge - 

Â 30 May 2007

URN No:Â 07/1006

Energy is essential in almost every aspect of our lives and for the
success of our economy. We face two long-term energy challenges:

* tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions
  both within the UK and abroad; and
* ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy as we become
  increasingly dependent on imported fuel.

This White Paper sets out the Governmentâs international and
domestic energy strategy to respond to these changing circumstances,
address the long term energy challenges we face and deliver our four
energy policy goals:

* to put ourselves on a path to cutting CO2 emissions by some 60%
  by about 2050, with real progress by 2020;
* to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
* to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond;
* to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

It shows how we are implementing the measures set out in the Energy
Review Report in 2006, as well as those announced since, including
in the Pre-Budget Report in 2006 and the Budget in 2007.

Some of the measures in this White Paper require further public
consultation. Today we are launching consultations on nuclear power,
the Renewables Obligation and guidance on the 1965 Gas Act. If you
would like to take part in the nuclear consultation, see the Future
of Nuclear PowerÂ website. We will launch further consultations in
the coming months. For more information on these, please see the
Consultations page.

Meeting the Energy Challenge: Full version


Meeting the energy challenge: a white paper on energy [Cm
7124]ďż˝Â Â (6716KB)


Meeting the Energy Challenge: Chapters


Energy white paper: contents, foreword and executive
summaryďż˝Â Â (439KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 1 - energy and climate security: a
global challengeďż˝Â Â (966KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 2 - saving energyďż˝Â Â (664KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 3 - heat and distributed
generationďż˝Â Â (469KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 4 - oil, gas and coalďż˝Â Â (470KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 5 - electricity generation, networks,
renewables, cleaner coal and carbon capure and storage for fossil
fuels, nuclear powerďż˝Â Â (1305KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 6 - research and development,
demonstration and deployment, and skillsďż˝Â Â (680KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 7 - transportďż˝Â Â (346KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 8 - planningďż˝Â Â (366KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 9 - devolved administrations, English
regions and local authoritiesďż˝Â Â (149KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 10 - impact of our measuresďż˝Â Â (498KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 11 - implementationďż˝Â Â (188KB)



Meeting the Energy Challenge: Annexes


Energy white paper: annex a - fourth annual report on progress
towards the 2003 Energy White Paper goalsďż˝Â Â (499KB)


Energy white paper: annex b - summary of updated energy and carbon
emissions projectionsďż˝Â Â (194KB)


Energy white paper: annex c - uk position on the EU Emissions
Trading Schemeďż˝Â Â (108KB)


Energy white paper: annex d - consultations announced in, or related
to, the energy white paper: meeting the energy
challengeďż˝Â Â (109KB)

Supporting Documents

The Future of Nuclear Power: The role of nuclear power in a low
carbon UK economy
Take part in the consultation on the Future of Nuclear PowerÂ Â 

Renewable energy: reform of the renewables obligationďż˝Â Â (248KB)

Impact of banding the renewables obligation: costs of electricity
productionďż˝Â Â (513KB)

Reform of the renewables obligation. What is the likely impact of
changes?ďż˝Â Â (716KB)


Guidance on the Gas Act 1965, under which licensed gas transporters
proposing to store gas in natural porous strata onshore seek consent
from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: a
consultationďż˝Â Â (371KB)


Review of distributed generation: reportďż˝Â Â (335KB)


Evaluation of supplier obligation policy options: report for DTI and
Defraďż˝Â Â (552KB)


Synthesis of the analysis of the energy white paperďż˝Â Â (315KB)


Updated energy and carbon emissions projections: the energy white
paperďż˝Â Â (309KB)


The UK MARKAL energy model in the 2007 energy white
paperďż˝Â Â (187KB)

UKERC: Development of a new UK MARKAL &amp; MARKAL-Macro energy
systems modelÂ 


Report on modelling the macroeconomic impacts of achieving the UK's
carbon emission reduction goalďż˝Â Â (376KB)


UK energy sector indicators 2007


Energy market competition in the EU and G7: preliminary 2005
rankingsďż˝Â Â (524KB)


Dynamics of GB electricity generation investment: prices, security
of supply, CO2 emissions and policy optionsďż˝Â Â (852KB)


An assessment of the potential measures to improve gas security of
supplyďż˝Â Â (869KB)


Government response to the consultation on the effectiveness of
current gas security of supply arrangementsďż˝Â Â (259KB)


Offshore natural gas storage and liquefied natural gas import
facilities: Government response to public consultationďż˝Â Â (187KB)


Review of UK oil refining capacity for Department of Trade and
Industryďż˝Â Â (968KB)


UK biomass strategy 2007. Working paper 1: economic analysis of
biomass energyďż˝Â Â (376KB)


Defra: Biomass StrategyÂ 



Weblinks To Other Supporting Documents:


Consultation on Sustainable Products Policy Brief, Energy in Use:
Consumer ElectronicsÂ 


Defra: Consultation on Carbon Emissions Reduction TargetÂ 


Department for Transport: Low Carbon Transport Innovation Strategy
(LCTIS)Â 


ÂŠ Crown copyright 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 Scotsman.com: Health - Minister urged to end leukaemia row

Tue 29 May 2007

Minister urged to end leukaemia row

HAMISH MACDONELL


THE Greens have called on the Scottish health secretary to force the
NHS to release information about rates of childhood leukaemia.

Robin Harper, the party leader, asked Nicola Sturgeon to intervene
after it emerged the health service is appealing a Court of Session
ruling.



Last December, the court made its first ruling regarding an appeal
against a decision by the Information Commissioner - and ordered the
NHS to reveal statistics on childhood leukaemia in Dumfries and
Galloway.

The wrangle was sparked by a request under the Freedom of
Information Act, which was turned down by the NHS in early 2005.

In August that year, the Scottish Information Commissioner ruled the
statistics should be released. The Common Services Agency (CSA) of
the NHS appealed on the grounds that it would risk revealing
patients' identities. But the court upheld the commissioner's view
that the information could be given without risking identification.

It has now emerged the agency is taking its appeal to the Lords in
an attempt to overturn the decision.

Mr Harper, whose party has a co-operation deal with the SNP
Executive, said the agency was wasting taxpayers' money in the
dispute. He added: "I would urge ministers to intervene with their
civil servants to abide by the court ruling."

The Greens want to see if there is a link between leukaemia clusters
and nuclear plants at Sellafield and Chapelcross and the use of
depleted uranium shells by British forces in the Solway Firth.

A CSA spokeswoman said: "In view of the fundamental principle at the
heart of this matter - patient confidentiality - we have decided to
proceed with this appeal."

A spokeswoman for the Executive said it was "very sympathetic" to
the Greens' case.

Related topic
* Green Party
  http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=803

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=832812007

Last updated: 29-May-07 01:08 BST

Comments Add your comment


1. Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh / 1:28am 29 May 2007


        A good first test of transparency for the new Scottish
        Executive.

        Robin Harper is just saying what many people feel - this
        information should be out in the open, complete, not with
        omissions as some FOI disclosures from the Executive seem to
        have suffered from in the past...

        "Fundamental principle" in the words of the CSA seems not to
        relate to patient confidentiality, more so it describes an
        ingrained culture of cover up and dishonesty, which needs to
        be reformed ...

        It would be a good gesture of transparency & accountability
        if Nicola Sturgeon intervenes and sees to it the information
        is released - and also information on the entire cost of
        this obstruction by the CSA, including the legal costs ...
        Report as unsuitable
2. megz, Glasgow / 9:43am 29 May 2007


        The Greens wanted the breakdown of childhood leukaemia
        incidence down to council ward level in order to compare
        this with anecdotal claims about clusters around Chapelcross
        nuclear power station.

        Could there be a cover up because it is near a nuclear power
        station?? I personally think it is. Stop wasting taxpayers
        money. Report as unsuitable
3. Digory, Narnia / 10:57am 29 May 2007


        There is currently no protection of patients' interests nor
        is there any depth which cannot be plumbed in terms of
        blackmail when there may be family members who are
        critically ill and extremely vulnerable.

        Patients are left entirely vulnerable, open to manipulation
        and targeting by unsavoury practices and people.

        There is no protection from the dissemination of malicious
        gossip by Public Service Providers and their partners nor is
        there any protection from the misuse of personal information.

        Public Service Providers and their Partners are afforded
        confidentiality in their dealings and are permitted to act
        en masse as a group.

        The Patient is left in the midst of a game of Blind Man's
        Bluff.

        Public Service Providers and their partners are not required
        to account for their actions or the Services provided by
        them. Report as unsuitable
4. Colin, Glasgow / 9:13pm 29 May 2007


        The Information Commissioner - that would be Kevin Dunion -
        used to be the chief executive of Friends of the Earth. No
        wonder he is prepared to go to any lengths to divulge
        personal information in the hope of exposing a health issue
        related to the nuclear industry. The credibility of FOE's
        anti-nuclear stance diminishes year-on-year because, to
        date, the extensive COMARE studies have found no link
        between cancer and nuclear operations. Report as unsuitable
5. Stella Sigcau, PLEASE TREAT AS URGENT / CALL IMMEDIATELY / 2:04am
30 May 2007


        FROM: Stella Sigcau,
        Accra, Ghana-West Africa.

        attentiom sir/madam,

        I like to invest in your country. My name is Stella Sigcau
        from Sierra-Leone. I am the elder daughter of Mr.Zac
        Sigcau,former Minister of Mines and Industry. He was killed
        by rebels on his way to Capital city Freetown.

        Before his dealth,he deposited trunk box containing $18.5
        million U.S Dollars with the Security Company in Ghana for
        safe keeping and instruct that I should claim it to look
        after my self and my younger brother.

        My Younger brother and I are now in West Africa Accra Ghana
        to notify claims of the FUND. I intend to invest this money
        abroad, hence my contacting you to advice me how best I can
        invest this money in your country and buy a house there.
        For assistance I offer 35% of the money. We have all the
        vital documents covering the deposit fund and the ownership
        which I can send on request.

        Send your direct phone and fax numbers to me for more
        information on your reply.
        I expect your prompt response.

        Yours faithfully,
        Stella Sigcau.
        Phone No: +233-24-2716835 Report as unsuitable

Š2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms &amp; conditions
Reuters: Russia tests new rocket to beat missile defenses | 

10:28PM EDT, Tue 29 May 2007

By Michael Stott

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia successfully test-fired a new
intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple
warheads designed to overcome missile defense systems such as the
planned U.S. shield in Europe.

At the same time, President Vladimir Putin stepped up his attacks on
the missile shield, saying its deployment in Europe would turn the
continent into "a powder keg".

Russian military experts said the new missile was part of the
"highly effective response" promised earlier this year by President
Vladimir Putin to the shield, which is fiercely opposed by Moscow as
a threat to its security.

"It can overcome any potential entire missile defense systems
developed by foreign countries," Colonel-General Viktor Yesin told
the official Russian Today television channel.

A ministry spokesman said the RS-24 missile was fired from a mobile
launcher at 1020 GMT from the Plesetsk cosmodrome about 800 km (500
miles) north of Moscow.

Less than an hour later, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces command
said the missile had hit its targets at the Kura test site on the
sparsely inhabited far eastern peninsula of Kamchatka to the north
of Japan.

"The RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile will strengthen the
military potential of Russia's strategic rocket forces to overcome
anti-missile defense systems and thereby strengthen the potential
nuclear deterrent of Russia's strategic nuclear forces," the
Strategic Missile Forces command said in a statement.

Russia says the U.S. missile defense shield is a threat to its
security and will change the strategic balance in Europe but
Washington dismisses such fears, saying the shield is intended to
counter "rogue states".  Continued...

Š Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Decatur Daily: Plant restart renews debate about nuclear power

 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2007

KNOXVILLE (AP)  Tennessee Valley Authority officials say nuclear
power is an important option in diversifying its power mix and
meeting the needs of a growing population.

But environmental activists and others worry that the cost and
dangers associated with nuclear power generation are being
overlooked.

TVA recently restarted the third and final reactor at its Browns
Ferry Nuclear Plant, ending a 22-year shutdown prompted by safety
concerns. Browns Ferry is located along the banks of the Tennessee
River.

The Unit 1 reactor was restarted after a five year, $1.8 billion
renovation. It was shut two days later after a leaky pipe spilled a
non-radioactive fluid.

The restart of Unit 1 was the countrys first increase in nuclear
generating capacity this century, though the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission expects 19 applications to build and operate 28 new
reactors.

Jack Bailey, TVAs vice president of nuclear generation development,
said the federal utility could add two or three more reactors to the
six it currently operates  three at Browns Ferry, one at Watts Bar
in Spring City and two at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy-Daisy.

We certainly could use more nuclear without having too much risk in
the nuclear basket, Bailey said.

Critics say nuclear plants construction costs make the projects
unreasonable. As part of its ambitious nuclear program in the 1970s,
TVA invested $10.9 billion in projects that were never completed.

The latest wave of potential nuclear construction nationwide is
fueled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provides loan
guarantees, production tax credits and insurance protection for
utilities pursuing nuclear power projects.

The numbers dont add up, Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for
Greenpeace, said. Basically, these corporations are looking for a
government handout to subsidize their reactors.

The nuclear industry is pitching atomic power as a clean way to
light homes, but some environmentalists bristle at that description.
Nuclear production still creates a waste byproduct that remains
radioactive for thousands of years.

We cringe every time we hear nuclear power put out there as a
clean energy source, said Stephen Smith, executive director of
Knoxville-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Bailey said nuclear is an important aspect of TVAs plans for the
future. But he said the agency  along with all utilities  will
have to cast a wide net to solve the countrys energy problems.

Its not the only option, and going forward the U.S. probably has
to take advantage of nearly all the options that are reasonable,
because its going to be hard to build and sustain or conserve the
amount of energy were going to need for the future, he said.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 
35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com

   www.decaturdaily.com

AFP: Russia tests missile able to 'penetrate' defences - 

Tue May 29, 1:15 PM

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia on Tuesday said it had successfully tested 
a new multiple warhead ballistic missile designed to overcome 
air-defence systems such as the US shield planned for deployment 
in central Europe.

Fired from the north-eastern Arkhangelsk region, the RS-24 rocket
hit its target on the Kamchatka Peninsula that juts into the Pacific
Ocean 6,000 kilometres away, the country's strategic missile forces
said in a statement.


"The RS-24 reinforces the military potential of the strategic forces
to overcome anti-missile defence systems," the statement said.


The test comes as Russia is locked in a diplomatic battle over US
plans to expand a missile defence shield into central Europe, a move
Moscow portrays as an attempt to tip the nuclear balance in
Washington's favour.


First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a former defence minister
and widely seen as a potential successor to President Vladimir Putin
in 2008, said the RS-24 could overcome any such anti-missile system.


"These complexes are capable of penetrating all existing and
perspective anti-missile systems. So from the point of view of
defence and security, Russians can look at the future calmly," he
was quoted as saying by Interfax.


The United States says the planned radar base in the Czech Republic
and 10 interceptor missiles in neighbouring Poland would defend
Europe against potential threats from Iran and North Korea, while
posing no threat to Russia.


However, President Vladimir Putin announced Moscow was freezing
compliance with a European conventional weapons control treaty and
has warned that a new arms race is possible.


The missile forces statement said the new rocket meets the standards
of START-II missile treaties, which impose restrictions on the use
of multiple warhead missiles.


"It is a genuine new missile but it uses technologies of the
Topol-M," missile, a spokesman for the strategic forces told AFP.


Unlike the Topol-M, the prototype RS-24 rocket is equipped with
multiple independently targetable warheads to overwhelm defence
systems, the statement said.


The ministry of defence refused, however, to reveal the
characteristics of the new missile other than saying it was designed
to replace the Soviet-era RS-18 and RS-20 rockets.


Ivan Safranchuk, director in Moscow Centre for Defence Information,
described the RS-24 as "a significant modernization of Topol-M."


"The main advantage is that this is a Russian rocket. The other
multiple warhead missiles that Russia were built in Ukraine. Before,
there was no Russian-built multiple warhead missiles."


Military analyst Alexander Golts said the test was part of a massive
push by the Russian government to catch up with the United States'
strategic missile forces.


"The main military political aim of the current Russian leadership
is to regain parity with the United States," he said.


Copyright Š 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 Hanford News: Top officials to negotiate Hanford cleanup guidelines

This story was published Saturday, May 26th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

Key federal and Washington state officials will meet Wednesday in 
Richland to negotiate possible changes to the Tri-Party Agreement 
amid the state's growing concern over missed legal deadlines for 
cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation.

The Department of Energy will be represented by James Rispoli, 
DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, and Inés 
Triay, the chief operating officer for DOE's environmental 
management program.

The state is sending Jay Manning, director of the Washington State
Department of Ecology, and Rob McKenna, the Washington state
attorney general, to the negotiating table.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which is a Hanford regulator
along with the state, will be represented by Elin Miller, EPA
regional administrator.

The conference is planned to allow officials with decision-making
authority to meet face to face and directly negotiate changes to the
Tri-Party Agreement.

The Tri-Party Agreement deadlines are often adjusted, but usually
for short amounts of times to allow more information to be gathered
or for technical reasons. DOE is expected to have to agree to new
requirements or do some additional work to offset current cleanup
delays.

The state announced in early April that it would enter into
high-level negotiations with DOE over missed deadlines rather than
moving toward legal action. However, if negotiations fail, it is
reserving the option of going to court.

Among the state's concerns is the delay in constructing the $12.2
billion vitrification plan to treat some of Hanford's worst wastes.
The plant may not open until 2019, eight years past a legal deadline.

It also is concerned about other deadlines, some missed and some
that may be missed without more aggressive action and higher
budgets. DOE is behind schedule on emptying leak-prone underground
tanks of radioactive waste and on testing bulk vitrification as a
technology to supplement waste treatment at the main vitrification
plant.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
toledoblade.com: The Davis-Besse dance

Article published Monday, May 28, 2007

FIRSTENERGY Corp. may not be trying to rewrite the history of the 
2002 near-catastrophe at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, but 
a whole lot of spinning is going on.

FirstEnergy, parent of Toledo Edison, paid $33.5 million in 
federal fines after it neglected to take care of corrosion from 
leaking acid, which had eaten most of the way through 
Davis-Besse's reactor lid over a period of years.

Thankfully, the reactor was not breached, an event that 
potentially could have led to release of radioactive material 
from the Ottawa County plant, with disastrous effects on the 
surrounding area.

Now, seeking to recoup $200 million from its insurer, the utility 
has drummed up consultants' reports claiming that the bulk of the 
corrosion occurred in a matter of a few weeks and was pretty much 
unavoidable.

Needless to say, both accounts cannot be accurate, a likelihood 
dismissed by FirstEnergy's insurer, which rejected the company's 
claim and is now involved in arbitration with the utility.

The contradictory reports, however, aren't merely the leading 
edge of a legal dispute between two businesses over a large 
amount of money. The uncertainty raised already has delayed - and 
might damage - a criminal case against two former Davis-Besse 
engineers and a consultant accused of withholding information 
from the government about the condition of the plant in 2001.

Such an outcome would be unfortunate because the case, being 
heard in U.S. District Court in Toledo, could shed more light on 
the underlying cause of the incident, which caused a two-year 
shutdown of the plant and cost FirstEnergy $600 million.

Moreover, the conflicts tend to muddy the truth about the reactor 
corrosion, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found took 
place over a period of several years and which FirstEnergy 
concealed from the government.

In addition, the new reports raise concern about current safety 
practices at nuclear plants. Pending an assessment of the 
reports, the NRC has allowed Davis-Besse to continue to operate, 
along with 68 other plants around the country of similar design 
and with reactor lids made of the same metal alloy.

For its part, FirstEnergy has been contrite, insisting that 
safety at Davis-Besse is its sole concern. The utility's CEO, 
Anthony Alexander, contended in a letter to The Blade that the 
consultants' reports "were not intended to imply that we do not 
accept responsibility, but rather to show compliance with 
[insurance] policy terms that we did not purposely cause the 
insured loss."

Perhaps that is the case, but FirstEnergy should not be allowed 
to get away with blurring what heretofore has been a clear 
conclusion: that the utility was guilty of egregious conduct in 
allowing Davis-Besse to lurch to within a hair's breadth of 
nuclear disaster back in 2002.

  
 Š 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 ,
(419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
 13 Hanford News: Bulk vit test under way to resolve issues

This story was published Saturday, May 26th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

The bulk vitrification test plant started up this week in the 
first of two final runs planned to resolve issues before a pilot 
plant treating radioactive waste might be built.

Two issues remain that the Department of Energy believes could be 
resolved this summer:

- DOE needs to show that the components of a pilot plant would work
together after testing them separately.

- It also needs to show it has solved the problem of molten ionic
salts carrying radioactive technetium 99, and allowing it to leak
out of what's supposed to be a solid block of glass incorporating
the radioactive waste after it hardens.

Bulk vitrification is being considered as a technology to supplement
work of the $12.2 billion vitrification plant under construction in
central Hanford. The main vitrification plant would treat all of the
high-level radioactive waste now being stored in underground tanks
at Hanford. But it was never planned to be large enough to treat all
the low-activity radioactive waste by legal deadlines.

Either a supplemental technology such as bulk vitrification must be
used, or the main vitrification plant will need to be expanded to
treat as much as 25 million gallons of the total 53 million gallons
of tank waste. The waste is left from separating plutonium from
irradiated fuel to use in the nation's nuclear weapons program.

Bulk vitrification would make blocks of waste-containing glass the
size of land-sea shipping containers instead of the smaller glass
logs produced by the main vitrification plant. In bulk
vitrification, waste and glass-forming materials would be heated
with electrodes inside a 24-foot-long metal box to 2,400 degrees,
leaving a glass box that would be buried - container, electrodes and
all.

It's been proposed as a more economical way of treating the waste.

To make sure it works, a pilot plant must be built at Hanford to
practice treating radioactive waste. Construction of the concrete
pads for the project started on the plant in early 2005, but then
work stopped amid technical questions about the project and a
concern that the design should be completed before the test plant
was built. Cost estimates of the project also were starting to rise.

In the meantime, tests are being conducted with a nonradioactive
surrogate for the waste at a test site just off the Hanford nuclear
reservation.

An independent review of the bulk vitrification pilot plant
completed in October found no fatal flaws. But it identified 19
technical issues that needed to be resolved to make sure it would
operate effectively and produce good data for a decision on whether
to use bulk vitrification on a large scale.

Some of the issues were operational improvements that could be fixed
by changes to parts of the design, such as the treatment system for
off gases and the system to transfer dried waste to the box to be
melted.

"We've identified improvements and completed the conceptual design
on the improvements," said Ben Harp, DOE project director. The final
design is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2008.

Contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group and subcontractor AMEC have
tackled another of the problems, the leak of radioactive technetium
99. They have been able to eliminate leaks in small-scale tests with
a change in materials. At high temperatures, molten ionic salts flow
easily and carry the technetium into a refractory that surrounds the
waste box forming the glass box.

CH2M Hill had planned to use Hanford soil to mix with the waste to
melt into glass. But it's had better luck using a commercial
glass-forming material with cellulose that provides more surface
area to bind waste materials.

The project also needs to show that all parts of the pilot plant
work well together. In a three-week test that started this week,
CH2M Hill is demonstrating the operation of a mixer-dryer that would
be moved to Hanford for the pilot plant there.

In technology used in the drug and food processing industry, it uses
heat from steam to boil off water from waste, said J.R. Biggs, AMEC
operations manager. Then it's mixed with the glass former to make
small pellets to be transferred to the melt box.

In June, the off-Hanford test plant should have what's hoped to be
its final run to prove that the technetium can be contained in the
glass and that all parts of the system work together. That includes
the mixer-dryer, the feed system to the melt box and the melt box.
It will also test the off-gas system.

In 2002, when the project was little more than a concept, the
preliminary cost estimate was $45 million. But now the estimated
cost of building and operating the pilot plant is around $224
million, a number that is still being validated.

Congress gave the project $3 million this year after the Bush
administration requested no money for the project. That's been
combined with savings in other CH2M Hill projects to come up with
$11.3 million this year.

If CH2M Hill gets construction approval for the pilot plant in March
2008, it would need funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget for
construction. That would allow the pilot play to operate in 2010.

The Tri-Party Agreement called for having the pilot plant built and
operating in time to assess whether bulk vitrification should be
used as a supplemental technology in June 2006. No construction
funding until 2009 will push out the decision on whether to expand
the main vit plant or use a supplemental technology to treat about
25 million gallons of low activity radioactive waste four or five
years.

"Sooner is better," said Laura Cusack, section manager of tank waste
treatment for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

The state would like construction to be included in the 2008 budget
if the tests this summer are successful. It is concerned that if
proving the concept at the test pilot takes longer than expected or
the process doesn't work, DOE is running out of time to go ahead
with the expansion of the main vitrification plant.

Ground would need to be broken in 2012 on a second low activity
waste facility at the vitrification plant to have it operating with
the rest of the plant in 2019.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
CBC News: Opinions differ on safety of possible nuclear plant

Last Updated: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 11:42 AM MT

A sustainable energy advocate is warning about the possible safety
drawbacks of building aÂ nuclear power plant in Alberta, but an
engineering expert said the risks are small.

"There are all sorts of different ways in which material can leave
the plant under both normal operating conditions, accident
conditions or the possibility of a security incident," said Mark
Winfield of the Pembina Institute.

He hopes more questions are answered before Alberta decides it's in
favour of building its first nuclear power plant, even though many
people in Whitecourt and Peace River â two potential sites for a
plant â appear to like the idea.

But John Luxat, who specializes in nuclear safety analysis at
McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., believes that nuclear plants
are so safe that theÂ possibility of an accidental release of
radioactive materialÂ is one in a million.

"I would be happier to live on the boundary of a nuclear power plant
than I would be to live near a chemical plant which has gaseous
products," he said.

Energy Alberta Corp. has been lobbying industry, government and the
public in Alberta to raise awareness about the benefits of a nuclear
plant.

The companyÂ plans to file a preliminary application for the project
with the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in mid-June,
starting a reviewÂ process that would take at least 10 years.

Representatives from both Whitecourt and Peace River have said they
like the idea.

A nuclear plant could provide power to extract oil from the oilsands.


Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
*****************************************************************
 14 Hanford News: Audit criticizes layoff bonuses for nuclear workers

This story was published Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

Voluntary layoffs at the Department of Energy's Idaho Cleanup 
Project were "exceptionally costly and, in certain respects, 
inefficient," according to an audit by the DOE's Office of 
Inspector General.

The audit recommended DOE adopt a consistent approach to work 
force restructuring at all of its nuclear cleanup sites.

After CH2M Washington Group Idaho took over management and operation
of cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory in 2005, 291 employees
took voluntary layoffs at a cost to the government of $14 million,
the audit said.

The program offered an average of $35,000 per worker in supplemental
voluntary separation payments that were in addition to traditional
layoff benefits to bring the average payment to $48,900.

About $10 million of the $14 million cost was for the incentive
payments.

In contrast, 397 Hanford workers lost their jobs in involuntary
layoffs in 2005 without an incentive program that offered the
additional benefit, the audit said. Traditionally, Hanford workers
receive a week's pay for each year worked for up to 20 years and
some health insurance benefits.

The audit also looked at two other voluntary layoff programs in
recent years in the DOE complex for comparison.

A voluntary reduction of 193 workers at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., site
increased severance benefits by 50 percent for volunteers for an
average incentive of $12,800 per employee. At the Carlsbad Field
Office in New Mexico, a bonus of $5,000 was paid to employees
volunteering for layoffs in 2004.

The Idaho layoffs were supposed to be for workers with skills no
longer needed at the site. But the audit found that within six
months of the voluntary layoffs 44 of the positions, or 15 percent
of them, had been filled again.

The audit estimated $2 million was spent on bonuses for employees
whose jobs were filled after they left.

DOE responded to the audit, saying it did not take into account
local circumstances such as site labor agreements and available
funding. It estimated the net savings of the layoffs over the life
of the contract to be $143 million.

It also questioned whether the audit had accurately matched
positions cut to new hires when it said positions had been filled
again. The inspector general's office responded that its analysis
had been conservative.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 2 shut down because of problems with steam generator

By GREG CLARY

(Original publication: May 29, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials hope to have Indian Point 2 back
on line by this weekend after the 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant had
to be shut down on Memorial Day due to problems with a regulating
valve.

The valve is on the system that feeds water to one of the four
generators that turn steam into electricity.

The problem, which happened on the non-nuclear side of the Indian
Point 2 plant, showed up about 5:30 a.m. yesterday and workers
started reducing the plant's production of electricity to 20
percent. At that level, the valve could be removed without shutting
down the plant because of backup valves that operate only at the
lower levels.

Workers determined that the valve couldn't be fixed while Indian
Point 2 was operating, so they safely shut it down at 3:45 p.m.,
according to officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns
and operates Indian Point. The second working reactor at the
Buchanan site, Indian Point 3, was unaffected and continues to run
at 100 percent.

There was no release of radioactivity to the environment, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local public officials were
notified of the shut-down, Entergy officials said.

Check back for updates at LoHud.com and read more about this story
tomorrow in The Journal News.

Copyright Š 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and
Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 15 KnoxNews: ORNL processing spent fuel

Work part of controversial Bush strategy to promote worldwide
nuclear revival

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
May 28, 2007

OAK RIDGE - A pilot project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory will 
process highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors, 
fabricate pellets of recycled fuel, and test the technologies 
considered essential to the Bush administration's plan to expand 
the use of nuclear energy.

Work is under way on a small scale, using old fuel already in 
storage at ORNL. The workload is supposed to grow substantially 
in coming months as the lab receives fuel rods from other 
sources.

Overall, the tech demonstration is supposed to last three years,
cost about $60 million and involve about 50 kilograms of spent
nuclear fuel.

Processing of the radioactive material takes place in the
laboratory's unique collection of "hot cells" - enclosures that are
shielded with lead glass and concrete walls that are 4 1/2 feet
thick. The cells are equipped with manipulators to perform tasks
remotely so that operators are not exposed to high radiation levels.

The work is part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Bush
strategy that has fed a fever for nuclear revival in the United
States and abroad but also drawn controversy and concern. A
congressional subcommittee last week marked down the
administration's 2008 funding request for GNEP, and critics have
suggested that the entire effort is misguided and could exacerbate
the nation's waste problems and add to proliferation concerns - just
the opposite of the stated goals.

There is a sense of urgency at ORNL, where some activities started
within weeks of the first funds from the Department of Energy. Lab
officials acknowledged that they're under pressure to succeed.

"We're feeling it," said Jeff Binder, a 43-year-old nuclear engineer
who is the project manager.

If the Oak Ridge team, with the assistance of other labs around the
country, can't demonstrate the fuel-reprocessing technologies on a
small scale, it doesn't bode well for the strategy as a whole.

Stakes are high, but so is the excitement level among those working
on the project.

"I've been in the nuclear business for about 20 years, and this is
probably the most exciting thing to happen," Binder said. "I see
this as a part of the whole picture of a nuclear renaissance. I
believe if new plants are going to be ordered, the spent fuel issue
has to be resolved, and we need to begin. This is the research and
development. It's exactly what we need to be doing."

The premise of GNEP is to work with other nations to use nuclear
power to meet growing energy demand in an environmentally
sustainable manner.

It proposes to develop and share technologies that can safely
recycle spent fuel from reactors and provide a reliable energy
supply - while reducing the availability of weapons-usable
plutonium. The program also would develop and deploy advanced
reactors to burn up some of the nastier parts of the recycled fuel
and make nuclear waste less hazardous over the long term.

Binder said ORNL's "end-to-end" demonstration is designed to test a
whole range of techniques needed for the work - everything from
chopping up the fuel rods and analyzing their isotopic contents to
chemically dissolving the fuel and separating the various
radioactive elements.

Operators will use a small furnace to heat some of the fuel, a
process known as "voloxidation," which converts the material to an
oxide. They will fabricate fuel pellets and reactor targets from
some of the separated materials.

Bob Alvarez, a former Energy Department official during the Clinton
administration, released a report this month that said the GNEP plan
isn't credible and could create a financial burden on the nation, as
well as new safety risks.

The urgency of the research effort at Oak Ridge is symptomatic of
the problem, he said.

"It's clear to me they're trying to push this program as fast as
they can because they realize politically that time is running
against them," Alvarez said in a telephone interview from his
Maryland home.

Both of the ORNL hot-cell facilities to be used for the project were
built in the 1960s, and Alvarez questioned whether they're
adequately equipped to deal with all the potential hazards.

Tim Powers, director of the lab's nonreactor nuclear programs, said
he is totally confident in the operations. "Everything is shielded
and well ventilated," he said. "We can do it very safely. I'm
looking forward to it."

Binder said waste disposal following the GNEP demonstration would
not be a significant issue, because nearly all products will be
retained and shared with other labs for further research and
analysis.

Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight
Committee, which reviews environmental issues for local governments,
said she was aware of the project but not in detail.

"I guess they know what they're doing," Gawarecki said. "I don't
have any objection to it. It's high-hazard stuff, and I suspect
their systems are robust enough to deal with those materials and
those wastes."

Binder said the lab has about $12 million in project funding this
year, which includes $2.9 million for capital improvements at the
nuclear facilities.

The spent fuel coming to ORNL will arrive at the Irradiated Fuel
Examination Laboratory on the lab's main campus, where it will be
chopped up or "segmented" and fully characterized. The voloxidation
also will be done there.

The chemical dissolution and extraction of materials will be done in
hot cells at the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, which
is a few miles away in a complex adjacent to the High Flux Isotope
Reactor.

Binder said Oak Ridge is collaborating with a number of other
research labs, including Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico and Argonne National Laboratory in
Illinois.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
London Times: Haven't we been here before?

May 29, 2007

The Government is to reform planning laws. Do we need another change
in philosophy?

Edward Fennell

When the historians tot up the achievements of the Blair legacy,
will reform of the planning process be counted among them? It does
not need a Machiavellian analysis to work out the correlation
between the release last week of the White Paper Planning for a
Sustainable Future and the Blair Government&rsquo;s commitment to
further nuclear power stations.

If the Prime Minister could claim a solution to the intractable
problems of planning delay &ndash; as embodied by the epic tale of
Terminal 5 and which would also confront power stations proposals
&ndash; then it would add lustre to his twilight years. But maybe
that is to dream the impossible dream.

Planning reform is one of the issues that this Government has picked
at again and again. As Tim Hellier, of Berwin Leighton Paisner,
observes: &ldquo;Seeing the publication of this White Paper is like
going through déjŕ vu. We have been here before in 2004 when the
same kind of claim was made about speeding up and streamlining the
process. The fact that the Government has come back to it so soon is
an indictment of the 2004 reforms. Frankly, I&rsquo;m staggered that
they are already changing a system that was introduced so recently
and has not had time to bed down yet. I suppose it indicates that
the Government believes that the previous reforms will simply not
work. It all fits together with the priority now being given to
nuclear power.&rdquo;

Michael Gallimore, of Lovells, also claims to be a victim of déjŕ vu
&ndash; although in his case he is reliving the 2001 Green Paper
that contained a number of proposals that were not followed up at
the time yet which have surfaced again in Planning for a Sustainable
Future. If this is true, then in the eyes of some people that may
look like six wasted years.

So the key question is whether or not this latest round of reform
will deliver a fair but faster planning result. Undoubtedly the
proposed reforms are on a bigger scale than anything we have seen
since 1990 and they build on the recommendations of the Barker and
Eddington reports.

Most notably, maybe, they try to get to grips (as far as important
projects are concerned) with one of the basic problems about the
current system &ndash; the bundling up of the big strategic issues
with the localised detailed planning points. The interplay of the
macro and micro issues was a recipe ripe for delay and enabled
opponents to fight across a giant battlefield.

By setting out the Government&rsquo;s policy on big infrastructure
developments in national policy statements &ndash; such as transport
and energy &ndash; but then handing over decisions about specific
projects to the notionally independent Infrastructure Planning
Commission, the aim is to depoliticise these issues and clear the
way for simpler planning judgments. As Martin Evans, of Nabarro,
points out: &ldquo;What you are doing is creating a presumption in
favour of development of a kind that we have not seen in this
country in 20 years. It represents a major change in philosophy.
Where the jury is out, however, is whether the decisions which
result will be robust enough to withstand challenges.&rdquo; In some
respects it must be said that there is limited room for manoeuvre.
Significant public consultation is built in while EU human rights
considerations also give scope for those who want to hold up the
process. As a result the trench warfare of fighting planning
proposals is likely to switch to judicial review (although the
issues of procedure will be more limited). Not surprisingly then
perhaps, according to Gallimore, the initial response from his
clients &ndash; primarily big developers &ndash; to the proposals
is, &ldquo;pretty jaundiced. They have seen that the 2004 reforms
did not work so they are sceptical over this round.&rdquo;

Meanwhile, according to Simon Ricketts, of S J Berwin, the new
approach will be good for &ldquo;ports and porches&rdquo; &ndash;
that is for the very large and the very small projects &ndash; but
may not do much for the intermediate schemes. This is the territory
largely occupied by the clients of Christopher Proudley, of Trowers
& Hamlins, who is sceptical about whether there will be much
improvement. &ldquo;We need a lot more detail on the proposals
before we can judge whether they will work,&rdquo; he says.
&ldquo;My biggest concern, however, rests with the lack resources.
We need more planning inspectors and they need more assistance. That
way we would not have to wait so long for inquiries and the results
would come out much faster.&rdquo;

This chimes with Ricketts&rsquo;s view that &ldquo;there is a
delicate eco system of checks and balances in our system and it is
the way the system works rather than the Black Letter law that is
most important&rdquo;. Changing that culture is then a key objective
and one of the aims of the proposals is to make the system more
lawyer-lite. &ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s clear that the White Paper
wants to squeeze lawyers out of the inquiry stage,&rdquo; Ricketts
says.

So maybe the unwritten agenda driving the reforms is that the
biggest delaying factor is the lawyers. Can that really be true?

Š Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd
*****************************************************************
 16 CBC News: Opinions differ on safety of possible nuclear plant

Last Updated: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 11:42 AM MT

A sustainable energy advocate is warning about the possible safety
drawbacks of building aÂ nuclear power plant in Alberta, but an
engineering expert said the risks are small.

"There are all sorts of different ways in which material can leave
the plant under both normal operating conditions, accident
conditions or the possibility of a security incident," said Mark
Winfield of the Pembina Institute.

He hopes more questions are answered before Alberta decides it's in
favour of building its first nuclear power plant, even though many
people in Whitecourt and Peace River â two potential sites for a
plant â appear to like the idea.

But John Luxat, who specializes in nuclear safety analysis at
McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., believes that nuclear plants
are so safe that theÂ possibility of an accidental release of
radioactive materialÂ is one in a million.

"I would be happier to live on the boundary of a nuclear power plant
than I would be to live near a chemical plant which has gaseous
products," he said.

Energy Alberta Corp. has been lobbying industry, government and the
public in Alberta to raise awareness about the benefits of a nuclear
plant.

The companyÂ plans to file a preliminary application for the project
with the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in mid-June,
starting a reviewÂ process that would take at least 10 years.

Representatives from both Whitecourt and Peace River have said they
like the idea.

A nuclear plant could provide power to extract oil from the oilsands.


Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
The Coloradoan: No such thing as green nuclear energy

www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007   

Green Uranium in Northern Colorado?

Colorado's 2007 legislative session ended with the claim our state
will become an economic hub for renewable energy.


While Weld County was given accolades for a wind turbine plant that
will locate there, uranium mining has become a strong possibility in
Northern Colorado. Powertech, a Canadian firm, has purchased the
mineral rights on several properties in Larimer and Weld counties,
for the purpose of mining uranium using an in-situ leaching process.
It is difficult to reconcile clean renewable energy with uranium
mining. Worse, where were the concerns over the west's water
shortages when government subsidies were given to a mining process
that uses water from Colorado's aquifer to leach out radioactive
uranium from underground geological strata?

To combat my emotional, knee-jerk, this-can't-be-good reaction to
Powertech's plans, I did some research on the in-situ leach process
for extracting uranium. Simply put, this method pumps water out of
an aquifer and adds to that water caustic chemicals that will
separate uranium from the earth. The treated water is pumped back
into the ground to react with uranium deposits. The resulting water
solution, laden with uranium and other heavy metals, is pumped to
the surface. Uranium is siphoned off for further processing into
what is commonly known as yellow cake, while the remaining hazardous
metals soup is pooled in a holding pond.

The in-situ mining method is touted as a benign way to remove
uranium from the ground while leaving no visible impact on the
environment. The facts show otherwise. Spills, leaks and mechanical
failures plague all types of uranium mining. Kleberg County, Texas,
has been in a legal battle with a uranium mining company to clean
the pollutants out of their water after that mining company ceased
operations five years ago when uranium prices fell to $7 a pound
(www.latimes.com/ news/ nationworld/nation/la-na-navajo
22nov22,0,6236667,full.story).

While the mining company claims there is not proof their in-situ
mining was the cause for once-clean wells to become contaminated
with uranium, people in the area have been notified they should stop
drinking their water (http://texas.sierraclub.
org/press/newsreleases/AP2005 0731.asp).

It is not unusual for irresponsible mining operations to cash in on
a resource and leave behind a wasteland. The mining industry had
garnered the term "rip and skip" to describe that practice.

A large portion of Colorado rests on a bed of uranium. Most of this
uranium is low grade and, undisturbed, it poses little threat to our
health. Until China's and India's demand for uranium increased its
market value, it was not cost-efficient to mine Colorado's uranium.
Now, as the price of uranium reaches $120 a pound, investors are
seeing green (as in dollars) and are intent on pursuing uranium
mining opportunities in our area with the principal purpose of
selling to international markets.

Eastern Colorado's largest water-yielding aquifer is the
Dakota-Cheyenne aquifer. This aquifer spreads beneath the cities of
Fort Collins, Wellington, Nunn, Windsor, Greeley, Sterling, Fort
Morgan, Longmont and Boulder. The proposed in-situ uranium mining in
North Colorado would take place within the boundaries of the
Dakota-Cheyenne aquifer. Uranium and water don't mix. "Benign" may
be used to describe the in-situ leaching process. It is more likely
"rip and skip" will become its lasting legacy.

Nuclear energy is not safe, is not clean, is not cheap and is not
renewable. A trail of hazardous materials follows the nuclear energy
cycle, from the mining of uranium through to the final disposal of
weapon-grade plutonium from the spent fuel of nuclear power plants
("Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat
Global Climate Change," www.ieer.org/ reportsinsurmountablerisks/
summary.pdf; "An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining: The
Case Against Uranium Solution Mining," www.sea-us.org. au/isl/
islsuks.html).

Uranium is not green, it is glowing yellow. If we are not careful,
Colorful Colorado may take on a new meaning.

Linda Turner lives in Fort Collins.

Comments by: nonsequitor Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:45 pm
I think that there is in fact a need for mining companies to clean
up their acts. This situation isn't showing how bad uranium mining
is in itself, but how bad mining companies are in the extraction
process. Uranium is an economically and environmentally feasible way
to go, considering that uranium gets 235 7.4 × 1016 joules per ton
compared to coals 3.2 × 1010. So I don't think that there should be
complaining at how bad uranium is, but how bad mining companies are
at extracting this product.


======================================================================

Comments by: jersey Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:29 am
I know that the mining companies have one thing in mind.
Extraction for profit. Period. They will subvert any law and
reasonable
compromise to reach that end. We will be left with the dramatic and
costly enviromental disaster, and any law suits and efforts to
recoup from the long gone company will be fruitless. This is a dead
end for anyone not owning stock in this company. Fight this if you
care about the land, this region, this city, your children, and
what's right.


======================================================================

Comments by: rdlfred Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:59 am
The Powertech uranium mine is anti-growth: Our region is one of the
most attractive and therefore fastest growing in the nation. The
negative PR of a uranium mine will make it less so.

The Powertech uranium mine is anti-economy: See the growth
explanation, above. The revenue and jobs (if any) that Powertech
brings to our region will be vastly outweighed by the harm done.

The Powertech uranium mine is anti-freedom: When any property owner
has to fear a giant mining company taking away their clean ground
water and clean air (in-situ mining is a source of radon) with
practices that have been proven dangerous, there is no freedom.

rdlfred

======================================================================

Comments by: rdlfred Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:38 am
Excellent writing, Linda. The proposed uranium mining project in
Weld County is bad for everyone. A region consistently rated as a
"best place to live" has no need for radioactive slime pits and
tainted ground water. This uranium boom will end, Powertech will
pick up and leave, and we'll be left with poisoned, unusable land.

Uranium mining here would be anti-environment, anti-economy,
anti-freedom, and anti-growth. Everyone in Fort Collins who doesn't
have "Powertech" on their business card should be opposed to this
project, regardless of their politics.

rdlfred


Copyright Š2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan.
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 2 shut down because of problems with steam generator

By GREG CLARY

(Original publication: May 29, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials hope to have Indian Point 2 back
on line by this weekend after the 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant had
to be shut down on Memorial Day due to problems with a regulating
valve.

The valve is on the system that feeds water to one of the four
generators that turn steam into electricity.

The problem, which happened on the non-nuclear side of the Indian
Point 2 plant, showed up about 5:30 a.m. yesterday and workers
started reducing the plant's production of electricity to 20
percent. At that level, the valve could be removed without shutting
down the plant because of backup valves that operate only at the
lower levels.

Workers determined that the valve couldn't be fixed while Indian
Point 2 was operating, so they safely shut it down at 3:45 p.m.,
according to officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns
and operates Indian Point. The second working reactor at the
Buchanan site, Indian Point 3, was unaffected and continues to run
at 100 percent.

There was no release of radioactivity to the environment, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local public officials were
notified of the shut-down, Entergy officials said.

Check back for updates at LoHud.com and read more about this story
tomorrow in The Journal News.

Copyright Š 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and
Putnam Counties in New York.
IHT: Indian prime minister sets 2012 as deadline to end power shortage in
the country - 

International Herald Tribune

The Associated Press

Published: May 28, 2007

NEW DELHI: India must build hundreds of new power plants over the
next five years to end the massive electricity shortages that
threaten the country's rapid economic growth rate, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh said Monday.

India's economy has expanded more than 8.5 percent annually over the
past four years, but a widening gap between the demand and supply of
electricity threatens to derail that growth.

During peak hours, demand outstrips supply by as much as 25 percent
in some parts of the country, causing frequent outages and forcing
shutdowns at factories and business establishments.

By 2012, India will need to generate at least 200,000 megawatts of
power to eliminate any shortage, Singh said. Currently, the country
has a total capacity of producing 130,000 megawatts.

"Electricity is vital for sustained economic growth," Singh told a
conference of top elected leaders of 28 Indian states. "If we expect
our economy to keep growing at 9-10 percent annually, we need a
commensurate growth in power supply."

Singh called the targets ambitious, but said the goals could be
reached.

"We need specialized project management and monitoring capabilities
to ensure timely commissioning of projects."

The two-day conference of the state chief ministers, which began
Monday, was to discuss strategy and policy measures that will help
meet the deadline set by the prime minister.

The power sector in the country is mostly run by the state
governments, which have been slow in adding new capacities because
of lack of funds. Although the sector was opened to private capital
more than a decade ago, few companies have invested in building new
plants because of regulatory bottlenecks.

Apart from adding new plants, the state governments have to take
measures to prevent high losses during transmission and
distribution, which also include theft of electricity.

Currently, 30 to 45 percent of electricity produced in many states
is lost in transmission and distribution, Singh said.

"No meaningful development of the power sector would be feasible
with these levels of losses," he said. "We need to come heavily down
on it as it is seriously affecting the financial viability of the
(power) sector."

Most of India's electricity is currently generated by coal-fired
power plants, but the country also has some hydroelectric and
nuclear generating capacity.

Copyright Š 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
*****************************************************************
 18 The Coloradoan: No such thing as green nuclear energy

www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007   

Green Uranium in Northern Colorado?

Colorado's 2007 legislative session ended with the claim our state
will become an economic hub for renewable energy.


While Weld County was given accolades for a wind turbine plant that
will locate there, uranium mining has become a strong possibility in
Northern Colorado. Powertech, a Canadian firm, has purchased the
mineral rights on several properties in Larimer and Weld counties,
for the purpose of mining uranium using an in-situ leaching process.
It is difficult to reconcile clean renewable energy with uranium
mining. Worse, where were the concerns over the west's water
shortages when government subsidies were given to a mining process
that uses water from Colorado's aquifer to leach out radioactive
uranium from underground geological strata?

To combat my emotional, knee-jerk, this-can't-be-good reaction to
Powertech's plans, I did some research on the in-situ leach process
for extracting uranium. Simply put, this method pumps water out of
an aquifer and adds to that water caustic chemicals that will
separate uranium from the earth. The treated water is pumped back
into the ground to react with uranium deposits. The resulting water
solution, laden with uranium and other heavy metals, is pumped to
the surface. Uranium is siphoned off for further processing into
what is commonly known as yellow cake, while the remaining hazardous
metals soup is pooled in a holding pond.

The in-situ mining method is touted as a benign way to remove
uranium from the ground while leaving no visible impact on the
environment. The facts show otherwise. Spills, leaks and mechanical
failures plague all types of uranium mining. Kleberg County, Texas,
has been in a legal battle with a uranium mining company to clean
the pollutants out of their water after that mining company ceased
operations five years ago when uranium prices fell to $7 a pound
(www.latimes.com/ news/ nationworld/nation/la-na-navajo
22nov22,0,6236667,full.story).

While the mining company claims there is not proof their in-situ
mining was the cause for once-clean wells to become contaminated
with uranium, people in the area have been notified they should stop
drinking their water (http://texas.sierraclub.
org/press/newsreleases/AP2005 0731.asp).

It is not unusual for irresponsible mining operations to cash in on
a resource and leave behind a wasteland. The mining industry had
garnered the term "rip and skip" to describe that practice.

A large portion of Colorado rests on a bed of uranium. Most of this
uranium is low grade and, undisturbed, it poses little threat to our
health. Until China's and India's demand for uranium increased its
market value, it was not cost-efficient to mine Colorado's uranium.
Now, as the price of uranium reaches $120 a pound, investors are
seeing green (as in dollars) and are intent on pursuing uranium
mining opportunities in our area with the principal purpose of
selling to international markets.

Eastern Colorado's largest water-yielding aquifer is the
Dakota-Cheyenne aquifer. This aquifer spreads beneath the cities of
Fort Collins, Wellington, Nunn, Windsor, Greeley, Sterling, Fort
Morgan, Longmont and Boulder. The proposed in-situ uranium mining in
North Colorado would take place within the boundaries of the
Dakota-Cheyenne aquifer. Uranium and water don't mix. "Benign" may
be used to describe the in-situ leaching process. It is more likely
"rip and skip" will become its lasting legacy.

Nuclear energy is not safe, is not clean, is not cheap and is not
renewable. A trail of hazardous materials follows the nuclear energy
cycle, from the mining of uranium through to the final disposal of
weapon-grade plutonium from the spent fuel of nuclear power plants
("Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat
Global Climate Change," www.ieer.org/ reportsinsurmountablerisks/
summary.pdf; "An Environmental Critique of In Situ Leach Mining: The
Case Against Uranium Solution Mining," www.sea-us.org. au/isl/
islsuks.html).

Uranium is not green, it is glowing yellow. If we are not careful,
Colorful Colorado may take on a new meaning.

Linda Turner lives in Fort Collins.

Comments by: nonsequitor Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:45 pm
I think that there is in fact a need for mining companies to clean
up their acts. This situation isn't showing how bad uranium mining
is in itself, but how bad mining companies are in the extraction
process. Uranium is an economically and environmentally feasible way
to go, considering that uranium gets 235 7.4 × 1016 joules per ton
compared to coals 3.2 × 1010. So I don't think that there should be
complaining at how bad uranium is, but how bad mining companies are
at extracting this product.


======================================================================

Comments by: jersey Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:29 am
I know that the mining companies have one thing in mind.
Extraction for profit. Period. They will subvert any law and
reasonable
compromise to reach that end. We will be left with the dramatic and
costly enviromental disaster, and any law suits and efforts to
recoup from the long gone company will be fruitless. This is a dead
end for anyone not owning stock in this company. Fight this if you
care about the land, this region, this city, your children, and
what's right.


======================================================================

Comments by: rdlfred Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:59 am
The Powertech uranium mine is anti-growth: Our region is one of the
most attractive and therefore fastest growing in the nation. The
negative PR of a uranium mine will make it less so.

The Powertech uranium mine is anti-economy: See the growth
explanation, above. The revenue and jobs (if any) that Powertech
brings to our region will be vastly outweighed by the harm done.

The Powertech uranium mine is anti-freedom: When any property owner
has to fear a giant mining company taking away their clean ground
water and clean air (in-situ mining is a source of radon) with
practices that have been proven dangerous, there is no freedom.

rdlfred

======================================================================

Comments by: rdlfred Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:38 am
Excellent writing, Linda. The proposed uranium mining project in
Weld County is bad for everyone. A region consistently rated as a
"best place to live" has no need for radioactive slime pits and
tainted ground water. This uranium boom will end, Powertech will
pick up and leave, and we'll be left with poisoned, unusable land.

Uranium mining here would be anti-environment, anti-economy,
anti-freedom, and anti-growth. Everyone in Fort Collins who doesn't
have "Powertech" on their business card should be opposed to this
project, regardless of their politics.

rdlfred


Copyright Š2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan.
All rights reserved.
Calgary Sun: Nuclear power debate rages

UPDATED: 2007-05-29 01:01:47 MST

Energy Alberta brings alternative energy source to forefront

By DINA O'MEARA, CP

Nuclear power might be all the rage for some interested parties in
Alberta's oilpatch, but others question the need for such
controversial power generation in an industry that requires more
steam than electricity.

While the low-emission power generated from uranium poses an
alternative to coal and costly natural gas, oil companies are
already moving rapidly towards cheaper, more efficient technologies
than those used for the past 20 years, one representative said.

"Nuclear may be an option in five to 10 years from now, but in the
meantime, people are already moving off of natural gas and moving on
to other things," said Greg Stringham, with the Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers.

Nuclear power recently has garnered increased attention through the
efforts of Energy Alberta Corp., which has been lobbying industry,
government and the public in Alberta to raise awareness of its
benefits for the province.

The company, headed by Albertans Wayne Henuset and Hank Swartout,
outgoing chief executive of Precision Drilling Trust, wants to
invest $6.2 billion to build at least two nuclear reactors that
would generate about 2,200 megawatts of electricity.

The project has found supporters in a number of circles, including
the University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy
Environment and Economy, as an alternative to replace aging
coal-fired plants which emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

Opponents point out the heavily subsidized nature of nuclear power
in Canada, primarily in Ontario and New Brunswick, and say the
citizens of Alberta would be shouldering the costs.


No oil company has publicly backed the project, including Shell
Canada, which some media outlets claimed was studying the use of
nuclear power in northern Alberta.

Sure Northern Energy, a subsidiary of Shell, has parcels of land in
an undeveloped area of the oilsands known to be in limestone. The
unconventional play requires more study to learn about its geology,
before hanging on any technology to produce it, spokesman Kurt Kadaz
said.

"That's why we are pursuing an appraisal program, and that's why
it's too early to discuss the potential commercial project and any
of its elements," Kadatz said.

Energy Alberta, with partner Crown corporation Atomic Energy of
Canada Ltd., originally targeted the energy-hungry oilsands in its
sales pitch, but has moved on to focus on Alberta in general.

"The purpose of this plant is to produce electricity only,"
spokesman Guy Huntingford said.

"Obviously, hydrogen and steam are byproducts of it, but that's not
why it's being built; it's being built purely for electricity, so we
can place the plant anywhere."

Huntingford estimates the province will need about 11,000 new
megawatts of power by 2020 to satisfy growing demands by the
oilsands and possible oilsands refineries.

Energy Alberta plans to file a preliminary application for the
project with the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in
mid-June, and select a location for the proposed reactors by
mid-September.


Copyright Š 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 IHT: Indian prime minister sets 2012 as deadline to end power shortage in
the country - 

International Herald Tribune

The Associated Press

Published: May 28, 2007

NEW DELHI: India must build hundreds of new power plants over the
next five years to end the massive electricity shortages that
threaten the country's rapid economic growth rate, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh said Monday.

India's economy has expanded more than 8.5 percent annually over the
past four years, but a widening gap between the demand and supply of
electricity threatens to derail that growth.

During peak hours, demand outstrips supply by as much as 25 percent
in some parts of the country, causing frequent outages and forcing
shutdowns at factories and business establishments.

By 2012, India will need to generate at least 200,000 megawatts of
power to eliminate any shortage, Singh said. Currently, the country
has a total capacity of producing 130,000 megawatts.

"Electricity is vital for sustained economic growth," Singh told a
conference of top elected leaders of 28 Indian states. "If we expect
our economy to keep growing at 9-10 percent annually, we need a
commensurate growth in power supply."

Singh called the targets ambitious, but said the goals could be
reached.

"We need specialized project management and monitoring capabilities
to ensure timely commissioning of projects."

The two-day conference of the state chief ministers, which began
Monday, was to discuss strategy and policy measures that will help
meet the deadline set by the prime minister.

The power sector in the country is mostly run by the state
governments, which have been slow in adding new capacities because
of lack of funds. Although the sector was opened to private capital
more than a decade ago, few companies have invested in building new
plants because of regulatory bottlenecks.

Apart from adding new plants, the state governments have to take
measures to prevent high losses during transmission and
distribution, which also include theft of electricity.

Currently, 30 to 45 percent of electricity produced in many states
is lost in transmission and distribution, Singh said.

"No meaningful development of the power sector would be feasible
with these levels of losses," he said. "We need to come heavily down
on it as it is seriously affecting the financial viability of the
(power) sector."

Most of India's electricity is currently generated by coal-fired
power plants, but the country also has some hydroelectric and
nuclear generating capacity.

Copyright Š 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
Guardian Unlimited: Budget cuts delay decommissioning of ageing nuclear reactors 

Mark Gould
Tuesday May 29, 2007

The government's timetable for decommissioning Britain's ageing 
civil nuclear reactors has been pushed backwards with delays to 
the clean-up of two sites and the potential redundancy of 200 
senior scientists and engineers as a result of cash constraints.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority says financial cuts 
will mean that the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors at 
Harwell in Oxfordshire and Winfrith in Dorset will face delays of 
up to five years.

Workers at the stations, some of whom have only recently been
recruited, have been told that redundancies are a possibility.
Prospect, the scientific and engineering union, says the two sites'
combined budget will have fallen from Ł101m this year to Ł85m in
2007-8 and Ł60m by 2008-09 leaving more than 200 jobs of senior
scientists and engineers at risk.

The cuts will also have an impact on the government's plans to build
a new generation of nuclear stations outlined in the government's
white paper last week. The best locations for the new plants would
be the sites of existing nuclear stations but, if the clean-up is
delayed, new locations will need to be investigated.

As reported in the Guardian last week, this means building new
nuclear stations on the sites of existing coal and gas stations in
the south-east of England, which could lead to long planning
inquiries.

The timetable slippage comes at an awkward time when a newly
resurgent privatised nuclear industry is trying to persuade the
public that it could build new power stations on time and on budget.

Under plans for competition within nuclear decommissioning, Harwell
and Winfrith will become a single site licence company, with a new
parent body owner.

Prospect's branch chair for the sites, Peter Simpson said: "In its
rush for privatisation at any cost the government does not seem to
care about the damage it causes to people who have given years of
loyal service and have put up with change after change and cut after
cut."

Financial cuts stem from the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant
in Sellafield, which has been shut for more than two years following
a leak of radioactive fuel. Thorp's Ł560m yearly earnings from
reprocessing overseas fuel were a significant part of the revenue
stream of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is
overseeing the clean-up.

The NDA has also taken a financial hit from the temporary shutdown
of one of its elderly Magnox power stations at Oldbury in
Gloucestershire which sells electricity to the National Grid.

A spokesman for the UKAEA confirmed that plans for full
decommissioning at Harwell and Winfrith by 2018, 30 years earlier
than planned, will be put back until around 2023 as part of a
revised work programme to accommodate the cuts. It has told workers
that some form of "early release" scheme may be required once the
new work programme has been set next month.

The spokesman added: "There are no specific figures on redundancies,
I really don't know if it would be 200, and if job losses were to
occur they would be as voluntary redundancies - it is still very
early yet."

David Luxton Prospect's national secretary, says the Department of
Trade and Industry should come up with more money to bail out the
sites. He blames the DTI for poor financial planning of the
decommissioning contract given that it was aware of the loss of
revenue from Thorp.

Mr Luxton said: "The financial model on which decommissioning is
relying is based on a revenue stream from, among others, Thorp and
that is not happening. The DTI caused the problem and is making the
NDA tighten its budgets and still deliver on public service
agreements made with bigger budgets."

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 Š Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Athens NEWS: Meeting on nuke waste storage plan threatens to melt down

2007-05-29

By Mike Ludwig Athens NEWS Campus Reporter

Over 50 local residents and activists grilled a member of the
nuclear-energy industry Thursday night in Athens over a
controversial proposal to reuse spent nuclear fuel rods at the
former uranium enrichment site in Piketon, Ohio.

The proposal, known as Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
"holds great promise for supporting the worldwide growth of nuclear
energy, and SODI supports the efforts to revitalize nuclear power in
the United States, to diversify its energy portfolio, increase
energy security, and to reduce greenhouse-gas emission in the
production of electricity," according to a newsletter produced by
the Southern Ohio Diversity Initiative (SODI), a U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) designated "community reuse organization."

If the project went forward, new nuclear energy operations requiring
stored nuclear waste would begin about 50 miles west of Athens.

Greg Simonton of SODI was the only speaker on a nine-member panel
who spoke in favor of the proposal during the town meeting Thursday
in the Athens City Council chambers. His claims that the project
would be safe, help Ohio meet the public's demand for electricity,
and bring much-needed labor opportunities to the region prompted
strong challenges from fellow panel members and meeting participants.

They charged that the creation of a nuclear fuel recycling center
will lead to the local storage of nuclear waste from the 103
existing reactor sites throughout the country.

"This is not going to be a nuclear waste dump," countered Simonton,
who objected to the connotations of the word "dump."

In disagreeing withi Simonton, Piketon resident Geoffrey Sea, a
member of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group, cited a quotation
allegedly pulled from a draft application for DOE funding from the
Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative (SONIC), the main
group of industry members involved in the project.

"Separate from this proposal, though integral to it, SONIC has
proposed a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) facility at Portsmouth
(Piketon)," Sea read aloud during the question-and-answer session.

Simonton responded by denying that statement had ever been made and
said the document Sea referred to "does not exist."

According to an informational tabloid published by SONIC, "GNEP
implementation will greatly reduce the long-term storage
requirements for used nuclear fuel by utilizing recycling methods to
reuse this spent fuel currently stored at 103 existing nuclear
reactor sites across the country."

Simonton said that existing technology could recycle certain
portions of radioactive waste for use as reactor fuel for creating
electricity.

Nuclear operations at Piketon/Portsmouth's former Gaseous Diffusion
Plant have had a troubled history. According to a 2006 special
report by the Dayton Daily News, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency estimated that more than $3 billion had been spent cleaning
up the site of the plant, which began enriching atomic metals for
nuclear weapons over 50 years ago. The cost of cleanup could
eventually top $4.5 billion, the paper reported, making it the most
expensive environmental cleanup in Ohio's history.

During emotional testimony Thursday evening, panelist Vina Colley, a
former Piketon Gaseous Diffusion Plant employee and president of
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety, claimed that
many of her co-workers became ill and died of cancer and
radiation-related illness.

"My friends and co-workers are dying of cancer, and the government
waits until they die to pay their families any compensation," Colley
said.

Thursday's meeting was organized by concerned citizens who feel
their voices were ignored during informational events sponsored by
proponents of the proposed project, according to a press release for
the event.

"We are concerned about the process," the Rev. William Carroll said
in a prepared statement. "The sponsors of this plan have organized
so-called 'public hearings,' which have made a mockery of democratic
values. At one, the announced question-and-answer session was
cancelled over the objection of several community members. In other
cases, people were not allowed to testify at all." Carroll is the
rector of Athens' Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd.

"We are part of this Creation," Carroll said. "We don't stand above
it."

Some participants suggested focusing on wind- and solar-energy
sources as an alternative to relying on nuclear power for jobs and
electricity in southern Ohio.

"I have seen the renewable-energy industry grow by leaps and bounds
over the past several years," Michelle Greenfield, co-owner of Third
Sun Wind and Power, said in a statement read aloud by one of the
panelists. "And guess what? Solar power has no emissions as it is
producing power and has no toxic waste that needs to find a place to
be buried and does not pose a national or international security
risk."

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and a bipartisan group of U.S. House
members have voiced support for the nuclear-waste recycling project,
though they say their support is dependent on Piketon not becoming a
nuclear-waste dump.

It's far from a foregone conclusion that the U.S. Department of
Energy will choose Piketon for such a facility, since it has
received site-study reports for 10 other locations around the
country. Opponents, however, fear that underlying the nuclear
recycling proposal is a plan to use the Piketon facility for
storage, even if the recycling operation goes elsewhere.

For more information on SONIC's plans to reuse nuclear fuel in
Piketon, visit www.safesonic.net and www.gnep.energy.gov. To sign
the SONG petition against the GNEP proposal, visit
www.progressohio.org/page/petition/DOEpetition.

HT: Browns Ferry safety system fails test; no immediate shutdown -

Breaking News from The Huntsville Times - al.com

Posted by Associated Press May 29, 2007 5:17 PM

ATHENS -- A safety system failed when tested at the newly restarted
Unit 1 reactor of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, but it
didn't result in a shutdown as a pipe burst did last week, plant
officials said today.

Terry Johnson, a spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority, said
a problem early Monday that prevented the cooling system from
getting enough steam is being checked to determine the cause. He
said the reactor will be shut down if the system isn't operable
within 14 days.

The reactor was shut down last Thursday after the leaky pipe burst
and spilled about 600 gallons of non-radioactive fluid inside a
building housing generating turbines. It later was restarted.

Officals with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the spill
didn't pose a safety threat and the test failure Monday also wasn't
considered a safety problem.

TVA, which operates the three-reactor plant in north Alabama,
restarted Unit 1 on May 22 after it had remained out of operation
for 22 years. All three reactors were taken down in 1985 for safety
reasons, with the other two returning online in the 1990s.

Power generation by the reactor is to be increased gradually amid a
series of tests that Johnson said would last a period of weeks.

Š2007 al.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index
*****************************************************************
 21 HT: Browns Ferry safety system fails test; no immediate shutdown -

Breaking News from The Huntsville Times - al.com

Posted by Associated Press May 29, 2007 5:17 PM

ATHENS -- A safety system failed when tested at the newly restarted
Unit 1 reactor of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, but it
didn't result in a shutdown as a pipe burst did last week, plant
officials said today.

Terry Johnson, a spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority, said
a problem early Monday that prevented the cooling system from
getting enough steam is being checked to determine the cause. He
said the reactor will be shut down if the system isn't operable
within 14 days.

The reactor was shut down last Thursday after the leaky pipe burst
and spilled about 600 gallons of non-radioactive fluid inside a
building housing generating turbines. It later was restarted.

Officals with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the spill
didn't pose a safety threat and the test failure Monday also wasn't
considered a safety problem.

TVA, which operates the three-reactor plant in north Alabama,
restarted Unit 1 on May 22 after it had remained out of operation
for 22 years. All three reactors were taken down in 1985 for safety
reasons, with the other two returning online in the 1990s.

Power generation by the reactor is to be increased gradually amid a
series of tests that Johnson said would last a period of weeks.

Š2007 al.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index
SCMP: Guangdong Nuclear in Anhui plant deal

BIZCHINA / Center

(South China Morning Post)
Updated: 2007-05-28 11:34

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding, the smaller of the 
nation's two dominant nuclear energy producers, has agreed to 
develop a large plant in Anhui province to meet growing demand 
for clean power in the local market and in Shanghai.

The company said it had signed a framework deal with Shanghai power
and natural gas supplier Shenergy, Anhui Energy Group and Shanghai
Electric Power on the project's construction in Wuhu city.

It did not give details but Anhui Commercial Daily cited Anhui
Energy sources as saying the project would consist of four 1,000
megawatt generators, two in each of two phases of development.

The first phase will be 51 per cent owned by China Guangdong
Nuclear, 20 per cent by Shanghai-listed Shenergy, 15 per cent by
Anhui Energy Group, the parent of Shenzhen-listed power producer
Anhui Wenergy and 14 per cent by Shanghai-listed utility Shanghai
Electric Power.

The project will be part of China's plan to boost its nuclear power
capacity to 40,000 MW by 2020 from 6,850 MW at the end of last year.

The first phase is estimated to cost 23.4 billion yuan and may come
on stream in 2015, according to a preliminary feasibility study by
the Anhui government. This implies a per-MW cost of US$1.5 million,
about three times that of a typical coal-fired plant.

Despite high construction and depreciation expenses, fuel costs at
nuclear plants are much lower, with uranium making up only 10 per
cent of their operating costs compared with 60 per cent for
coal-fired plants.

Half of the power to be generated by the Wuhu plant will be
distributed locally, with the rest going to Shanghai as part of a
programme aimed at transmitting power from energy-rich Anhui
province to the densely populated Shanghai market.

Coal-rich Anhui supplies about 75 per cent of its output to
neighbouring regions. As coal-fired and limited hydropower plants
supply 95 per cent of China's energy needs, the country relies on
nuclear power to stem growing air pollution.


China Guangdong Nuclear has signed a framework agreement to buy
nuclear islands equipment from Hong Kong-listed Shanghai Electric
Group for the proposed plant.

(For more biz stories, please visit Industry Updates)
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: China lashes critical Pentagon report - 

Mon May 28, 2:49 AM ET

BEIJING(AFP) - China lashed back Monday at a US report on its 
military might, saying the Pentagon was playing up the issue for 
ulterior motives and warning Washington against selling weapons 
to Taiwan.

"The US Defense Department's report exaggerates China's military
expenditures out of ulterior motives and continues to disseminate
the 'China threat' theory," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu
said in a statement.

"It seriously violates the norms of international relations and
rudely interferes in China's internal affairs. China expresses its
strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition."

Jiang also called Taiwan "an inseparable part of China's territory,"
urging the United States to "stop weapons sales and military
exchanges with Taiwan and not send any wrong signals to Taiwan
pro-independence forces."

China has insisted that Taiwan is a part of its territory since
Nationalist armies fled the mainland for the island in 1949
following civil war. Beijing has vowed to use force to retake Taiwan
should the island ever declare formal independence.

Jiang's statement was the first direct government response to
Friday's Pentagon report, following scattered commentary in the
state-run media over the weekend.

The Pentagon report, issued Friday, expressed concern at the
deployment of long-range ballistic nuclear missiles, and a
ballooning and non-transparent budget.

China's pursuit of weapons strategies "is expanding from the
traditional land, air and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield
to include space and cyberspace," the report said.

Jiang responded Monday by calling China "a peace-loving country" and
"an important force for peace in the Asia-Pacific and the world."

"It's the duty of any sovereign nation to maintain a necessary
defence ability in order to protect its national security and
territorial integrity. The American report's dissemination of the
so-called 'China threat' theory is misleading and fruitless," she
said.

China's national budget has projected an increase in military
spending in 2007 of 17.8 percent to about 45 billion dollars,
although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute.

Copyright Š 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
The Herald: Ban would place Scotland in a precarious position

Web Issue 2847 May 30 2007   

I profoundly disagree with the arguments posited by Duncan McLaren,
chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland (It's time to give
us the power to decide on energy, May 29). He claims that "as a
result of accidental shutdowns, we have seen already that the
Scottish electricity system can continue to meet peak demand while
neither Hunterston nor Longannet is in production."

In fact, had it not been for the unseasonably warm temperatures when
these two plants were forced to close for repairs last winter, we
would have faced blackouts across Scotland. The government had even
prepared contingency plans for phased switch-offs. That is how close
we came to disaster.

Mr McLaren voices our common concern about climate change and the
need to cut carbon emissions. But then he suggests that "clean coal"
production at Longannet is his preferred alternative to nuclear
power. "Clean coal" technology is so-called because it reduces
sulphur emissions by 90%. However, its impact on CO2 is much more
limited, with reductions at only 20%. Nuclear power, on the other
hand, is virtually CO2 emission free and currently provides around
40% of Scotland's baseload electricity. It makes no sense for Mr
McLaren to claim that we can meet our CO2 targets and avoid
blackouts by banning nuclear plants in Scotland. Indeed, the pledge
by the SNP and its Green allies that they will refuse to sanction
replacement nuclear capacity in Scotland, has placed us in a
precarious position.

Of course renewables and clean coal will have a vital role to play
in a diverse energy mix in the future and Scotland has a chance to
become a global leader in wind, tidal and wave power and even, if we
get our act together, carbon capture and storage (CCS). But such
forms of energy production cannot be relied upon to provide constant
baseload. Wind farms, for example, can be unreliable electricity
suppliers because they are dependent on a specific range of wind
speeds, and these speeds cannot be guaranteed to occur during times
of peak demand.

With the technology for storing electricity in bulk not yet
available, it is still necessary to have traditional generating
capacity as back-up to provide security of supply. Nuclear plants
are the best way to provide this generating capacity and we should
exploit Scotland's 50 years of nuclear experience in providing a
safe and reliable source of energy, by commissioning new nuclear
plants for the future.

Struan Stevenson MEP, The European Parliament, Brussels.

Duncan McLaren (May 29) clearly demonstrates why no new nuclear
power plants are required in Scotland and why control of energy
policy must immediately be devolved to Scotland. However, his focus
on existing electricity production ignores the energy consumed by
transport in the form of petrol and the need to eliminate this major
source of CO2 production.

According to the Scottish Energy Study produced by the Scottish
Executive, Scotland consumed 175 TeraWatt Hours (TWh) of energy in
2002, 47 TWh (27%) being in the form of petrol used in transport.

By contrast, we produced 40 TWh of usable electricity, (a further 70
TWh of energy was lost in power generation and the grid).

As a by-product of vehicle petrol 8.69 MT of CO2 were produced, 19%
of Scotland's total CO2 emission. Overall, oil produces 33% of
Scotland's CO2.

To tackle CO2 significantly we need to plan now to run transport,
particularly cars and lorries, on a mix of electric and
hydrogen-based vehicles.

The demonstration car released last week by BMW shows the technology
for hydrogen-fuelled cars is now available as it is for electric
cars. Both will require increased power generation facilities and,
in hydrogen's case, electrolysis plants. The rolling out of
infrastructure to support refuelling will require possibly 15 years.
However, we need to start now.

Even taking account of improved energy efficiency in existing
electricity users and vehicles, say 30%, we will require to increase
electricity generating capacity to usable capacity of around 60 TWh
to meet demands for existing users plus electric or hydrogen
vehicles. That is an increase of around 50% on existing capacity.
This requires a much more dramatic investment in renewable energy
than the figures assumed in Duncan McLaren's report.

Fortunately, as the Friends of the Earth report shows, wave and
tidal could produce at least 79 TWh and offshore wind 82TWh. Tidal
energy from particularly the Pentland and Solway firths is
relatively constant and predictable and could meet Scotland's
requirement for baseload generation.

The Scottish Executive must demand control of energy policy, then
exercise its powers to make huge long-term investments in wave and
tidal power, electrolysis, hydrogen fuel cells, battery storage and
other technologies required to become a post-petroleum economy.
Moreover, it is in our strategic interest that the executive does so
in a way that ensures Scotland's energy infrastructure is owned and
controlled by the people of Scotland.

Gordon Morgan, 1 Maybank Street Glasgow.

Š All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
*****************************************************************
 23 Xinhua: No fast economic fix from China-U.S. talks

www.chinaview.cn 2007-05-28 09:41:05

    BEIJING, May 28 --How should we evaluate the second round of the
China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) held in Washington May
22 to 23?

    Carlos Gutierrez, U.S. commerce secretary, got it right: The
strategic economic dialogue focuses on the overall situation, not on
resolving particular issues. Therefore, no short-term results should
be expected.

    The China-U.S. Joint Economic Committee and other joint
committees are already in place to handle particular economic
matters. The strategic economic dialogue is needed to address the
two countries' long-term economic relationship from a wider
perspective. The goal is to develop sustainable mutually beneficial
economic ties.

    This task goes beyond the functions of limited-focus joint
committees. The eagerness for immediate results does not work here.

    The Washington dialogue strengthened mutual trust through
intensive discussion on issues of deep concern to both sides. This
is the big yield of the dialogue.

    Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi, who headed the Chinese delegation,
emphasized the intensive discussions on the service industry,
energy, the environment, balanced economic growth and innovation.
Energy and environmental protection were the most serious issues
discussed. Cooperation in these two areas has great prospects and is
expected to inject vitality into both economies.

    Also, both sides agreed to promote balanced growth of their
economies through macroeconomic policies and to encourage innovation
through policy exchanges and technological cooperation.

    In his opening statement, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
said both China and the U.S. face challenges of domestic
protectionism and questions about the merits of trade and
globalization. He went on to say: "There is a growing skepticism in
each country about the other's intentions. Unfortunately, in
America, this is manifesting itself as anti-China sentiment."

    This is worth attention.

Editor: Gao Ying
San Francisco Bay Guardian: Nuclear greenwashing

Nuclear greenwashing: Global warming has suddenly put nukes back on
the agenda ? but there's a lot the industry isn't telling you

BY AMANDA WITHERELL amanda@sfbg.com

Patrick Moore's presentation isn't as slick as Al Gore's. The 
slides he shows lack a certain visual panache and don't compare 
to the ones in An Inconvenient Truth. Moore himself seems a 
little frumpy, particularly as he peers out across the audience 
recently gathered in the Warnors Theatre in Fresno.

But attendees paid $20 to hear the former Greenpeace leader extol 
the benefits of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable, 
economic, and ? perhaps most important to the current political 
and media focus on global warming ? emissions-free source of 
power.

It's hard to imagine Moore at the helm of an inflatable boat
steering into the line of a whaling ship's fire, but that iconic
Greenpeace image is exactly what he wants you to associate with him.
The Vancouver, British Columbia, native is quick to tell you he's a
former leader of one of the most effective international activist
organizations ever.

But he said he's older now and wants to be for things instead of 
against them.

What's Moore for? Warding off the warming of the world. What does 
he think will do it? More nuclear power plants.

If there's any great and unifying issue thrumming through the 
national psyche, defying political party lines and flooding the 
media filters these days, it's global warming. While leaders 
argue left and right about nearly every issue that comes before 
them, there is at least consensus that something must be done 
about climate change.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped on that bandwagon last 
September when he signed into law Assembly Bill 32, mandating a 
25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.

Thirty-one states recently agreed to join a voluntary greenhouse 
gas emissions registry similar to California's, 10 northeastern 
states are creating a cap-and-trade market, and already half the 
country has laws requiring that a certain percentage of local 
power portfolios come from renewable energy.

The alternative-energy troops who've long been waiting in the 
trenches have stepped up to fight, armed with the tools they've 
been honing for years: solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power, 
and biofuels. They say new options and innovations abound for 
weaning the country off its fossil fuel habit.

But there are already critics who say those approaches aren't 
going to be enough ? and that we need to go nuclear against this 
planetary threat. And now they have some unlikely new allies.

Maybe you've seen the headlines touting the new nuclear push, 
running in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los 
Angeles Times, and all the daily syndicates. They all claim the 
same questionable facts: Nuclear power is clean and emissions 
free. It's safe, reliable, and cost-effective. It isn't 
contributing to global warming ? and these days even the 
environmentalists like it.

Lovelock, the renowned Gaia theorist, thinks nuclear energy will 
be essential to power the developing world. On a Sept. 13, 2006, 
airing of KQED's Forum, he told host Michael Krasny, "I would 
welcome high-level nuclear waste in my backyard."

During the hour-long program he said the dangers of radiation 
were exaggerated; there wasn't that much waste generated; and in 
order to mitigate the increasing effects of climate change, we 
should "look at nuclear as a kind of medicine we have to take."

Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, thinks nothing 
is more doomsday than global warming and told the Guardian he 
advised Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to start touting nuclear 
power as a solution.

"The nuclear industry needs a new green generation," he told us. 
"My fellow environmentalists ought to be grateful to the nuclear 
industry for supplying 20 percent of our electricity.


"

And then there's Moore, the 15-year Greenpeace veteran who once 
put his body in the way of a seal hunter's club and wrote in an 
April 16, 2006, Washington Post op-ed, "My views have changed and 
the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, 
too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that 
can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic 
climate change.

"Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy 
source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to 
satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so 
safely."

The bio for the Post piece identifies Moore as cochair of "a new 
industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, 
which supports the use of nuclear energy."

It's one of the few articles that make such a disclosure, 
although more probably should. A survey by Diane Farsetta, a 
senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, came 
across 302 recent articles mentioning Moore and nuclear power as 
a possible option for mitigating the effects of global warming.

Only 37 - a mere 12 percent - said he's being paid to support 
nuclear power by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national 
organization of pro-nuke industries that's hired Moore to front 
its nuclear renaissance.

Only the Columbia Journalism Review has drawn the further 
connection that Hill and Knowlton has been paid $8 million to 
help the NEI spread the word that the nukies have the silver 
bullet for solving global warming.

Hill and Knowlton knows a little something about pushing 
dangerous products. The company created the tobacco industry's 
decades-long disinformation campaign about the effects of 
smoking. Veterans of that campaign then helped ExxonMobil try to 
bury the truth about global warming.

Before laughing these folks out of the reactor room, consider 
this: Nancy Pelosi and ...

Dianne Feinstein, who've been against nukes in the past, are now 
suggesting nuclear energy needs to be considered in light of 
global warming.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have also made similar recent 
murmurings. Of all the major 2008 presidential candidates, only 
Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards have offered up energy plans 
that don't include more nukes.

Eight states are working on pro-nuclear legislation, and although 
a bill to lift the moratorium on new plants in California was 
shot down in the Assembly's Committee on Natural Resources, its 
sponsor, Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), told us he intends to introduce 
it again and again until it passes.

In the meantime a private group of Fresno investors has signed a 
letter of intent with a nuclear power company to put a 
1,600-megawatt nuclear plant in the San Joaquin Valley. So far 
the only thing stopping the group is the state's 30-year-old 
moratorium, which says no new nuclear power plants may be built 
in California until a permanent solution to the waste is 
established.


The investors are already working on a November 2008 ballot 
measure to end the ban and allow new nuclear plants.

A new nuclear plant hasn't been built in the United States since 
1978, when concerns about safety, cost, and the long-term waste 
management challenge (nuclear rods will still be deadly hundreds 
of thousands of years from now) overwhelmed the industry.

But if there were ever an opportunity for a nuclear renaissance, 
the threat of climate change has created one. And the poster 
child is Moore, a relatively innocuous Greenpeace exile who's 
traveling around the country with a B-movie version of Gore's 
Oscar-winning documentary, speaking to communities and drumming 
up what he calls a grassroots coalition of mayors, business 
leaders, and community activists. He's steadily convincing them 
we need more nuclear power by trading the classic doomsday 
scenario of a massive radioactive explosion for the creeping 
killer global warming.

"I'm aghast," Dr. Helen Caldicott, an Australian who helped found 
Physicians for Social Responsibility and is one of the most 
prominent international critics of the dangers of nuclear energy, 
told us.

Caldicott, who's authored several books on the subject, most 
recently Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (2006), said, "I've 
never seen a propaganda exercise which is so fallacious. Both the 
politicians and the media are buying it."

She and other nuclear watchdogs who've been patrolling the 
industry for more than 30 years say it's anything but a safe, 
reliable, economic, and emissions-free silver bullet.

Let's look at the facts.

SAFETY

When it comes to safety, Moore told us, "US nuclear power plant 
employees enjoy the so-called healthy worker effect: people 
employed at the plants have lower mortality rates from cancer, 
heart disease, or other causes and are likely to live ...

onger than the general population."

To support this claim, he cited a 2004 Radiation Research Society 
study of 53,000 workers. After reviewing it, Caldicott said, "I'm 
very suspect. There's nothing here about people who are living 
with cancer."

Caldicott admits there's a void of data about the health of 
nuclear workers and people who live near plants. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission doesn't mandate baseline studies of cancer 
rates in areas surrounding the sites of nuclear facilities.

But people living near Three Mile Island, the Pennsylvania plant 
that came within minutes of a catastrophic meltdown in 1979, 
demanded studies, which found evidence of increases in thyroid 
cancer in the region. And Caldicott, in her recent book, pointed 
out that there are a number of things the government doesn't want 
to admit. "To this day there is no available information about 
which specific isotopes escaped nor the actual quantity of 
radiation that was released," she wrote, going on to detail how, 
for lack of sufficient data about the distance the radiation may 
have spread, scientists studied the rates in the livestock of 
nearby fields and found supporting evidence that the plume of 
poison spread as far as 150 miles away.


And of course, there's Chernobyl, where a 1986 nuclear-plant 
disaster caused lasting health problems and contaminated a huge 
swath of what was then the Soviet Union.

The unavoidable fact is that the industry thus far has had two 
terrible, nightmarish accidents, one of which was catastrophic 
and the other very nearly so.

And every part of the nuclear-power cycle involves serious health 
risks.

"You want to get really sad?" asked Molly Johnson, a lifelong 
environmental justice activist and San Luis Obispo County 
resident. "Go to New Mexico, go to Arizona, see the families that 
are dying because of the uranium mining. Their water is 
irradiated from the uranium tailings that are still there.... Why 
would we continue that?"

These days intentional attacks are even more of a concern. But 
Moore isn't sweating. He said he thinks a plane colliding with a 
power plant is unlikely, even though the 9/11 Commission Report 
found that al-Qaeda operatives at one point considered aiming for 
the Indian Point reactor in New York.

Even if a jet hit a plant, Moore insists, the plant would be 
strong enough to withstand a collision. "If you drove an airplane 
into that, it would just be one messed-up airplane you'd have to 
deal with," he said.

Not exactly, say the critics.

"He is just dead wrong about reactor security. Breathtakingly 
misinformed," said Dan Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a 
public interest group that's been studying nuclear power and 
proliferation issues for nearly four decades. "Virtually no 
reactor containment in the US was designed to withstand a hit by 
a jumbo jet. Significant ...

parts of the plant essential to preventing a meltdown are outside 
containment anyway."

Hirsch is speaking of power lines, which transmit electricity 
from the plant and also carry electricity to it - power that's 
used to keep dangerous components cool and safe. If that power 
were cut off for any length of time, a meltdown could occur in 
the pools where explosive spent fuel is kept.

These spent-fuel storage areas - essentially big swimming pools 
where radioactive waste is kept underwater until a long-term 
storage facility is built - rely on a steady pumping of water to 
cool the superheated waste. All you'd have to do is stop that 
water pump, and there'd be a meltdown. And the storage areas 
don't necessarily have the same fortified structures as the 
reactors.

Hirsch said, "A successful attack on a nuclear plant or, even 
worse, a spent-fuel pool would be the worst terrorist event to 
ever occur on earth by far, capable of killing over 100,000 
people immediately and hundreds of thousands of latent cancers 
thereafter, contaminating an area the size of Pennsylvania for 
generations.


"

There's no immediate solution in sight for long-term storage, so 
these pools of deadly waste will likely remain on reactor sites 
for many years.

San Luis Obispo County's Mothers for Peace recently sued the NRC 
over the newly established laws regarding protection against 
terrorist attacks, which only require plants to be able to ward 
off five potential external terrorists on the ground. It took 19 
people to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks. The 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals in San Francisco ruled that power plant operators must 
also consider the possibility of an air attack when designing 
spent-fuel storage tanks.

Mothers for Peace is fond of noting that existing security 
measures aren't what you'd call foolproof. During a recent 
earthquake, 56 of 131 sirens in the San Luis Obispo area - 
designed to alert residents of a possible accident at the plant - 
didn't go off because the power was out and they aren't backed up 
by generators or batteries.

When Mothers for Peace and the Alliance for Nuclear 
Responsibility brought the failure to the attention of the NRC, 
the agency said that nothing is perfect and that the sirens over 
the course of 1,000 hours worked 99 percent of the time.

"Except the five hours you'd actually want them to work," David 
Weisman of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility said.

Nuclear power is either a creeping killer or a sitting bomb. Wind 
farms and solar-panel arrays are not leaching poisons into the 
environment. They're not direct targets for terrorist attacks, 
and if they were, the result wouldn't be all that horrible. 
Imagine cleaning up a bombed wind farm versus a nuclear power 
plant.

"Wind farms are on nobody's list of targets," Weisman added. "If 
a windmill falls and there's no one there to hear it, do you need 
an ...

emergency evacuation plan?"

RELIABILITY

A centerpiece of the pro-nuke argument is that nuclear power is a 
baseload source, meaning it can generate energy all day, every 
day. Solar and wind, of course, rely on the cruel (and 
unpredictable) forces of nature to generate power.

But one could argue the same about nuclear power plants. They're 
run by people - and the record of those operators isn't 
encouraging.

Moore expressed great confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission: "They have very, very stringent requirements and 
regulations. It's all there for anybody to see. All of these 
reactors are inspected regularly. There is no reason in my 
estimation to suspect the NRC of anything other than being a 
responsible watchdog agency. If you want to take the time to dig 
into it, you can find out what's going on."

David Lochbaum does take that time - and he's found out a lot.


After working for 17 years as a consultant to the NRC, he joined 
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as a nuclear-safety 
engineer. He spends his days combing NRC reports and documents 
and compiling studies on the safety of the industry. His 
experience and research have caused him to conclude that the 
commission can't stay on top of the 103 plants in the country.

"We get a lot of calls from workers in the plants, and NRC 
employees that have safety issues they're afraid to raise," he 
said. "We had three calls last week. That's a little more than 
usual, but we usually get 50 to 60 whistleblower calls a year." 
He said sometimes the workers have already raised the issue 
internally but need an ally to force a remedy at the plant. Other 
times they're afraid to speak about what they've seen without 
fear of retaliation.

Lochbaum authored a September 2006 study for the UCS titled 
"Walking the Nuclear Tightrope" on the issues of safety and 
reliability. It's a chilling read; it carefully outlines how 
regulators have been complicit in allowing plants to operate far 
longer than they should and how these overstressed plants 
eventually have to be shut down for years to restore safety 
standards. He found that in the last 40 years plants have ground 
to a halt for a year or more on 51 occasions. In most cases it 
wasn't a spontaneous incident but an overall decaying of 
conditions that compromised safety.

"Some observers have argued that the fact no US nuclear power 
reactor has experienced a meltdown since 1979 (during which time 
45 year-plus outages have occurred) demonstrates the status quo 
is working successfully," Lochbaum wrote. "That's as fallacious 
as arguing that the levees protecting New Orleans were fully 
adequate prior to Hurricane Katrina by pointing to the absence of 
similar disasters between 1980 and 2004."

One of the most recent and chilling examples is the 2002 outage 
of the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio, where a hole the size 
...

of a football was discovered in the vessel reactor head. Only a 
half inch of steel remained to prevent a massive nuclear 
meltdown. The plant was overdue for a shutdown and an inspection 
and had been granted the extension by the NRC.

When asked what he thought about that close call, Moore said, "I 
didn't think it was a close call. I thought it was a mechanical 
failure that should have been caught sooner. It was caught long 
before it became an accident or anything like that."

"When you say close call, that means that nothing actually 
happened," he concluded.

But when there's a facility where an accident could lead to mass 
deaths, even close calls are grounds for concern. That's why we 
have to hold nuclear plants to such high standards. And the fact 
that plants have to close so often to avoid disastrous accidents 
doesn't say much for the reliability argument.

EMISSIONS

This may be the issue on which the pro-nukers make the most 
headway.


Moore cites a number of international studies, posted on the 
NEI's Web site, that show nuclear plants competing only with 
hydropower when it comes to emitting the lowest level of carbon 
dioxide. Even solar panels and wind turbines, when one factors in 
the entire energy process, emit more greenhouse gases, according 
to these studies, though all these power sources release 
significantly less than burning coal or natural gas.

The anti-nuke crowd says a true study has never been completed 
that quantifies the CO2 emissions from mining uranium and turning 
it into usable nuclear fuel. Both are heavily energy intensive. 
Additionally, they argue that transporting waste will incur even 
more CO2 emissions, whether it's shipped across the sea for 
reprocessing in Europe or trucked across the country for burial 
in Yucca Mountain.

But the waste itself is also a huge issue. Although nuclear power 
plants don't have bad breath, they do emit toxins - and it's an 
unresolved issue as to where to put them. The current forecast 
for opening the Yucca Mountain repository is 2021. Senate 
majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada opposes building the 
facility, and he's pushing a bill that would require plants to 
keep the crud in their backyards.

"They've had 50 years to work on the waste issue," Weisman said. 
"And the best solution they've come up with is, who do we not 
like enough to send it to?"

Either way, Moore thinks waste is not a problem. If anything, it 
should be reprocessed - he likes to call it "recycling." Under 
that process, spent fuel is bathed in acid to separate out the 
usable plutonium. That can be followed by vitrification - a 
complex, energy-intensive process of suspending the highly 
radioactive and corrosive acid in glass, which is then sealed in 
expensive trash cans of steel and concrete and buried underground 
for at least 300 years, after which point he predicts it should 
no longer be a problem.

"It ...makes more fuel," he said.

Actually, Hirsch said, "it makes more weapons-grade plutonium." 
He argues that the last thing the nation should do is allow 
nuclear-plant operators to separate the plutonium and put it on 
the market, where it can be leaked for bomb making.

Additionally, there are a number of waste sites around the 
country that are slowly emitting what they've been designed - or 
not designed in some cases - to contain.

The worst is probably in Hanford, Wash., where decades' worth of 
reprocessed spent radioactive fuel pushed the area beyond 
Superfund status into a "national nuclear waste sacrifice zone.

"Hanford is the most contaminated site in North America and one 
of the most significant long-term threats facing the Columbia 
River," Greg deBruler, of Columbia Riverkeeper, wrote in the Fall 
2006 issue of Waterkeeper, the group's quarterly journal.


"It's difficult to comprehend the reality of Hanford's 150 square 
miles of highly contaminated groundwater or its 53 million 
gallons of highly radioactive waste sitting in 45-year-old 
rotting steel tanks."

Much of that waste includes leftover reprocessed spent uranium 
fuel, which ate through its casks and poisoned the community's 
drinking water.

Moore said, "It's not as if everyone is dead. The nuclear waste 
has been contained."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

ECONOMICS

"The economics of nuclear power are well proven around the world. 
It is one of the most cost-effective forms of energy," Moore 
said.

Just check the record. Of the 103 reactors that were built in the 
United States, 75 ran a total of $100 billion over budget. India 
more recently went 300 percent over budget on its 10 reactors. 
Finland is already 18 months behind and $1 billion over on a 
reactor.

Given this track record, the Department of Energy's Energy 
Information Administration "Annual Energy Outlook 2005" reported 
that "new plants are not expected to be economical." They're so 
risky, in fact, that not a single plant could have been built 
without the 1957 Price-Anderson act, which moves the liability 
for a nuke plant off its owners and onto US taxpayers. "If they 
were really economical, they'd be able to get insurance," Weisman 
said. The bill was recently renewed.

The nuclear industry forges on unperturbed, claiming that new 
plants have been streamlined for easier construction. 
Additionally, the siting and licensing laws for plants have been 
changed to speed up the process by precluding public input. 
(Given the industry's safety record so far, that's not 
comforting.) Experts predict it will now take 10 years to build a 
new nuclear plant. Thirty-four licenses are currently pending at 
the NRC as utility companies race to secure the $8 billion the 
federal government set aside for subsidies.

"Imagine ...how many wind turbines that could buy," said Harvey 
Wasserman, a longtime anti-nuke activist who recently authored 
the book Solartopia, which outlines a plan for completely 
renewable energy by 2030. In fact, renewables are far cheaper. 
Building the facilities to create one gigawatt of wind power 
costs about $1.5 billion; about two gigawatts could replace the 
Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

THE BOTTOM LINE

In the end, it comes down to money, and that's where nuclear 
power may be the most vulnerable.

Sam Blakeslee, a Republican Assembly member from San Luis Obispo, 
introduced a bill last year that calls on the California Energy 
Commission (CEC) to conduct an in-depth study of the true costs 
of nuclear power to assess its viability as part of California's 
future energy plans. The bill passed unanimously, and 
Schwarzenegger signed it.

"This will be cradle to grave," said Weisman, of the Alliance for 
Nuclear Responsibility, which has focused its scrutiny on the 
industry's costs.


The group has long been suspicious of PG&E's financial woes, 
which came to a head this past March when the California Public 
Utilities Commission allowed the company to use $16.8 million 
from ratepayers to fund its in-house study of relicensing its two 
nuclear plants. "The licenses won't be up until 2023 and 2025, so 
why are they looking at relicensing now - and why does it cost 
$16.8 million when the state's study is projected to cost 
$800,000?" Weisman asked.

Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is introducing a bill 
this year that will undercut PG&E's study before the CEC's 
analysis is completed, which is expected to occur around November 
2008.

"Our very simple idea here is that before any relicensing of our 
aging nuclear power plants can proceed, the CEC study be 
completed," Leno said. "Clearly, PG&E is very eager to move 
forward its relicensing process. They have many years to 
accomplish that task."

Leno said the stakes are too high and the inherent risks of the 
toxins already accumulated in seismic zones along the coast need 
to be carefully weighed against the prospects of generating even 
more waste. "We should proceed with absolute caution, 
forethought, and consideration."

NOWHERE TO RUN

Those risks, that caution, are something that never leaves the 
minds of the people who live in the plants' fallout zones, areas 
as vast as a steady breeze or trickling flow of water can make 
them. That's really the problem with nuclear power plants. After 
50 years there are still too many unknowns. In Moore's lectures 
and during interviews and debates, the former Greenpeace activist 
likes to say more people are killed by car accidents and machetes 
than by nuclear power plants, but that mocks the magnitude of a 
meltdown.

A car accident kills at most a few people. A machete attack might 
kill one person. ...A nuclear accident has the potential to 
inflict casualties in the tens of thousands, maybe even millions, 
and to render entire cities uninhabitable. And while most of the 
time, most of the plants may be perfectly problem free, it only 
takes one accident to wreak environmental havoc.

These days opposition to nuclear energy isn't about mass protests 
in the streets. "When KQED calls and asks for the sounds of a 
protest, I say that's not how it happens," Weisman said while 
showing a DVD of a Jan. 31 San Luis Obispo County Planning 
Commission meeting that droned on for more than 12 hours. The 
meeting ultimately resulted in what he'd hoped for: a continuing 
delay of PG&E's permit to site new dry-cask storage tanks for 
thousands of tons of nuclear waste accumulating at the Diablo 
Canyon Power Plant. He and Rochelle Becker, the group's director, 
sat through the whole thing. "That's what protesting is now," he 
said.


Becker, a pert, soft-spoken woman with the aging visage of the 
youngest grandmother in the room, said correctness is crucial. 
"Never, ever exaggerate. When they want to talk about safety 
issues and isotopes, we refer them to someone else because we 
don't have that expertise. All we have is our credibility, and if 
we lose our credibility, we don't have anything."

THE PLUTONIUM PAYCHECK

Which makes what Moore is doing look like such a travesty.

"Maybe we should hire Hill and Knowlton," joked James Riccio, 
Greenpeace's nuclear-policy analyst in Washington, DC, on 
thinking about gearing up for a new wave of anti-nuke activism.

To Riccio, Wasserman, Weisman, Hirsch, Caldicott, and many others 
who spoke with the Guardian, Moore is nothing but a dangerous 
distraction who's getting the wrong kind of attention. Wasserman 
disputed Moore's credentials as a Greenpeace founder in the 
Burlington Free Press article "The Sham of Patrick Moore."

When questioned by the Guardian, Moore called Wasserman a jerk. 
Moore said he's still an activist - and in addition to parroting 
for the nuclear industry, he runs a sustainability consulting 
company, Greenspirit Strategies, which advises industries on 
controversial subjects like genetically modifying organisms, 
clear-cutting, and fish farming. His clients include hazardous 
waste, timber, biotech, aquaculture, and chemical companies, in 
addition to conventional utilities that process nuclear power and 
natural gas.

Moore insists he's not hiding anything. "In every interview I do 
the reporter already knows that I'm cochair of the Clean and Safe 
Energy Coalition and that I work for the nuclear industry," he 
told us.

But Moore did not identify himself as such during a lengthy 
interview with us until we asked. The disclosure was also missing 
during the long biographical presentation given to the folks in 
Fresno on Feb. 22, which did ...include pictures of his Rainbow 
Warrior days. Again, on May 24, Moore didn't mention his 
plutonium paycheck during a radio debate on KZYX. Neither did the 
moderator, and it was only when Hirsch, his debating partner, got 
a moment to speak that it was revealed. "Let's be clear here, 
Patrick," Hirsch said. "You're being paid by the industry." *

Joseph Plaster, Andrew Oliver, and Sam Draisin helped research 
this story.

In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
2007-05-29 23:50:15

Site design by Topaz Design - Engineered by eLine.com - Copyright 
Š2006 San Francisco Bay Guardian - Powered by PHP, Smarty, and 
*****************************************************************
 24 Reuters: Russia tests new rocket to beat missile defenses | 

10:28PM EDT, Tue 29 May 2007

By Michael Stott

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia successfully test-fired a new
intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday featuring multiple
warheads designed to overcome missile defense systems such as the
planned U.S. shield in Europe.

At the same time, President Vladimir Putin stepped up his attacks on
the missile shield, saying its deployment in Europe would turn the
continent into "a powder keg".

Russian military experts said the new missile was part of the
"highly effective response" promised earlier this year by President
Vladimir Putin to the shield, which is fiercely opposed by Moscow as
a threat to its security.

"It can overcome any potential entire missile defense systems
developed by foreign countries," Colonel-General Viktor Yesin told
the official Russian Today television channel.

A ministry spokesman said the RS-24 missile was fired from a mobile
launcher at 1020 GMT from the Plesetsk cosmodrome about 800 km (500
miles) north of Moscow.

Less than an hour later, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces command
said the missile had hit its targets at the Kura test site on the
sparsely inhabited far eastern peninsula of Kamchatka to the north
of Japan.

"The RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile will strengthen the
military potential of Russia's strategic rocket forces to overcome
anti-missile defense systems and thereby strengthen the potential
nuclear deterrent of Russia's strategic nuclear forces," the
Strategic Missile Forces command said in a statement.

Russia says the U.S. missile defense shield is a threat to its
security and will change the strategic balance in Europe but
Washington dismisses such fears, saying the shield is intended to
counter "rogue states".  Continued...

Š Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
UPI: India's NTPC seeks help for project

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: May 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

NEW DELHI, May 29 (UPI) -- India's state-run National Thermal Power
Corp. asked the government to intervene on the change of site for
its 500 megawatt power plant in Sri Lanka.

NTPC's coal-based power project is in Trincomalee district,
territory formerly dominated by Sri Lanka's rebel Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam.

The company earlier expressed reservations because the Sri Lankan
government offered NTPC a chance to set up the plant in the
district's Sampur area, which was recently evacuated by the LTTE. In
a letter to the Indian foreign ministry, NTPC said it was not
possible to accept the new proposal. It said the new site was
accessible only by boat and would require large-scale infrastructure
investments.

"The foreign affairs ministry's view is sought on whether or not the
company should go ahead with the development of the project at the
new site," said an NTPC statement.

The Indian Foreign Ministry said the Sri Lankan administration has
assured India and the NTPC it will provide all infrastructure
facilities for the project.

Under an agreement signed between NTPC and Sri Lanka's Ceylon
Electricity Board last year, the coal-based thermal power plant was
to be set up in Trincomalee district.

Š Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 China Post: China says Pentagon report 'totally unjustified'

, Taiwan , News , Taiwan newspaper

2007/5/28 BEIJING, AFP

China hit back Sunday at a US defense report voicing concerns about
its military build-up, saying the document was "totally unjustified"
and designed to mislead international opinion.

In Beijing's first official reaction, the People's Daily said the
Pentagon report propagated a "China threat" theory even though China
was only covering its legitimate defense needs. "A report that
misleads international opinion," denounced an opinion piece in the
Communist Party mouthpiece.

"The report pays no attention to the actual state of affairs, and in
a premeditated fashion exaggerates the so-called Chinese military
threat," it said. "It is totally unjustified." The Pentagon report,
issued Friday, expressed concern at the deployment of long-range
ballistic nuclear missiles, and a ballooning and non transparent
budget.

China's pursuit of weapons strategies "is expanding from the
traditional land, air, and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield
to include space and cyberspace," the report said.

But the People's Daily retorted that China was simply trying to
cover "an objective self-defense need." It said: "It is legitimate
behavior aimed at protecting national security and territorial
integrity and will not cause a threat to any other country."

China's national budget has projected an increase in military
spending in 2007 of 17.8 percent to about 45 billion dollars,
although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute.

Copyright Š 1999~2007 The China Post.
Hemscott: Westinghouse revises plant design 


PITTSBURGH (AP) - Westinghouse Electric Co. has modified the design
of its AP1000 nuclear reactor to help expedite the building of the
plant and reduce costs and security risks.

The Pittsburgh-based company said Tuesday it had submitted the
revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which certified the
plant's design in 2005. The modifications were requested by
customers and developed by Westinghouse.

They will contribute to the standardization of the AP1000, making
the NRC's review of applications from U.S. utilities for
construction and operating licenses more efficient.



The modifications incorporate measures 'to enhance security and
aircraft crash resistance,' Westinghouse said in a statement.

Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman, said the concrete structure
around the reactor had been made more robust, but declined to reveal
further details, citing security concerns.

In April, the NRC proposed a new requirement for nuclear reactor
builders to consider how they might increase protection against an
airliner crash, but did not propose any specific standards nor
mandate design changes.

Other changes focus on instrumentation and the plant's control room,
among other things, Shaw said.

U.S. companies are considering building as many as 30 new nuclear
power reactors. At least 10 AP1000s are expected to be built in the
U.S., mostly in the southeast, he said.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research


Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited.
*****************************************************************
 26 Magnetic Island News: Greens seek to protect troops at Shoalwater

Magnetic Island, North Queensland, Australia
editor@magnetictimes.com  

May 29th 2007

Magnetic Islanders may protest at the impacts of inappropriate
development but, to our south and still bordering the World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Shoalwater Bay is soon to be
subjected to another military bombardment with the US/Australian
Talisman Sabre exercises. But the Townsville Greens are going beyond
environmental concerns to call for assurances that radioactive
depleted uranium (DU) - linked to Gulf War Syndrome - will not be
deployed, for the benefit of soldiers, civilians and the environment.

Greens candidate for Herbert Ms Jenny Stirling is asking the
Australian and USA governments to give the public assurances that
Depleted Uranium will not be used in it's up coming war games,
Talisman Sabre.

How can the Australian Defence Force prove that DU will not part of
this years Talisman Sabre exercises? How can we be certain that the
US military will honor the Australian directive not to use the
materials in these exercises? How can we trust the US military when
we see their track record in telling the truth about the use of DU
in their own bases?, asks Ms Stirling.

According to the Greens, the 14 000 strong US military presence
arriving in Australia next month will include nuclear powered
submarines and nuclear weapons capable and depleted uranium weapons
equipped US warships off Yeppoons coast in June.

The Australian Defence Force denies that DU will be used (read here)

However, in 2003, in response to questions about Australian support
for US use of DU, then Defence Minister Robert Hill stated: In
relation to DU used by our allies we have said that, if they believe
it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular
munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is
appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.

According to a Greens media statement, Growing evidence from
reputable organizations like the UN are proving that the use of
depleted uranium poses extreme health risks to anyone in contact
with these materials, including cancer, genetic damage that can
cause horrific birth defects and even sexual dysfunction.

Jenny Stirling said: We want an unequivocal statement from the
Australian government to the Australian public and our troops to the
effect that US forces will not be firing any DU weapons in the
Talisman Sabre exercises at Shoalwater Bay.

Suggestions that DU may have been utilised at Shoalwater Bay in the
past, though strongly denied by Defence, were first aired by Academy
Award-nominated Film maker David Bradbury in Blowin in the Wind
which examines the secret treaty that allows the US military to
train and test its weaponry on Australian soil,(click here).

The Greens maintain that it is time come clean about the clear and
present danger posed by these war games - on soldiers, the general
public and the wildlife threatened by the biggest ever military
exercise held in Shoalwater Bay.

A Peace Convergence protest at Shoalwater Bay against the exercises
is planned for the Talisman Sabre period of June 18 to 24.

Greens Senate candidate, Anja Light will be holding Peace
Convergence events in Ayr (31st May, 6.30pm), Bowen (6th June) and
Airlie Beach (7th June) to raise awareness about the impact on these
war games. For More information www.peaceconvergence.com


BBC NEWS: Miliband faces climate criticism

Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 May 2007, 07:20 GMT 08:20 UK

By Gareth Jones BBC Wales business editor

Mr Miliband faced vehement criticism from other panellists


Environment Secretary David Miliband says the government must do
more to beat climate change.

Speaking at the Hay Festival in Powys, he said there would have to
be a bigger change "than has happened in the last 10 years" to meet
the threat.

It was the closest that the man many see as a future Labour leader
came to criticising the record of outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair.


There was vehement criticism from the two other panellists,
environmental authors Jeremy Leggett and Mark Lynas.

The Conservatives reduced emissions massively by taking the miners
out of business, so don't take credit for that!


Mark Lynas, author

Mr Milliband said the UK was on course to deliver cuts in greenhouse
gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, that were double what the
Kyoto protocol had demanded.

No other government in the world could claim that, he said: "For the
first time we have broken the link between strong economic growth
and carbon."

However, the claim was strongly denied by Mark Lynas, author of Six
Degrees, Our Future on a Hotter Planet.

Mr Lynas said that progress begun under the previous Conservative
administration - when the country was moved off coal and into
cleaner gas - had helped New Labour look better than it was.

He said: "Carbon emissions have been going up since 1997. The
Conservatives reduced emissions massively by taking the miners out
of business, so don't take credit for that!"

Mr Lynas said there were only eight years left to make massive
global cuts in carbon dioxide emissions if a disastrous increase in
temperatures was to be avoided.

"So how can you allow this runaway expansion in aviation?" he asked.

The minister pointed out that Chancellor Gordon Brown had doubled
air passenger duty.

There was strong criticism of the government's alleged reluctance to
support new forms of cleaner energy.

Mr Leggett, who also runs a solar panel company, said last week's
energy white paper was a "fig-leaf for the nuclear industry" and
"replete with consultation and light on policy".

Mr Miliband defended his government's renewed interest in nuclear
power by saying that if reactors were not replaced in the coming
years the resulting energy gap would mean we would turn instead to
carbon rich fuels like coal and gas.

'Time running out'

He also denied nuclear energy would suck public money away from
renewable clean energy, saying, "by 2010 we'll be spending one
billion pounds on renewables".

However, there was much laughter when Mr Lynas said he had
calculated that at present levels of government grants, it would
take 76,000 years for every house in Britain to have a solar panel.

There was agreement on hardly anything. Mr Miliband appeared
reluctant to respond to invitations to say there would be big
changes on the environment when Mr Brown becomes PM shortly.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 27 Hemscott: Westinghouse revises plant design 


PITTSBURGH (AP) - Westinghouse Electric Co. has modified the design
of its AP1000 nuclear reactor to help expedite the building of the
plant and reduce costs and security risks.

The Pittsburgh-based company said Tuesday it had submitted the
revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which certified the
plant's design in 2005. The modifications were requested by
customers and developed by Westinghouse.

They will contribute to the standardization of the AP1000, making
the NRC's review of applications from U.S. utilities for
construction and operating licenses more efficient.



The modifications incorporate measures 'to enhance security and
aircraft crash resistance,' Westinghouse said in a statement.

Scott Shaw, a Westinghouse spokesman, said the concrete structure
around the reactor had been made more robust, but declined to reveal
further details, citing security concerns.

In April, the NRC proposed a new requirement for nuclear reactor
builders to consider how they might increase protection against an
airliner crash, but did not propose any specific standards nor
mandate design changes.

Other changes focus on instrumentation and the plant's control room,
among other things, Shaw said.

U.S. companies are considering building as many as 30 new nuclear
power reactors. At least 10 AP1000s are expected to be built in the
U.S., mostly in the southeast, he said.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research


Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited.
Jamaica Gleaner News: Looking at nuclear energy - 

Monday | May 28, 2007

Jamaica-Gleaner.com

The Editor, Sir:

The recent LNG wrangle between Jamaica and Trinidad puts into sharp
focus Jamaica's energy policy and the outlook for its energy sector
over the medium and long term. The various commentaries on both
sides relating to the breakdown in the arrangements for Trinidad to
supply some 1.1 million tons of Jamaica's LNG requirements have been
mostly negative and show up quite glaringly the level of insularity
which continues to characterise inter-island relationships and also
the deep reservations about the CSME and its immediate prospects for
success.

While LNG supplies is a pragmatic and potentially a economically
feasible medium-term solution, the issue of long-term sustainable
energy supply remains an enigma. It is in this context that I think
that the national energy policy falls short on a number of important
considerations. The policy quite rightly mentions the importance of
renewable energy supplies and indicates that currently the supplies
from this source (wind, hydro, co-generation) account for 12.2 per
cent of the national energy consumption. Certainly, there must be
opportunities for increasing this contribution.

Little insights

The policy, however, offers very little insights as to how or in
what ways Jamaica can join the growing band of countries which
contemplate increasingly that part of the solution to global energy
and environmental problems is coming from developments i renewable
energy resources. In this regard also, it is hoped that the plans
for a modern sugar industry will embrace fully the opportunities for
ethanol and co-generation that have been under consideration for
many years.

Quite noticeable also is the fact that the nation seems timid to
even think about the potential of nuclear energy for generating
electricity for industrial purposes. The energy policy makes no
mention of it and I am wondering what might be the reason. From my
perspective and with the current level of development in nuclear
technology, there is absolutely nothing wrong in considering this
technology in the nation's energy policy. I believe that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA with its programmes,
guidelines and technical capabilities) can provide the required
technical assistance for the necessary investigations. Additionally,
there are international protocols and agreements concerning the use
and proliferation of nuclear energy that will establish the
framework for the peaceful exploitation of the technology.

Jamaicans needn't be frightened about nuclear energy because it is a
fact that nuclear technology is already being employed for research
in Jamaica and a slow poke nuclear generator has been installed at
the ICENS Centre. For many years, I am also aware of a few studies
relating to the use of radonuclids in food industry applications
(Energy athways of Canada) although none of these was taken to the
implementation stage. Many Jamaicans have studied nuclear chemistry
as a minor subject at universities and perhaps are able to inform
the discussions on the subject matter.

From the standpoints of politics, security and safety, our North
American neighbours and Canada could conceivably provide both
financial and technical backstopping support as well as th ongoing
monitoring and evaluation to the highest level of efficiency and
integrity for the project. The initial focus should be on
electricity generation for industrial purposes, street lighting,
etc. Incidentally, Suriname has recently announced its intention to
consider nuclear energy for electricity generation and it seems an
opportunity for us in the region to begin to embrace this technology
as a possibility for our long-term energy supply arrangement.

If nothing else, I hope I succeeded in getting our scientists and
engineers to begin an active discussion on the issue of nuclear
energy

I am, etc.,

AARN ARE

apark@tstt.net.tt

Š Copyright 1997-2007 Gleaner Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 28 NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium

Project Title:

PIN: PHPH-H-06-01-A        

 Institute of Medicine

Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

RSO: Mitchell, Abigail

Subject/Focus Area: 

Project Scope
A committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will review,
evaluate, and summarize scientific and medical literature regarding
the association between exposure to depleted uranium and chronic
human health effects. The study committee will focus on literature
published since the IOM's 2000 report, Gulf War and Health, Volume
1: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines was
written.

The committee will make determinations on the strength of the
evidence for associations between exposure to depleted uranium and
human health effects. The report might include recommendations for
additional scientific studies to resolve areas of continued
scientific uncertainty.

The findings will not be limited to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.
They also will be applicable to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom.

This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The start date for the project is September 18, 2006.
A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately
15 months.

Project Duration: 15 months    

Provide FEEDBACK on this project.

Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.

Committee Membership

Meetings
 Meeting 1 - 03/22/2007
 Meeting 2 - 06/28/2007
 Meeting 3 - 09/27/2007


Reports
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office

 Email: info@nas.edu
Decatur Daily: Plant restart renews debate about nuclear power

 MONDAY, MAY 28, 2007

KNOXVILLE (AP)  Tennessee Valley Authority officials say nuclear
power is an important option in diversifying its power mix and
meeting the needs of a growing population.

But environmental activists and others worry that the cost and
dangers associated with nuclear power generation are being
overlooked.

TVA recently restarted the third and final reactor at its Browns
Ferry Nuclear Plant, ending a 22-year shutdown prompted by safety
concerns. Browns Ferry is located along the banks of the Tennessee
River.

The Unit 1 reactor was restarted after a five year, $1.8 billion
renovation. It was shut two days later after a leaky pipe spilled a
non-radioactive fluid.

The restart of Unit 1 was the countrys first increase in nuclear
generating capacity this century, though the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission expects 19 applications to build and operate 28 new
reactors.

Jack Bailey, TVAs vice president of nuclear generation development,
said the federal utility could add two or three more reactors to the
six it currently operates  three at Browns Ferry, one at Watts Bar
in Spring City and two at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy-Daisy.

We certainly could use more nuclear without having too much risk in
the nuclear basket, Bailey said.

Critics say nuclear plants construction costs make the projects
unreasonable. As part of its ambitious nuclear program in the 1970s,
TVA invested $10.9 billion in projects that were never completed.

The latest wave of potential nuclear construction nationwide is
fueled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provides loan
guarantees, production tax credits and insurance protection for
utilities pursuing nuclear power projects.

The numbers dont add up, Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for
Greenpeace, said. Basically, these corporations are looking for a
government handout to subsidize their reactors.

The nuclear industry is pitching atomic power as a clean way to
light homes, but some environmentalists bristle at that description.
Nuclear production still creates a waste byproduct that remains
radioactive for thousands of years.

We cringe every time we hear nuclear power put out there as a
clean energy source, said Stephen Smith, executive director of
Knoxville-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Bailey said nuclear is an important aspect of TVAs plans for the
future. But he said the agency  along with all utilities  will
have to cast a wide net to solve the countrys energy problems.

Its not the only option, and going forward the U.S. probably has
to take advantage of nearly all the options that are reasonable,
because its going to be hard to build and sustain or conserve the
amount of energy were going to need for the future, he said.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 
35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com

   www.decaturdaily.com

*****************************************************************
 29 AU ABC: Owners made right decision on waste dump - nuclear physicist.

28/05/2007. ABC News Online

One of Australia's leading nuclear physicists says Aboriginal
traditional owners who have agreed for their land to be used as a
national nuclear waste dump have made the right decision.

On Friday a group of Ngapa people gave the Commonwealth permission
to test a pocket of Muckaty Station near Tennant Creek in the
Northern Territory as a possible low and intermediate level dump
site.

Professor George Dracoulis from the Australian National University
was on the task force that reviewed the prospects for an Australian
nuclear power industry.

He has told an APEC energy forum in Darwin that the volume of
nuclear waste is small and relatively safe.

"Really it's a very benign system," he said.

"The low level waste is almost no waste in a sense that it's simply
material glass, for example, for medical work that's probably not
contaminated but just because of procedures you have to put it away.

"So I don't think it's an issue for either radioactivity or any
other burden on society."

Sydney Morning Herald: Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear - 

www.smh.com.au

Stephanie Peatling and Marian Wilkinson May 30, 2007

THE Federal Government has received legal advice on how to overturn
bans by the states on nuclear power stations.

Preliminary work has also been done on an advertising campaign to
tell people about nuclear power, senior departmental sources have
confirmed.

The Australian Government Solicitor was asked to investigate if it
was possible for the Government to overturn or get around the bans
states such as NSW now have in place and which pieces of its own
legislation it would need to amend to remove the legal barriers that
now prohibit a local nuclear power industry.

Tania Constable, the general manager of the resource development
branch of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources,
confirmed to a Senate estimates committee hearing on Monday night
legal advice had been received. The Opposition's resources
spokesman, Chris Evans, who questioned Ms Constable, said it showed
that the Government had "begun considering legal options to sweep
those bans aside and force through the building of nuclear reactors
at sites of its choosing".

Commonwealth legislation such as the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act and the laws setting up the nuclear
watchdog, the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency, also prohibit a domestic nuclear power industry.

The Commonwealth laws could be easily amended but the Federal
Government would also need to get around the state bans.

Sources yesterday speculated the Federal Government could use its
powers under the Corporations Act or the External Territories Act to
force nuclear power stations on the states rather than mount a
constitutional challenge.

But the states will react angrily to any move to force nuclear power
stations on them, with all opposing nuclear power.

The Premier, Morris Iemma, said he would use every means available
to make sure no nuclear power station were built in NSW.

"If John Howard has secret plans to overturn NSW's long standing ban
on nuclear power, I will fight it with every legal means at my
disposal and in every seat, city and town in NSW where he may wish
to build a nuclear power station. If the Prime Minister wants to
build a nuclear power station in NSW he'll have to get past me
first," Mr Iemma said.

Nuclear power stations and the development of a nuclear power
industry have been illegal in NSW since 1987.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has previously cited the
legislative bans and the public's suspicion about the safety of
nuclear power as obstacles that would need to be overcome before he
made any decision about whether Australia should use nuclear power.

Yesterday Mr Howard talked up nuclear power as the most
environmentally friendly form of power.

The Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, is preparing a submission
on what needs to be done to prepare for nuclear power to take to
cabinet in September.

Mr Macfarlane said it was irrelevant whether advice had been sought
because a nuclear power industry was impossible without support from
both sides of politics.

Copyright Š 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 30 Sydney Morning Herald: Advice found on axing state bans on nuclear - 

www.smh.com.au

Stephanie Peatling and Marian Wilkinson May 30, 2007

THE Federal Government has received legal advice on how to overturn
bans by the states on nuclear power stations.

Preliminary work has also been done on an advertising campaign to
tell people about nuclear power, senior departmental sources have
confirmed.

The Australian Government Solicitor was asked to investigate if it
was possible for the Government to overturn or get around the bans
states such as NSW now have in place and which pieces of its own
legislation it would need to amend to remove the legal barriers that
now prohibit a local nuclear power industry.

Tania Constable, the general manager of the resource development
branch of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources,
confirmed to a Senate estimates committee hearing on Monday night
legal advice had been received. The Opposition's resources
spokesman, Chris Evans, who questioned Ms Constable, said it showed
that the Government had "begun considering legal options to sweep
those bans aside and force through the building of nuclear reactors
at sites of its choosing".

Commonwealth legislation such as the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act and the laws setting up the nuclear
watchdog, the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency, also prohibit a domestic nuclear power industry.

The Commonwealth laws could be easily amended but the Federal
Government would also need to get around the state bans.

Sources yesterday speculated the Federal Government could use its
powers under the Corporations Act or the External Territories Act to
force nuclear power stations on the states rather than mount a
constitutional challenge.

But the states will react angrily to any move to force nuclear power
stations on them, with all opposing nuclear power.

The Premier, Morris Iemma, said he would use every means available
to make sure no nuclear power station were built in NSW.

"If John Howard has secret plans to overturn NSW's long standing ban
on nuclear power, I will fight it with every legal means at my
disposal and in every seat, city and town in NSW where he may wish
to build a nuclear power station. If the Prime Minister wants to
build a nuclear power station in NSW he'll have to get past me
first," Mr Iemma said.

Nuclear power stations and the development of a nuclear power
industry have been illegal in NSW since 1987.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has previously cited the
legislative bans and the public's suspicion about the safety of
nuclear power as obstacles that would need to be overcome before he
made any decision about whether Australia should use nuclear power.

Yesterday Mr Howard talked up nuclear power as the most
environmentally friendly form of power.

The Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, is preparing a submission
on what needs to be done to prepare for nuclear power to take to
cabinet in September.

Mr Macfarlane said it was irrelevant whether advice had been sought
because a nuclear power industry was impossible without support from
both sides of politics.

Copyright Š 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
NewsRoom Finland: Greenpeace activists scale crane at Finnish nuclear site

28.5.2007 at 9:11

Greenpeace environmental activists climbed up a crane at the nuclear
power station building site in Olkiluoto on the west coast of
Finland on Monday morning.

According to Greenpeace spokesman Mikael Sjövall, six activists
climbed up the crane to the height of about 60 meters. Police and
firemen arrived at the scene.

Earlier in the night, eight activists had chained themselves to
barrels brought to the gates of the construction site.

Mr Sjövall said Greenpeace had been protesting against inadequate
security measures at the site.



/STT/

Š Copyright STT 2007


Š 1995  2005, Virtual Finland
Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and
*****************************************************************
 31 PRN: Northwestern reports 1.0% uranium mineralization on its Niger properties

    TORONTO, May 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Northwestern Mineral Ventures
Inc. (TSX-V: NWT; OTCBB: NWTMF) is pleased to report results from
above-limit rock chip samples, which were collected from outcrops on its
Niger uranium properties. The samples were submitted for re-analysis after
they exceeded the detection limits of uranium tests routinely used to
analyze samples from Niger. Further analysis of these above-limit samples
reveals uranium values of up to 1.0% U(3)O(8).
    "We are extremely excited by these high-grade uranium levels, which are
widely distributed and likely part of a larger mineralized system. Not only
are they the highest values discovered on our Niger properties to date,
they further validate our belief that In Gall and Irhazer host the
structures commonly associated with uranium deposits in Niger," said Marek
J. Kreczmer, President and CEO of Northwestern. "It is also important to
note that producing mines and deposits in Niger typically grade from 0.1%
to 0.42%. We are scheduling an aggressive expansion of our exploration
efforts and look forward to revealing the full potential of our concessions
in Niger."
    Results
    Northwestern has confirmed that its 100%-owned uranium properties in
Niger host high-grade uranium mineralization of up to 1.0% U(3)O(8).
Details of the five samples submitted for re-analysis, which returned
results ranging from 0.22% to 1.0% U(3)O(8), are provided in the table
below:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sample ID                 Target      Scintillometer             U(3)O(8)
                                          Intensity (cps)              XRF %
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ING_A10-001            Target 10                8000                0.30
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ING_A10-002            Target 10,              37000                0.47
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      50 meters west
                      of ING_A10-001               17000                0.29
    ING_A10-003            Target 10,
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      15 meters west
                      of ING_A10-002               26000                0.22
    TNX_002                 Target 9
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TNX_004                 Target 9,                350                1.00
                    500 meters south
                          of TNX_002
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The samples were collected from outcrops during a first-pass
reconnaissance exploration of airborne anomalies covering a large area on
Northwestern's In Gall and Irhazer uranium concessions in Niger.
    In Gall and Irhazer cover 988,000 acres (4,000 square kilometers) of
highly prospective land within the same stratigraphy as two operating
uranium mines that together provide almost 10% of worldwide production.
Niger currently ranks as one of the world's top producers of uranium.
    Quality Assurance
    Fieldwork in Niger is being conducted under the supervision of
Abdelkarim Aksar, P.Geo., Northwestern's Niger Project Manager. Laboratory
analysis was conducted by SGS Lakefield Research Africa by Aqua Regia
Digest followed by ICP-OES. Analysis of all samples is carried out using
Standard Reference Materials and a minimum of 10% of samples are analyzed
in duplicate. Re-analysis was conducted by SGS using borat fusion followed
by x-ray fluorescence. Northwestern and SGS both maintain comprehensive and
independent Quality Control/Quality Assurance programs.
    ABOUT NORTHWESTERN:
    Northwestern Mineral Ventures (http://www.northwestmineral.com


SOURCE Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc.

Copyright Š 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.


PRN: Westinghouse Submits NRC Application to Revise AP1000 Design

    PITTSBURGH, May 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Westinghouse Electric Company has
formally submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an
application to revise its AP1000 certified design.
    Revision 16 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) includes
modifications to the design that will aid in reducing the cost, schedule
and risks for U.S. utilities that plan to apply for combined construction
and operating license (COL) applications with the NRC later this year.
Additionally, the revision will contribute to increased standardization of
the AP1000, making the NRC's review of AP1000 combined COL applications
more efficient.
    "The revision includes design changes to the AP1000 requested by our
customers and developed by Westinghouse as part of design finalization,"
said Ed Cummins, vice president, Regulatory Affairs and Standardization,
Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plants. "We're happy to be working with our
customers through NuStart to bring the AP1000 to design finalization and,
ultimately, closer to new nuclear build."
    Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD also incorporates measures to enhance
security and aircraft crash resistance, and addresses approximately 40
percent of the 166 COL information items that were included in the AP1000
Design Certification issued by the NRC in December 2005. The remaining COL
information items, mostly related to site-specific issues, will be
addressed by utilities when submitting COL applications to the NRC.
    For more information about the Westinghouse AP1000, visit
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm. For AP1000 images,
visit http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/News_Room/image_gallery.shtm. To
download an AP1000 brochure, visit
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/News_Room/publications_video.shtm


SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company

Copyright Š 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.
*****************************************************************
 32 KFDA: Strike Over for Pantex Guards

NewsChannel 10 / Amarillo, TX: newschannel10.com - 

Frank White, PGU President

Pantex guards are preparing to get back to work now that they've
agreed on a 5 year contract from the company.

Within the last few hours hundreds of PGU members met at the
Ambassador Hotel in hopes of ending their strike, and with an
overwhelming majority vote that is exactly what they did.

They say Pantex is now offering them the seniority rights and other
benefits they originally hit the picket line for back in mid-April.

Although they had hoped it wouldn't take this long they say the
strike was worth it.

The union hopes all the guards will be back at work on Monday.

They are in the process right now of packing up their strike
headquarters outside the plant.

Pantex Official Statement

Earlier today, the Pantex Guards Union (PGU) voted to ratify a new
five-year labor agreement proposed by BWXT Pantex for work at the
Pantex Plant. The PGU represents approximately 500 Security Police
Officers at the site.



BWXT Pantex is pleased that the PGU membership voted to accept the
company's proposal that recognizes our Security Police Officers'
important contributions to national security. Among many other
provisions, the agreement contains increases in wages and employee
cost sharing for medical insurance.



The company will immediately implement a transition plan for
returning the Security Police Officers to work as soon as possible.
The contingency security force that has been protecting the site
will remain in place until the company's Security Police Officers
return to work.


 All content Š Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KFDA. All Rights
Reserved.
Hindustan Times: N-deal awaits final push by PM, Bush- 

Burns arrives this week to put talks back on track

May 28, 2007

Nilova Roy Chaudhury

It will take a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
United States President George Bush to provide the final push to the
bilateral 123 Agreement, to operationalise the Indo-US civil nuclear
deal. The two are scheduled to meet in Heiligendamm on the Baltic
coast of Germany on the sidelines of the outreach meeting of the G-8
summit on June 7.

Speaking to HT, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said he
did not think the agreement would be finalised before that. Foreign
Secretary Shivshankar Menon has been talking with US Under Secretary
of State Nicholas Burns to iron out differences on the deal.

âIt is very difficult for us to go out of the framework and
parameters of the agreement reached on July 18, 2005 and the
Separation Plan of March 2, 2006 and the Prime Minister's statement
to the Rajya Sabha,â (on August 17, 2006) he said.

The bilateral 123 Agreement will have to adhere to the PMâs
commitments to Parliament, he said.

The minister explained that the problem areas remain the
reprocessing of spent fuel, assurances of permanent fuel supply, the
right to return (which the United States must invoke, according to
its domestic law) and the ban on India conducting a nuclear test.
âWe have declared a voluntary moratorium on testing,â Mukherjee
said. âThere is no question of agreeing to a binding, legal
obligation.â

While the civil nuclear collaboration is not intended to impact
India's strategic programme, âa lot of scientists feel this deal
will disturb the indigenous programme,â Mukherjee said.

When asked if the deal was in danger of not happening, he said he
did not think so and remained optimistic that it could be done.


*****************************************************************
 33 Digital Chosunilbo: KEDO to Shut Down for Good

Updated May.28,2007 06:24 KST

An international consortium set up to build nuclear plants in North
Korea will soon close for good.

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) will
shut down its working-level office this month in New York.

An official with KEDO said on last Tuesday that the organization
will close at the end of this month.

Ten staff at the office from South Korea, Japan and the European
Union are preparing to leave but an American will remain to work as
a contact point.

The body was established to facilitate the 1994 Geneva Accord
reached between Washington and Pyeongyang.

North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the
construction of two nuclear plants.

The organization, however, announced in May last year that it was
dropping the reactor project citing North Korea's continued refusal
to renounce its nuclear ambition.

The consortium has also demanded that the North pay US$19 billion in
compensation for money spent on the project.

Arirang News


Digital Chosunilbo: KEDO to Shut Down for Good

Updated May.28,2007 06:24 KST

An international consortium set up to build nuclear plants in North
Korea will soon close for good.

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) will
shut down its working-level office this month in New York.

An official with KEDO said on last Tuesday that the organization
will close at the end of this month.

Ten staff at the office from South Korea, Japan and the European
Union are preparing to leave but an American will remain to work as
a contact point.

The body was established to facilitate the 1994 Geneva Accord
reached between Washington and Pyeongyang.

North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the
construction of two nuclear plants.

The organization, however, announced in May last year that it was
dropping the reactor project citing North Korea's continued refusal
to renounce its nuclear ambition.

The consortium has also demanded that the North pay US$19 billion in
compensation for money spent on the project.

Arirang News


*****************************************************************
 34 News & Star: Top safety awards joy for nuclear workplaces

Published on 29/05/2007

By Julie Armstrong

CUMBRIAâS nuclear industry came up trumps in awards celebrating
outstanding achievements in workplace safety.

AMEC Nuclear Projects Ltd and the British Nuclear Group at
Sellafield; Low Level Waste Repository, Holmrook; Jordan Nuclear Ltd
Redhall Group Plc, Moor Row; and Sellafield Ltd at Calder Hall were
all honoured by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
this week.

Carlisle textiles factory Stead McAlpin and Seascale civil
engineering contractors Stobbarts Limited were among other Cumbrian
businesses to be awarded.

Twenty-six organisations in the county, including Cumbria Fire and
Rescue Service and Eden District Council, were presented with RoSPA
Occupational Health and Safety Awards.

Businesses doing well in Seascale were BIL Solutions Ltd, DBpx
Fellside CHP Plant, Hertel Services Sellafield, and Impwood Roofing
Co Sellafield.

Other gold awards went to Interserve at the Cumberland Infirmary;
Vertex Gemini, Whitehaven and Amey Mouchel at Penrith. The company,
which provides services to the Highways Agency, was awarded for the
fourth year running at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole Hotel at the
NEC.

RoSPA chief executive Tom Mullarkey said: âThese award winners
have demonstrated how seriously they take health and safety and they
should be proud of their success. We hope others will seek to follow
their efforts to support RoSPAâs mission to save lives and reduce
injuries.â

Silver awards went to Bendalls Engineering, Carlisle; British
Nuclear Group, Seascale; Cumbria Constabulary, Penrith; OâConnor
Fencing Ltd, Whitehaven and St Bees School.

They were among 1,400 winners recognised by RoSPA in the 51st year
of the awards programme.

An Order of Distinction was given to Cumbrian Industrials Ltd at
Penrith. Simon Storageâs Cumbrian terminal at Workington and
Shepley Engineers Limited were also recognised.

The awards were sponsored by NEBOSH.

News & Star: Top safety awards joy for nuclear workplaces

Published on 29/05/2007

By Julie Armstrong

CUMBRIAâS nuclear industry came up trumps in awards celebrating
outstanding achievements in workplace safety.

AMEC Nuclear Projects Ltd and the British Nuclear Group at
Sellafield; Low Level Waste Repository, Holmrook; Jordan Nuclear Ltd
Redhall Group Plc, Moor Row; and Sellafield Ltd at Calder Hall were
all honoured by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
this week.

Carlisle textiles factory Stead McAlpin and Seascale civil
engineering contractors Stobbarts Limited were among other Cumbrian
businesses to be awarded.

Twenty-six organisations in the county, including Cumbria Fire and
Rescue Service and Eden District Council, were presented with RoSPA
Occupational Health and Safety Awards.

Businesses doing well in Seascale were BIL Solutions Ltd, DBpx
Fellside CHP Plant, Hertel Services Sellafield, and Impwood Roofing
Co Sellafield.

Other gold awards went to Interserve at the Cumberland Infirmary;
Vertex Gemini, Whitehaven and Amey Mouchel at Penrith. The company,
which provides services to the Highways Agency, was awarded for the
fourth year running at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole Hotel at the
NEC.

RoSPA chief executive Tom Mullarkey said: âThese award winners
have demonstrated how seriously they take health and safety and they
should be proud of their success. We hope others will seek to follow
their efforts to support RoSPAâs mission to save lives and reduce
injuries.â

Silver awards went to Bendalls Engineering, Carlisle; British
Nuclear Group, Seascale; Cumbria Constabulary, Penrith; OâConnor
Fencing Ltd, Whitehaven and St Bees School.

They were among 1,400 winners recognised by RoSPA in the 51st year
of the awards programme.

An Order of Distinction was given to Cumbrian Industrials Ltd at
Penrith. Simon Storageâs Cumbrian terminal at Workington and
Shepley Engineers Limited were also recognised.

The awards were sponsored by NEBOSH.

*****************************************************************
 35 allAfrica.com: Botswana: Nuclear Boom 

The Voice (Francistown)

EDITORIAL
Posted to the web 29 May 2007


Climate change fears and a projected electricity shortage in the
region could lead to increased use of nuclear energy in southern
Africa. That's why uranium-mining stocks such as A-CAP have been
booming lately.

South Africa already gets six percent of its power from two nuclear
reactors and our neighbours have plans to build more in the near
future.

Botswana seems to have committed to coal-generated power stations
since we have an abundance of that resource but we also appear to
have significant deposits of uranium which is often found on the
borders of gold and copper deposits, so we could still see some
serious economic benefits if local mines can sell their product
across the border.

The main reason nuclear power is so attractive is that one kilogram
of uranium can theoretically produce as much electricity as 1500
tonnes of coal without giving off greenhouse gases and other
polutants.

Of course there are plenty of other dangers such as radiation
poisoning, waste disposal worries and the danger of terrorist
attacks to get fuel supplies for nuclear weapons. But all those
issues are associated with enriched uranium and plutonium, not with
the stuff that comes out of the ground which is only very mildly
radioactive.

If we were to start mining uranium and simply export it to South
Africa before the enrichment process we wouldn't have to deal with
any of those headaches.


Copyright Š 2007 The Voice. All rights reserved. Distributed by
allAfrica.com: Botswana: Nuclear Boom 

The Voice (Francistown)

EDITORIAL
Posted to the web 29 May 2007


Climate change fears and a projected electricity shortage in the
region could lead to increased use of nuclear energy in southern
Africa. That's why uranium-mining stocks such as A-CAP have been
booming lately.

South Africa already gets six percent of its power from two nuclear
reactors and our neighbours have plans to build more in the near
future.

Botswana seems to have committed to coal-generated power stations
since we have an abundance of that resource but we also appear to
have significant deposits of uranium which is often found on the
borders of gold and copper deposits, so we could still see some
serious economic benefits if local mines can sell their product
across the border.

The main reason nuclear power is so attractive is that one kilogram
of uranium can theoretically produce as much electricity as 1500
tonnes of coal without giving off greenhouse gases and other
polutants.

Of course there are plenty of other dangers such as radiation
poisoning, waste disposal worries and the danger of terrorist
attacks to get fuel supplies for nuclear weapons. But all those
issues are associated with enriched uranium and plutonium, not with
the stuff that comes out of the ground which is only very mildly
radioactive.

If we were to start mining uranium and simply export it to South
Africa before the enrichment process we wouldn't have to deal with
any of those headaches.


Copyright Š 2007 The Voice. All rights reserved. Distributed by
*****************************************************************
 36 Jamaica Gleaner News: Looking at nuclear energy - 

Monday | May 28, 2007

Jamaica-Gleaner.com

The Editor, Sir:

The recent LNG wrangle between Jamaica and Trinidad puts into sharp
focus Jamaica's energy policy and the outlook for its energy sector
over the medium and long term. The various commentaries on both
sides relating to the breakdown in the arrangements for Trinidad to
supply some 1.1 million tons of Jamaica's LNG requirements have been
mostly negative and show up quite glaringly the level of insularity
which continues to characterise inter-island relationships and also
the deep reservations about the CSME and its immediate prospects for
success.

While LNG supplies is a pragmatic and potentially a economically
feasible medium-term solution, the issue of long-term sustainable
energy supply remains an enigma. It is in this context that I think
that the national energy policy falls short on a number of important
considerations. The policy quite rightly mentions the importance of
renewable energy supplies and indicates that currently the supplies
from this source (wind, hydro, co-generation) account for 12.2 per
cent of the national energy consumption. Certainly, there must be
opportunities for increasing this contribution.

Little insights

The policy, however, offers very little insights as to how or in
what ways Jamaica can join the growing band of countries which
contemplate increasingly that part of the solution to global energy
and environmental problems is coming from developments i renewable
energy resources. In this regard also, it is hoped that the plans
for a modern sugar industry will embrace fully the opportunities for
ethanol and co-generation that have been under consideration for
many years.

Quite noticeable also is the fact that the nation seems timid to
even think about the potential of nuclear energy for generating
electricity for industrial purposes. The energy policy makes no
mention of it and I am wondering what might be the reason. From my
perspective and with the current level of development in nuclear
technology, there is absolutely nothing wrong in considering this
technology in the nation's energy policy. I believe that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA with its programmes,
guidelines and technical capabilities) can provide the required
technical assistance for the necessary investigations. Additionally,
there are international protocols and agreements concerning the use
and proliferation of nuclear energy that will establish the
framework for the peaceful exploitation of the technology.

Jamaicans needn't be frightened about nuclear energy because it is a
fact that nuclear technology is already being employed for research
in Jamaica and a slow poke nuclear generator has been installed at
the ICENS Centre. For many years, I am also aware of a few studies
relating to the use of radonuclids in food industry applications
(Energy athways of Canada) although none of these was taken to the
implementation stage. Many Jamaicans have studied nuclear chemistry
as a minor subject at universities and perhaps are able to inform
the discussions on the subject matter.

From the standpoints of politics, security and safety, our North
American neighbours and Canada could conceivably provide both
financial and technical backstopping support as well as th ongoing
monitoring and evaluation to the highest level of efficiency and
integrity for the project. The initial focus should be on
electricity generation for industrial purposes, street lighting,
etc. Incidentally, Suriname has recently announced its intention to
consider nuclear energy for electricity generation and it seems an
opportunity for us in the region to begin to embrace this technology
as a possibility for our long-term energy supply arrangement.

If nothing else, I hope I succeeded in getting our scientists and
engineers to begin an active discussion on the issue of nuclear
energy

I am, etc.,

AARN ARE

apark@tstt.net.tt

Š Copyright 1997-2007 Gleaner Company Ltd.
NEPA News: NRC seeks to keep nuclear plant guards more alert with new rules

Tuesday 29 May, 2007
 
By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer, The Associated Press

05/29/2007

Federal regulators are revising work rules to help keep security 
guards at nuclear plants alert and not sleepy, recognizing that 
fatigue can also be an enemy for workers who must be prepared to 
make life-or-death decisions.

For years, industry watchdogs have complained that low staffing 
has increased the workload for guards and made them more prone to 
"inattentiveness" _ a catchall term nuclear operators use to 
describe napping and other behavior that can distract them.

Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hopes changes in 
fitness-for-duty rules approved last month will address growing 
worries about fatigue among plant security workers.

The revisions still need approval from the federal Office of 
Management and Budget but the NRC action shows that the industry 
and regulators acknowledge there is a problem, which was "half 
the battle," said Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island Alert, a 
group that monitors operations at nearby Three Mile Island.

The fitness-for-duty revisions require that guards regularly 
scheduled for shifts of eight or 10 hours get at least 10 hours 
rest between shifts, up from eight. Security workers at many 
plants also work shifts of 12 hours on, 12 hours off, typically 
three or four days a week.

The NRC also decided to end a practice that allowed plants to 
meet work-hour limits by using the average of hours worked by 
groups of employees in certain departments.

Under that practice, guards on 12-hour shifts working 60 hours a 
week because of overtime might get grouped in with guards working 
regular four-day, 48-hour work weeks.

"I think it's going to go a long ways to addressing concerns 
we've heard to this point," said David Desaulniers, a human 
factors analyst for the NRC.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, agreed with the 
decision to do away with the system of averaging work hours, said 
Jack Roe, director of operations.

But the institute has found no proof that fatigue has been an 
issue in nuclear safety, and believes inattentiveness can be 
attributed to non-work factors other than fatigue, Roe said.

The NRC first released fitness-for-duty rules for plant workers 
in 1982, and the rules are periodically reviewed. Work hour 
limits and rest requirements were instituted in 2003.

Security at nuclear plants is often handled by private 
subcontractors. Even then, utilities supervise the guard force 
and must follow NRC guidelines.

In 2005, three security workers were investigated for 
"inattentiveness" at Three Mile Island. The incidents were 
brought to light in reports by The Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

Plant spokesman Ralph DeSantis said none of the incidents were 
considered violations but that TMI operators still found them to 
be unacceptable. He said the plant increased oversight and 
offered coaching to guards who needed help in staying alert for 
duty, and that no incidents of inattentiveness were reported last 
year.

The Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog 
group, said the main issue is staffing levels in an industry 
where the pressure to protect reactors from outside threats has 
intensified since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"Utilities simply don't want to spend money for guards," said 
Peter Stockton, an investigator for the watchdog group. "It's 
cheaper to pay for more overtime than hire more guards."

The group last year notified the NRC that security personnel at 
the Beaver Valley nuclear plant in Shippingport, in western 
Pennsylvania, were working 60- to 72-hour work weeks.

That wouldn't necessarily have violated old guidelines because 
the work hours for those guards could have been averaged with 
those working, for instance, 48 hours or less.

Spokesman Todd Schneider of First Energy Corp., which runs the 
plant, said the problem was due to a "scheduling issue" that had 
been resolved.

"These guards are not fit in that situation," Stockton said.

Schneider said First Energy is in "good shape" to meet the new 
regulations, which he said should have only minimal impact on 
operations.

Three Mile Island is operated by AmerGen, a subsidiary of 
Warrenville, Ill.-based Exelon Nuclear. Exelon also owns Peach 
Bottom and Limerick in Pennsylvania, as well as plants in 
Illinois and New Jersey.

Exelon spokeswoman Krista Lopykinski said the company was 
assessing how the revisions in the fitness-for-duty rules would 
affect staffing, scheduling and training, but that the company 
sees them as helping maintain safe, reliable operations at all 
plants.

The new rules provide the utilities leeway with scheduling during 
times of outages or emergencies.

Nuclear plants were among the most secure commercial facilities 
in the United States before Sept. 11, and requirements were 
strengthened after 2001, said Roe of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute.

The industry group remains concerned, he said, about security 
personnel being held to different work-hour standards than 
employees in other kinds of industries.

NRC Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, in a statement approving the 
new regulations, said there was a reason for different standards.

"I would suggest that the scientific basis rests in the fact that 
these officers carry loaded AR-15s and other weapons, and must be 
prepared to make life-or-death decisions throughout their 
shifts," he wrote.

The NRC's Desaulniers said the new rules also expand training 
programs that might help guards better manage fatigue and 
understand sleeping patterns.

"The rule is about managing fatigue, not managing work-hours," 
Desaulniers said. "We can't think the work-hour limits by 
themselves will solve all the problems."

On the Net:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Fitness-for-Duty page:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty.
html

Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/

Copyright Š 1995 - 2007 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 Gallup Independent: Matheson pushes for Atlas cleanup - 

By Kathy Helms Gallup Independent

Saturday, May 26, 2007

WINDOW ROCK -- Language added last week to the annual defense bill
by U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, 2nd District/Utah, would require the
Department of Energy to complete removal and cleanup of 16 million
tons of radioactive waste from the Atlas uranium mill tailings site
near the Colorado River by the year 2019.

Matheson said the timetable recently outlined by U.S. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman projecting completion after 21 years is
arbitrary and unacceptable.

"DOE has a miserable record here, to be honest, and I've fired many
shots across the bow before, but this was the time for the direct
hit," he said. "This business to say 2028 is just unacceptable."

Matheson noted that DOE's own Record of Decision issued in 2005 has
a seven to 10 year timeframe for cleanup. Yet the agency continues
to delay and most recently said it wouldn't finish removal of the
tailings pile and cleanup before 2028.

"There's overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable
and that the contamination, already migrating under the river toward
the town of Moab, could, with one major flood event, be dumped into
the Colorado. That disaster would put the health and safety of 25
million downstream users at risk," he said.

The 94-foot-high pile of uranium mill tailings from the Atlas site
near Moab lies in a flood plain next to the Colorado River, where it
is leaching chemicals into the river and groundwater of local
communities, posing health and safety concerns for downstream users
in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California, he said.

Matheson has been leading the fight in Congress to push DOE to
remove the tailings pile and clean up the site. In 2005, DOE signed
a Record of Decision clearing the way for removal of the tailings.

Under the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Site
Record of Decision, the tailings are to be moved by rail to the
proposed Crescent Junction site, more than 30 miles from the
Colorado River. However, DOE continues to delay the timeline and now
proposes to complete the project 16 years later than it originally
proposed.

Cleanup of the tailings stalled when Atlas Corp. declared bankruptcy
in 1998, leaving behind an interim cap over the tailings pile and
inadequate cleanup funds. In 2000, Congress mandated that DOE find a
way to clean up the site and move the tailings.

The mandate called for ground water restoration, removal of the
tailings to a site in Utah for permanent disposal and any necessary
stabilization of residual radioactive material and other
contaminated material from the Moab site and Colorado River
floodplain.

Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the National Research Council, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the State of Utah, and independent scientists all
have pointed to the dangers of leaving the tailings pile in place.

The studies show that contaminants already have traveled beneath the
river, and indicate that it may take only episodic high flows and
the natural wandering of the Colorado to undercut the tailings pile
and flood the river corridor for miles with radioactive waste.
SMH: Asia-Pacific nuclear authority plan scuttled after safety debate -

The Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au

Marian Wilkinson in Darwin May 30, 2007

A plan to set up a regional nuclear safeguards authority for the
Asia Pacific has been ditched after an intense debate at the APEC
energy ministers conference in Darwin which centered on the
importance of nuclear safety.

The proposal was dropped from the final declaration of the
conference, despite being included in earlier drafts. But the
Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, denied there had been a "bitter
debate" over the issue after Singapore raised questions over nuclear
safety.

The discussion on the role of nuclear power as an option to lower
greenhouse gas emissions in the APEC region was strongly supported
by the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, Clay Sell. Mr Macfarlane said
Singapore had requested that any decision by an APEC country to
pursue the nuclear mix should be made in consultation with their
neighbours.

Officials from both Vietnam and Indonesia told the APEC conference
their countries were studying the option of nuclear power stations
that could come on line in the next decade.

The final declaration contained a watered down clause encouraging
APEC members to join the organisation's nuclear technologies group
to ensure the "safety, security, seismic health and waste handling
aspects" of nuclear power were "adequately addressed".

The final declaration by the 21 APEC countries also supported
sharing technologies on energy efficiency, biofuels, clean coal and
renewable energy as well as measures to increase energy security in
the growing APEC region. But there was little support for a regional
carbon trading emissions scheme that would put a price on greenhouse
gas pollution from fossil fuels across APEC.

A report on emissions trading is set to be delivered to the Prime
Minister, John Howard, tomorrow. But it is now believed it will be
unlikely to set hard targets for Australia to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions. Mr Macfarlane strongly signalled in Darwin that the
targets will be left to another economic committee to assess how
they can be achieved without cutting into economic growth.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters any target will depend on the
technology capable of achieving it. "The challenge at the moment is
not to set targets, the challenge is to actually have the technology
to achieve targets."

Labor has set a long-term target of reducing Australia's greenhouse
gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, based on emissions in the year
2000 which the Government has dismissed as irresponsible.

Tomorrow's report will, however, pave the way for Australia to
finally establish an emissions trading scheme that will put a price
on Australia's greenhouse gas pollution.

The importance of clean coal technology in achieving a target for
greenhouse gas cuts was highlighted yesterday when a slanging match
broke out between Mr Macfarlane and the Queensland Premier, Peter
Beattie, over his state's high profile "zero gen" clean coal project.

Mr Macfarlane told reporters in Darwin the project has "collapsed"
but Mr Beattie said he had "no idea" what Mr Macfarlane was talking
about. "Why would the coal industry invest $600million in clean coal
if they weren't serious?" Mr Beattie said. "Ian Macfarlane is
repeatedly trying to undermine clean coal technologies?"


Copyright Š 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 38 [toeslist] The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today
 
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:25:07 -0500 (CDT)



Published on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 by
<http://www.commondreams.org/>CommonDreams.org The Republican Plan
For 2008 Begins Today by Thom Hartmann It's difficult to watch
Democrats play checkers while Republicans play Chess with Iraq.
It's particularly difficult on Memorial Day as more Americans and
Iraqis die. But the Republican Party has been playing politics with
Iraq since the day after the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush
in office in 2001, and they have no intention of stopping now. They
may have borrowed some techniques from Richard Nixon, but they have
no intention of repeating his mistakes.

The political calculus being pursued by Karl Rove and the Republican
Party with regard to Iraq and the 2008 elections is a simple four-step
process:

1. Shift "ownership" of the downside of the "war" and occupation
of Iraq to the Democrats.

2. Begin to wind down American involvement in the occupation of
Iraq no later than mid-2008.

3. "Claim victory and get out" of direct combat in Iraq by the early
fall of 2008.

4. Win big in the 2008 elections by having "won" a "war."

Step one was accomplished last week, when Republicans - particularly
those most visible in our corporate "mainstream" media - played up
hugely how "Democrats" in the House and Senate had "caved in" to
George W. Bush's demand for a "free hand" in Iraq. Bush, of course,
is not up for re-election, so it's no problem for him to take the
short-term heat for the ongoing death and destruction in Iraq. With
$500 million budgeted to re-write history after he leaves office
(the so-called "Bush Library" and "think tank" associated with it),
Bush has plenty of time to rehabilitate his legacy, much as Reagan's
handlers have so deftly done.

With the Democrats "giving the President what he wanted" on Iraq,
the average person in our nation now thinks Democrats and Bush are
jointly responsible for the current "mess" in Iraq.

Step two was initiated a few weeks ago with diplomatic initiatives
by Condoleeza Rice to Iran and Syria. At Bush's news conference
about the passage of the Iraq funding bill, he all but laid out
this strategy, in citing the Baker/Hamilton Commission, which
recommended pulling Iran and Syria (and other nations in the region)
into the process of stabilizing Iraq, and redeploying American
forces to "safe" places like the Green Zone, the huge military
cities ("bases") we're building there, and to nearby countries like
Kuwait. A day later, the Bush Administration quietly announced that
they were dropping funding for covert destabilization programs
against Iran and Syria, and initiating talks with Iran "about Iraq."

Bush will now follow nearly exactly the script the Democrats wrote
in the bill Bush vetoed, reducing and redeploying out troops over
the next 15 months, all in anticipation of the 2008 elections.
Except that the Democrats, having failed to override his veto and
having "caved in" to him, can no longer claim any ownership whatever
to the successes that will come from it - Republicans in Congress
and Bush will claim all of that.

This is the end-game of a political equation that was begun the day
after Bush was sworn into office.

We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate
sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited
fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the
environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and
our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest
friends to have more access to public lands.

We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by
stripping the American workplace (particularly government and
schools) of unions, rolling back "socialist" unemployment and Social
Security programs, and eliminating SEC and tort restraints on
predatory corporate behavior. He'd even campaigned on this platform
- particularly Social Security privatization - back in 1978 when
he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas.

We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal
government, gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a
"safe and orderly nation"

of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in
power.

We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches
he approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government.
He wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when
human life begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches
to use tax-exempt dollars to influence politics.

It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative
paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And
that kind of capital didn't come from his being selected as President
by the Supreme Court.

Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come,
he believed, by his becoming a "war president."

Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president
in power, although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an
opportunity.

On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to
public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it
comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent
of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and
debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many
under the domination of the few."

Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government,
Madison continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating
power of war for a president.

"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President]
is extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices,
honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing
the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people.
The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the
inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out
of a state of war and in the degeneracy of manners and morals,
engendered by both.

"No nation," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst
of continual warfare."

But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative
Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing
to lie us into a war to achieve it.

Writer <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm>Russ
Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush
had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep:
My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was
planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for
himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential
election campaign.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told
Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys
to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.'
And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up
when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said,
'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not
going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want
to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

The Senate Intelligence committee released, just in time for the
Memorial Day Weekend, the "Part Two" of their report that Republican
Senator Pat Robertson had kept from release until after the elections,
showing clearly that Bush lied about the intelligence he had in
2002, both to Congress, to the American people, and to the world.
Bush lied and people died - and continue to die. But politically -
at least so far - it has worked out well for Bush.

It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution
carefully timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans
take back the Senate.

It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to
help him and other Republicans get elected in 2004.

It wasn't just a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary
benefit.

It wasn't just a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient
excuse.

It wasn't just a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those
were just pleasant by-products.

It wasn't just a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a
man than him - that was just a personal bonus for Dubya.

It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to
solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything
else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation
of the media - all could only come if political power was seized
and held through at least two decisive election cycles.

The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep
political power. It's that simple. It's The same reason Richard
Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The
same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.

And now Democrats think they'll be able to claim the high ground,
but they just lost it all. Even as Harry Reid declared on the day
Bush accepted his new Iraq funding that, "Democrats will continue
to insist that this administration accept responsibility for its
failed conduct of this war " the Republican media machine was shoving
that responsibility down the throats of the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Bush plan is imminently clear to the Republicans in
Congress.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, about the same time Reid
was speaking, was telling reporters that "the handwriting is on the
wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I
expect the president to lead it." Republican Senator Jeff Sessions
openly said that same day that the "war" in Iraq is no longer a
"war," but an occupation, setting the stage for a withdrawal that
<http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0619-22.htm>won't be perceived
as a defeat.

The plan is simple. By November of 2008, the "victories" of the
Democrats' first hundred days in office will be long forgotten, the
"war" will be remembered as "difficult, but at least we won it,"
and those "anti-war"

Democrats will be portrayed as wimps or cravenly anti-American.

The only question now is how placidly the Democrats will continue
to play their assigned role in this little drama. And how many more
people will die between now and the time Republicans cynically (and
finally) execute their strategy in time for the 2008 elections.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored
Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a
nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program on the Air
America Radio Network.

<http://www.thomhartmann.com/>www.thomhartmann.com His most recent
books are
"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400051576?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1400051576&adid=1WY2M5XNSD5T3SWH925A&>The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight,"

"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1579549551?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1579549551&adid=1QPS5RBG0Z35PJ82XJQK&>Unequal
Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human
Rights,"

"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1882109384?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1882109384&adid=12RKJXN026M625WV4E5R&>We
The People:

A Call To Take Back America,"

"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400052092?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1400052092&adid=055KKEH1CV851V3DYAD9&>What
Would Jefferson Do?,"

"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1576754146?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1576754146&adid=1SA9JXN67NKVPPP1T8P0&>Screwed:
The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About
It," and
"<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1576754588?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&l
inkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1576754588&adid=0H1AV3XXKA3NR2JGR0YG&>Cracking
The Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion."

[v911t] Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective //DU PROFITS
 
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:26:07 -0500 (CDT)




The Windsors are to D.U. what Rockefeller is to oil, Rhodes to
diamonds, Astor to fur,  Ford to autos, and Rumsfeld to tamiflu.

Depleted Uranium: A Scientific Perspective

An Interview With LEUREN MORET, Geoscientist   Interview Conducted
By W. Leon Smith and Nathan Diebenow     Leuren Moret is a geoscientist
who works almost around the clock educating citizens, the media,
members of parliaments and Congress and other officials on radiation
issues. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear
Weapons Lab after witnessing fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project.
She is currently working as an independent citizen scientist and
radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed
to the U.N. subcommission investigating depleted uranium. According
to Wikipedia online encyclopedia, Moret testified at the International
Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Japan in 2003, presented at
the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany,
and spoke at the World Court of Women at the World Social Forum in
Bombay, India, in January 2004.     THE INTERVIEW   ICONOCLAST:
What are the latest developments with reducing depleted uranium
exposures on U.S. troops?   MORET: A young veteran named Melissa
Sterry of Connecticut has introduced a bill into the Connecticut
Legislature requiring independent testing of returning Afghan and
Gulf War veterans going back to 2001. She said that she did it
because shes sick, and her friends are dead, and thats from serving
in the 2003 conflict. I have been following the bill and talking
to her. Yesterday, she testified twice at the United Nations. I
said, "Why dont we get this bill all over the U.S. in state
legislatures because it informs the public and get the local media
to cover it." The U.S. has blocked any accountability at international
and national levels. Theres a total cover-up just like with Agent
Orange, the atomic veterans, MKULTRA, the mind control experiments
the CIA did. This is more of the same, but the issue is much, much
worse because the genetic future of all those contaminated is
effected. Now vast regions around our world, as well as our atmosphere,
are contaminated with the depleted uranium. Theyve used so much.
Its the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese professor
calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been released
into the atmosphere. Thats really an underestimate.     I went to
Louisiana in April. I was invited to speak at the University of New
Orleans for three days. One of the veterans asked me to be in their
April 19 protest and rally through the City of New Orleans. He took
the Connecticut bill straight to the Legislature, and he got two
legislators to sponsor it, and he said, "Just whiteout the name
Connecticut and write in Louisiana on the bill." Youre not going
to believe it. It passed 101 to 0 yesterday in the Louisiana House.
I want you to write about it because we want it (the DU testing
bill) in Texas. Nevada is going to introduce it. Congressman Jim
McDermott is going to put it into the Washington legislature. We
want to get the governor of Montana to do it because hes the first
governor to demand his National Guard be returned. I think half of
them are back. He said, "I need them in the state." The DU issue
is just really, really, really, really so awful. I dont think theres
any greater tragedy in the history of the world in what theyve done.
ICONOCLAST: Is there a danger of depleted uranium, being used in
weaponry over there, spreading by air over here?   MORET: The
atmosphere globally is contaminated with it. Its completely mixed
in one year. Im an expert on atmospheric dust. Im a geoscientist,
a geologist, and thats what I studied and did my research on. Its
really a fascinating subject. We have huge dust storms that are a
million square miles and transport millions of tons of dust and
sand every year around the world. The main centers of these dust
storms are the Gobi Desert in China, which is where the Chinese did
atmospheric testing, so thats all contaminated with radiation, and
it gets transported right over Japan, and it comes straight across
the Pacific and dumps all its sand and dust on the U.S., North
America. Its loaded with radioactive isotopes, soot, pesticides,
chemicals, pollution -- everything is in it -- fungi, bacteria,
viruses.     The Sahara Desert is another huge dust center, and it
goes up all over Europe and straight across the Atlantic, to the
Caribbean, and up the East Coast. Of course, you get it in Texas
with those hurricanes. They all originate in the Sahara Desert.
The third region is the Western United States, which is where the
Nevada test site is located. We did 1,200 nuclear weapons tests
there, so all this radiation that is already there, which is bad
enough, has caused a global cancer epidemic since 1945. All of that
radiation was the equivalent of 40,000 Nagasaki bombs. Were talking
about 10 times more.     In April of 2003, the World Health
Organization said they expect global cancer rates to increase 50
percent by the year 2020.   Infant mortality is going up again all
over the world. This is an indicator of the level of radioactive
pollution.   When the U.S. and Russia signed the partial test ban
treaty in 1963, the infant mortality rate started dropping again,
which is normal. Now they are going up again. Its the global pollution
with this radiation.     ICONOCLAST: I had one of our correspondents
send me a series of photographs of the Al-Asad dust storm in Iraq
on April 28.   MORET: That dust is what Im talking about.     ICONOCLAST:
In the picture you can see a gigantic wall of sand.   MORET: I have
16 pictures of that storm. Theyre posted with photos from Iraqi
doctors of the children of people with cancer and leukemia. So what
did you think of that dust storm?     ICONOCLAST: I thought it was
really dramatic.   MORET: It remobilizes all the radiation, but
those are the larger chunks. The DU burns at such high temperatures.
Its a pyroforic metal which means it burns. The bullets and big
caliber shells are actually on fire when they come out of the gun
barrel because they are ignited by the friction in the gun barrel.
Seventy percent of the DU metal becomes a metal vapor. Its actually
a radioactive gas weapon and a terrain contaminant.     Ill email
you the URL of the 1943 memo to General Leslie Grove under the
Manhattan Project. Its the blueprint for depleted uranium. They
dropped the atomic bombs, but they did not use the DU weapons because
they thought they were too horrific.   Ive toured and gone all over
Japan with a pediatrician in Basra and an oncologist, a cancer
specialist. These poor doctors -- their whole families are dying
of cancer. He has 10 members of his family with cancer now that hes
treating, and this is just from Gulf War I. Theyve used much, much,
much more in 2003. All over the whole country.     ICONOCLAST: What
can soldiers expect when they come home?   MORET: If they were in
Bradley Fighting Vehicles, theyre coming home with rectal cancer
from sitting on ammunition boxes. The young women are reporting
terrible problems with endometriosis. Thats the lining of the uterus
malfunctioning, and they just bleed and bleed and bleed. Some of
them have uterine cancer -- 18 and 19 and 20 year olds. The Army
will not even diagnose it. They send them back to the battlefields.
They wont treat them or diagnose them. A group of 20 soldiers pushed
from Kuwait to Baghdad in 2003 in all the fighting. Eight of those
20 soldiers have malignancies.     ICONOCLAST: Does exposure to
depleted uranium effect their psychological background when they
come home?

More- http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6232 Lung
cancer rates, according to Swartz in earlier post , are running 6
times ahead of last year in USA;  could they be higher in England,
also?   Beware the needle,  Mudville Rose

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/weapons_poison_europe.html

U.S. WEAPONS POISON EUROPE

RADIATION FROM IRAQ WAR DETECTED IN UK ATMOSPHERE

By Leuren Moret Updated March 4, 2006

A shocking new scientific study by British scientists Dr.

Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan asks:  "Did the use of uranium weapons
in Gulf War II result in the contamination of Europe?"

High levels of depleted uranium (DU) have been measured in the
atmosphere in Britain, transported on air currents from the Middle
East and Central Asia.  Scientists cited the U.S.

bombing of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in 2001 and the "Shock and Awe"
bombing during Gulf War II in Iraq in 2003 as one of the main
reasons.

In the 1950s the British government had established an air monitoring
facility at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston
to measure radioactive emissions from British nuclear power plants
and atomic weapons facilities.

Ironically, AWE was taken over three years ago by Halliburton, which
at first refused to release key data as required by law to Busby.

An international expert on low-level radiation, Busby serves as an
official advisor on several British government committees.  He
recently co-authored an independent report on low-level radiation
with 45 scientists with the European Committee on Radiation Risk
(ECRR) for the European Parliament.

Busby was eventually able to get Aldermaston's air monitoring data
from Halliburton by filing a freedom of information request using
a new British law that became effective Jan. 1, 2005.  Critical
data from 2003 was missing, however, so he had to obtain the
information from the Defence Procurement Agency.

Aldermaston is one of many nuclear facilities throughout Europe
that regularly monitor atmospheric radiation levels transported by
sand, dust storms and air currents from radiation sources in North
Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

After the "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq in 2003, very fine
particles of depleted uranium were captured along with larger sand
and dust particles in filters in Britain.  These particles traveled
in seven to nine days from Iraqi battlefields as far away as 2,400
miles.

The radiation measured in the atmosphere quadrupled within a few
weeks after the beginning of the 2003 campaign, and at one of the
five monitoring locations, the levels twice required an official
alert to the British Environment Agency.

In addition, according to Busby, the Aldermaston air monitoring
data provided a continuous record of depleted uranium levels in
Britain from other recent wars.

Extensive video news footage of the 2003 Iraq war, including Fallujah
in 2004, provided evidence that the United States has illegally
used depleted uranium munitions on civilian populations.  These
military actions are in direct violation of not only international
conventions but also violate U.S.

military law because the United States is a signatory to The Hague
and Geneva conventions and the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol.

Depleted uranium weaponry meets the definition of a weapon of mass
destruction (WMD) in two out of three categories under U.S. Code
Title 50, Chapter 40 Sec. 2302.  After action mandates have also
been violated such as U.S. Army Regulation AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278,
which requires treatment of radiation poisoning for all casualties,
including enemy soldiers and civilians.

In the mainstream press, British officials have attempted to counter
the study by blaming the elevated uranium levels on "local sources."
Anonymous statements by government scientists used by the media
thus far, however, have been contradicted by evidence disclosed in
the report.

Naturally occurring uranium in the crust of the Earth is only 2.4
parts per million and could not become concentrated to the high
levels measured in Britain.  As far as nuclear power plants are
concerned, the lowest levels of uranium measured at monitoring
stations around Aldermaston were actually taken at the facility,
which designs and tests nuclear weapons -- meaning this could not
possibly be a source.

Atomic weapons facilities would be more likely to produce plutonium
contamination, which was not reported as a contaminant.

This wasn't the first time a noted scientist has discussed global
pollution from the use of DU.

Dr. Keith Baverstock, an expert on radiation, exposed a World Health
Organization (WHO) cover-up on depleted uranium.

Baverstock leaked an official WHO report that he had written for
the organization but was never published.  He warned in the report
about the environmental contamination from tiny DU particles formed
from U.S. munitions.

In addition, Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, a Japanese physicist at the
University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, estimated that the atomic
equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs has been released
into the global atmosphere since 1991 from the use of DU munitions.
He said it is mixed in the atmosphere in one year.

DU PROFITS

As if Busby's report is not bad enough, a new book by a leading
scientist notes who is making billions from nightmare armaments.

Dr. Jay Gould revealed in his book The Enemy Within that the British
royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth
over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines in Australia.  The mining
company was formed for the British royal family in the late 1950s
by Roland Walter "Tiny" Rowland, who was known as the queen's banker
and the master financial manipulator behind billionaire Robert
Maxwell's fortune.

The Rothschilds are also profiting enormously from their control
of the price and supply of uranium globally.

The ubiquitous Halliburton just recently finished construction of
a 1,000-mile railway from the mining area to a port on the north
coast of Australia to transport the ore.

The queen's favorite American buccaneers, Dick Cheney and the Bush
family, are tied to her through uranium mining and the shared use
of DU munitions in the Middle East, Central Asia and Kosovo.

The role that such diverse groups and individuals -- as the Carlyle
Group, George H.W. Bush, former Carlyle CEO Frank Carlucci, Los
Alamos and Livermore labs, and U.S. and international pension fund
investments -- have played in proliferating depleted uranium weapons
is not well known.

God save the queen from her complicity in turning planet Earth into
a death star.

-------

Leuren Moret is an international expert on the environmental effects
of depleted uranium and has worked at two U.S. nuclear weapons
laboratories.

Beware the needle; check http://www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes3.html
to see why...

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
as the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Mudville Rose

--------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling?

Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

*****************************************************************
 39 DW: US on Collision Course With G8 Partners Over Climate Agreement |
Germany | Deutsche Welle | 27.05.2007

The US objects to the Germany-proposed climate agreement on many
levels

The prospect looms of a major clash between the United States and 
its G8 partners over global warming, with Washington's view 
threatening to block agreement at next month's summit of the 
leading industrial nations.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel Saturday criticised the
US climate policy in a newspaper interview, saying it "was going to
difficult to achieve success" at the June 6-8 session hosted by
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has made climate change a priority
during Germany's presidency of the Group of Eight.

The environmental protection group Greenpeace Saturday published a
leaked document showing that the United States had raised serious
new objections to a proposed global warming declaration prepared by
the German hosts.

It looked to observers as though US objections in the form of
amendments had drained the substance from the German statement.

"The United States still has serious, fundamental concerns about
this draft statement," the document stated.

Washington rejects the idea of setting mandatory emissions targets,
as well as language calling for G8 nations to raise overall energy
efficiencies by 20 percent by 2020.

Merkel's proposed climate statement calls for limiting the worldwide
temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and cutting
global greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by
2050.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall
position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply
cannot agree to," the US document said.

Sources close to negotiations told AFP the US amendments seek to
remove any idea of an urgent problem of climate change requiring a
firm international response.

US rejects climate change as an 'urgent problem'

Bildunterschrift: The US denies the scientific evidence is conclusive

"The preliminary sessions clearly indicate the American desire to
minimalise (the draft)," said one European diplomatic source.

The US was refusing to take account of findings by an
Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change, whose latest
conclusions have been used by the Germans in their draft climate
statement, the source said.

"I can't remember any major international climate meeting with that
kind of complete divergence of views," said Phil Clapp, head of the
National Environment Trust in Washington. "There is a fundamental
disagreement between the EU and the Bush administration positions.
It's hard to see how governments could sign the sort of statement
that Washington wants."

Clapp added that "at this point we don't see signs that the (Bush)
administration will change its position... and as a matter of fact
the signs go in exactly the opposite direction."

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino played down the
document leaked by Greenpeace while acknowledging differences. "We
believe that there are many different approaches to climate change,"
she said. "By no means is there a final document."

Washington does not recognise the UN Convention on climate change as
an appropriate forum for multilateral negotiations on global
warming, but only as one of several possible forums.

Kyoto successor also in doubt

Bildunterschrift: A follow-up climate protocol to Kyoto could also
be in danger

This also does not augur well for a conference scheduled in Bali in
December at which states signatory to the Convention will have to
negotiate a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which
runs out in 2012. The US has not signed the protocol.

"These latest proposals display a complete absence of reconciliation
between the American technological approach and that of the EU..."
said the diplomatic source.

"And all this despite appeals by major American companies and
Republican Party personalities like Arnold Schwarzenegger."

On May 18, senior US lawmakers wrote to Bush expressing deep concern
over reports that his administration was seeking to weaken a G8
declaration on climate change.

"US leadership is critical to tackling this global threat.... But we
need an executive branch that engages the rest of the world to solve
this problem rather than stubbornly ignoring it," the 15
heads of congressional committees wrote in a letter.


DW staff (nda)


DW-WORLD

* 

  Report: US Rejects Germany's G8 Climate Declaration

  The United States has raised new serious objections to a proposed
  global warming declaration prepared by Germany for next month's
  Group of Eight summit, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
  (26.05.2007)
* 

  Merkel Sets G8 Agenda, Doubts Concrete Results

  Climate change, development aid and hedge-fund transparency would
  top the agenda at the G8 summit on June 6-8, said Chancellor
  Angela Merkel Thursday, but she wasn't confident that much
  progress would be made. (24.05.2007)
* 

  "We Are Taxing the Lives of Future Generations"

  Jakob von UexkĂźll founded the World Future Council to provide a
  voice for future generations on topics like climate change,
  poverty and fair trade. People are waiting for integrated answers
  to global crises, he told DW. (10.05.2007)
* 

  EU Leads Clamor for Carbon Cuts After UN Climate Report

  Europe led demands for a deal to slash global greenhouse gas
  emissions after the UN's top scientific panel said early, deep
  cuts could avert the worst of long-term climate damage -- and at a
  modest cost. (05.05.2007)

1. Š 2007 Deutsche Welle

Scotsman.com: Health - Minister urged to end leukaemia row

Tue 29 May 2007

Minister urged to end leukaemia row

HAMISH MACDONELL


THE Greens have called on the Scottish health secretary to force the
NHS to release information about rates of childhood leukaemia.

Robin Harper, the party leader, asked Nicola Sturgeon to intervene
after it emerged the health service is appealing a Court of Session
ruling.



Last December, the court made its first ruling regarding an appeal
against a decision by the Information Commissioner - and ordered the
NHS to reveal statistics on childhood leukaemia in Dumfries and
Galloway.

The wrangle was sparked by a request under the Freedom of
Information Act, which was turned down by the NHS in early 2005.

In August that year, the Scottish Information Commissioner ruled the
statistics should be released. The Common Services Agency (CSA) of
the NHS appealed on the grounds that it would risk revealing
patients' identities. But the court upheld the commissioner's view
that the information could be given without risking identification.

It has now emerged the agency is taking its appeal to the Lords in
an attempt to overturn the decision.

Mr Harper, whose party has a co-operation deal with the SNP
Executive, said the agency was wasting taxpayers' money in the
dispute. He added: "I would urge ministers to intervene with their
civil servants to abide by the court ruling."

The Greens want to see if there is a link between leukaemia clusters
and nuclear plants at Sellafield and Chapelcross and the use of
depleted uranium shells by British forces in the Solway Firth.

A CSA spokeswoman said: "In view of the fundamental principle at the
heart of this matter - patient confidentiality - we have decided to
proceed with this appeal."

A spokeswoman for the Executive said it was "very sympathetic" to
the Greens' case.

Related topic
* Green Party
  http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=803

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=832812007

Last updated: 29-May-07 01:08 BST

Comments Add your comment


1. Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh / 1:28am 29 May 2007


        A good first test of transparency for the new Scottish
        Executive.

        Robin Harper is just saying what many people feel - this
        information should be out in the open, complete, not with
        omissions as some FOI disclosures from the Executive seem to
        have suffered from in the past...

        "Fundamental principle" in the words of the CSA seems not to
        relate to patient confidentiality, more so it describes an
        ingrained culture of cover up and dishonesty, which needs to
        be reformed ...

        It would be a good gesture of transparency & accountability
        if Nicola Sturgeon intervenes and sees to it the information
        is released - and also information on the entire cost of
        this obstruction by the CSA, including the legal costs ...
        Report as unsuitable
2. megz, Glasgow / 9:43am 29 May 2007


        The Greens wanted the breakdown of childhood leukaemia
        incidence down to council ward level in order to compare
        this with anecdotal claims about clusters around Chapelcross
        nuclear power station.

        Could there be a cover up because it is near a nuclear power
        station?? I personally think it is. Stop wasting taxpayers
        money. Report as unsuitable
3. Digory, Narnia / 10:57am 29 May 2007


        There is currently no protection of patients' interests nor
        is there any depth which cannot be plumbed in terms of
        blackmail when there may be family members who are
        critically ill and extremely vulnerable.

        Patients are left entirely vulnerable, open to manipulation
        and targeting by unsavoury practices and people.

        There is no protection from the dissemination of malicious
        gossip by Public Service Providers and their partners nor is
        there any protection from the misuse of personal information.

        Public Service Providers and their Partners are afforded
        confidentiality in their dealings and are permitted to act
        en masse as a group.

        The Patient is left in the midst of a game of Blind Man's
        Bluff.

        Public Service Providers and their partners are not required
        to account for their actions or the Services provided by
        them. Report as unsuitable
4. Colin, Glasgow / 9:13pm 29 May 2007


        The Information Commissioner - that would be Kevin Dunion -
        used to be the chief executive of Friends of the Earth. No
        wonder he is prepared to go to any lengths to divulge
        personal information in the hope of exposing a health issue
        related to the nuclear industry. The credibility of FOE's
        anti-nuclear stance diminishes year-on-year because, to
        date, the extensive COMARE studies have found no link
        between cancer and nuclear operations. Report as unsuitable
5. Stella Sigcau, PLEASE TREAT AS URGENT / CALL IMMEDIATELY / 2:04am
30 May 2007


        FROM: Stella Sigcau,
        Accra, Ghana-West Africa.

        attentiom sir/madam,

        I like to invest in your country. My name is Stella Sigcau
        from Sierra-Leone. I am the elder daughter of Mr.Zac
        Sigcau,former Minister of Mines and Industry. He was killed
        by rebels on his way to Capital city Freetown.

        Before his dealth,he deposited trunk box containing $18.5
        million U.S Dollars with the Security Company in Ghana for
        safe keeping and instruct that I should claim it to look
        after my self and my younger brother.

        My Younger brother and I are now in West Africa Accra Ghana
        to notify claims of the FUND. I intend to invest this money
        abroad, hence my contacting you to advice me how best I can
        invest this money in your country and buy a house there.
        For assistance I offer 35% of the money. We have all the
        vital documents covering the deposit fund and the ownership
        which I can send on request.

        Send your direct phone and fax numbers to me for more
        information on your reply.
        I expect your prompt response.

        Yours faithfully,
        Stella Sigcau.
        Phone No: +233-24-2716835 Report as unsuitable

Š2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms &amp; conditions
*****************************************************************
 40 NEPA News: NRC seeks to keep nuclear plant guards more alert with new rules

Tuesday 29 May, 2007
 
By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer, The Associated Press

05/29/2007

Federal regulators are revising work rules to help keep security 
guards at nuclear plants alert and not sleepy, recognizing that 
fatigue can also be an enemy for workers who must be prepared to 
make life-or-death decisions.

For years, industry watchdogs have complained that low staffing 
has increased the workload for guards and made them more prone to 
"inattentiveness" _ a catchall term nuclear operators use to 
describe napping and other behavior that can distract them.

Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hopes changes in 
fitness-for-duty rules approved last month will address growing 
worries about fatigue among plant security workers.

The revisions still need approval from the federal Office of 
Management and Budget but the NRC action shows that the industry 
and regulators acknowledge there is a problem, which was "half 
the battle," said Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island Alert, a 
group that monitors operations at nearby Three Mile Island.

The fitness-for-duty revisions require that guards regularly 
scheduled for shifts of eight or 10 hours get at least 10 hours 
rest between shifts, up from eight. Security workers at many 
plants also work shifts of 12 hours on, 12 hours off, typically 
three or four days a week.

The NRC also decided to end a practice that allowed plants to 
meet work-hour limits by using the average of hours worked by 
groups of employees in certain departments.

Under that practice, guards on 12-hour shifts working 60 hours a 
week because of overtime might get grouped in with guards working 
regular four-day, 48-hour work weeks.

"I think it's going to go a long ways to addressing concerns 
we've heard to this point," said David Desaulniers, a human 
factors analyst for the NRC.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, agreed with the 
decision to do away with the system of averaging work hours, said 
Jack Roe, director of operations.

But the institute has found no proof that fatigue has been an 
issue in nuclear safety, and believes inattentiveness can be 
attributed to non-work factors other than fatigue, Roe said.

The NRC first released fitness-for-duty rules for plant workers 
in 1982, and the rules are periodically reviewed. Work hour 
limits and rest requirements were instituted in 2003.

Security at nuclear plants is often handled by private 
subcontractors. Even then, utilities supervise the guard force 
and must follow NRC guidelines.

In 2005, three security workers were investigated for 
"inattentiveness" at Three Mile Island. The incidents were 
brought to light in reports by The Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

Plant spokesman Ralph DeSantis said none of the incidents were 
considered violations but that TMI operators still found them to 
be unacceptable. He said the plant increased oversight and 
offered coaching to guards who needed help in staying alert for 
duty, and that no incidents of inattentiveness were reported last 
year.

The Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog 
group, said the main issue is staffing levels in an industry 
where the pressure to protect reactors from outside threats has 
intensified since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"Utilities simply don't want to spend money for guards," said 
Peter Stockton, an investigator for the watchdog group. "It's 
cheaper to pay for more overtime than hire more guards."

The group last year notified the NRC that security personnel at 
the Beaver Valley nuclear plant in Shippingport, in western 
Pennsylvania, were working 60- to 72-hour work weeks.

That wouldn't necessarily have violated old guidelines because 
the work hours for those guards could have been averaged with 
those working, for instance, 48 hours or less.

Spokesman Todd Schneider of First Energy Corp., which runs the 
plant, said the problem was due to a "scheduling issue" that had 
been resolved.

"These guards are not fit in that situation," Stockton said.

Schneider said First Energy is in "good shape" to meet the new 
regulations, which he said should have only minimal impact on 
operations.

Three Mile Island is operated by AmerGen, a subsidiary of 
Warrenville, Ill.-based Exelon Nuclear. Exelon also owns Peach 
Bottom and Limerick in Pennsylvania, as well as plants in 
Illinois and New Jersey.

Exelon spokeswoman Krista Lopykinski said the company was 
assessing how the revisions in the fitness-for-duty rules would 
affect staffing, scheduling and training, but that the company 
sees them as helping maintain safe, reliable operations at all 
plants.

The new rules provide the utilities leeway with scheduling during 
times of outages or emergencies.

Nuclear plants were among the most secure commercial facilities 
in the United States before Sept. 11, and requirements were 
strengthened after 2001, said Roe of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute.

The industry group remains concerned, he said, about security 
personnel being held to different work-hour standards than 
employees in other kinds of industries.

NRC Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, in a statement approving the 
new regulations, said there was a reason for different standards.

"I would suggest that the scientific basis rests in the fact that 
these officers carry loaded AR-15s and other weapons, and must be 
prepared to make life-or-death decisions throughout their 
shifts," he wrote.

The NRC's Desaulniers said the new rules also expand training 
programs that might help guards better manage fatigue and 
understand sleeping patterns.

"The rule is about managing fatigue, not managing work-hours," 
Desaulniers said. "We can't think the work-hour limits by 
themselves will solve all the problems."

On the Net:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Fitness-for-Duty page:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty.
html

Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/

Copyright Š 1995 - 2007 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved.
Gallup Independent: Matheson requests hearing on RECA expansion - 

By Kathy Helms Gallup Independent

Saturday, May 26, 2007

WINDOW ROCK -- U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, 2nd District/Utah, and Rep.
Mike Simpson of Idaho have asked the U.S. House Committee on the
Judiciary to conduct a hearing on the possibility of expanding the
federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover potential
victims of radioactive fallout in Utah and Idaho.

Matheson, who represents Utah Navajo, said the RECA program, put in
place by Congress in 1990, currently covers a limited number of
counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

RECA provides monetary damages to victims of cancer and other
illnesses linked to exposure from radioactive fallout during the
nuclear weapons testing of the 1950s and 1960s at the Nevada Test
Site. To date, more than $1 billion in compensation has been paid to
"downwinders" and uranium miners, millers and ore transporters.

"As you know, over the course of more than two decades, the United
States carried out more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests," the
Congressmen said.

"The radioactive debris from these tests entered our nation's
atmosphere and was later deposited, in the form of radioactive
fallout, all across our nation."

For decades, individuals living within the fallout areas have lived
with adverse health effects caused by radiation exposure. Today,
individuals meeting certain criteria can apply for compensation
ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 per individual, the letter states.

"Eligibility for compensation, however, is limited to certain
counties in just a few states. These geographical boundaries are,
quite frankly, arbitrary boundaries that do not account for the fact
that radioactive fallout does not abide by lines on the map," the
Congressmen said.

"Some of the counties experiencing the largest concentration of
fallout in the entire nation are not included in the current RECA
program --including areas in our home states of Idaho and Utah,"
they said.

Matheson noted that in 2000, Congress chose to enhance the RECA
program by adding additional categories of compensable illnesses.

"However, we believe that since RECA has not received serious review
by the Congress in the past seven years, now is an appropriate time
for the Judiciary Committee to hold an oversight hearing on this
important federal law," the letter states.

Matheson and Simpson said if a hearing is granted, they are
available to help gather witnesses and assist in crafting the scope
of the hearing.

On Wednesday, Matheson applauded action by the House Energy and
Water Subcommittee which zeroed out funding in the Fiscal Year 2008
budget for the Reliable Replacement Warhead -- a proposed new
nuclear bomb. The Energy and Water Subcommittee also provided no
funding for a plutonium pit center proposed by the administration.

Last week on the House floor, Matheson urged colleagues to show
restraint in supporting the new warhead program, which he fears will
result in a resumption of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test
Site.

"I question why we'd invest billions of dollars in a program that
scientific experts have said isn't needed and can't be certified as
reliable in the absence of testing," he said.

"We know our current stockpile containing thousands of nuclear bombs
is reliable. In fact, contrary to the administration's claims, an
independent review panel just concluded that the existing plutonium
pits have life spans of at least 85 years and most are good for 100
years or more.

"We should not be in any hurry to go down this new nuclear weapons
path until we have more information about the purpose, the cost and
the potential for resumed testing of new nuclear weapons," he said.

"The history of the Department of Energy includes a long list of
canceled and over-budget projects that were started before the
objective was thoroughly understood. We cannot make that mistake
with the nation's nuclear weapons complex, or the decision to begin
building new nuclear weapons."

Matheson said he is pleased that the bill provides no funding, as
past defense authorization bills did, for the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, or "bunker-buster," as it is called.
*****************************************************************
 41 DTI: Energy white paper: meeting the energy challenge - 

Â 30 May 2007

URN No:Â 07/1006

Energy is essential in almost every aspect of our lives and for the
success of our economy. We face two long-term energy challenges:

* tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions
  both within the UK and abroad; and
* ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy as we become
  increasingly dependent on imported fuel.

This White Paper sets out the Governmentâs international and
domestic energy strategy to respond to these changing circumstances,
address the long term energy challenges we face and deliver our four
energy policy goals:

* to put ourselves on a path to cutting CO2 emissions by some 60%
  by about 2050, with real progress by 2020;
* to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
* to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond;
* to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

It shows how we are implementing the measures set out in the Energy
Review Report in 2006, as well as those announced since, including
in the Pre-Budget Report in 2006 and the Budget in 2007.

Some of the measures in this White Paper require further public
consultation. Today we are launching consultations on nuclear power,
the Renewables Obligation and guidance on the 1965 Gas Act. If you
would like to take part in the nuclear consultation, see the Future
of Nuclear PowerÂ website. We will launch further consultations in
the coming months. For more information on these, please see the
Consultations page.

Meeting the Energy Challenge: Full version


Meeting the energy challenge: a white paper on energy [Cm
7124]ďż˝Â Â (6716KB)


Meeting the Energy Challenge: Chapters


Energy white paper: contents, foreword and executive
summaryďż˝Â Â (439KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 1 - energy and climate security: a
global challengeďż˝Â Â (966KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 2 - saving energyďż˝Â Â (664KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 3 - heat and distributed
generationďż˝Â Â (469KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 4 - oil, gas and coalďż˝Â Â (470KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 5 - electricity generation, networks,
renewables, cleaner coal and carbon capure and storage for fossil
fuels, nuclear powerďż˝Â Â (1305KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 6 - research and development,
demonstration and deployment, and skillsďż˝Â Â (680KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 7 - transportďż˝Â Â (346KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 8 - planningďż˝Â Â (366KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 9 - devolved administrations, English
regions and local authoritiesďż˝Â Â (149KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 10 - impact of our measuresďż˝Â Â (498KB)


Energy white paper: chapter 11 - implementationďż˝Â Â (188KB)



Meeting the Energy Challenge: Annexes


Energy white paper: annex a - fourth annual report on progress
towards the 2003 Energy White Paper goalsďż˝Â Â (499KB)


Energy white paper: annex b - summary of updated energy and carbon
emissions projectionsďż˝Â Â (194KB)


Energy white paper: annex c - uk position on the EU Emissions
Trading Schemeďż˝Â Â (108KB)


Energy white paper: annex d - consultations announced in, or related
to, the energy white paper: meeting the energy
challengeďż˝Â Â (109KB)

Supporting Documents

The Future of Nuclear Power: The role of nuclear power in a low
carbon UK economy
Take part in the consultation on the Future of Nuclear PowerÂ Â 

Renewable energy: reform of the renewables obligationďż˝Â Â (248KB)

Impact of banding the renewables obligation: costs of electricity
productionďż˝Â Â (513KB)

Reform of the renewables obligation. What is the likely impact of
changes?ďż˝Â Â (716KB)


Guidance on the Gas Act 1965, under which licensed gas transporters
proposing to store gas in natural porous strata onshore seek consent
from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: a
consultationďż˝Â Â (371KB)


Review of distributed generation: reportďż˝Â Â (335KB)


Evaluation of supplier obligation policy options: report for DTI and
Defraďż˝Â Â (552KB)


Synthesis of the analysis of the energy white paperďż˝Â Â (315KB)


Updated energy and carbon emissions projections: the energy white
paperďż˝Â Â (309KB)


The UK MARKAL energy model in the 2007 energy white
paperďż˝Â Â (187KB)

UKERC: Development of a new UK MARKAL &amp; MARKAL-Macro energy
systems modelÂ 


Report on modelling the macroeconomic impacts of achieving the UK's
carbon emission reduction goalďż˝Â Â (376KB)


UK energy sector indicators 2007


Energy market competition in the EU and G7: preliminary 2005
rankingsďż˝Â Â (524KB)


Dynamics of GB electricity generation investment: prices, security
of supply, CO2 emissions and policy optionsďż˝Â Â (852KB)


An assessment of the potential measures to improve gas security of
supplyďż˝Â Â (869KB)


Government response to the consultation on the effectiveness of
current gas security of supply arrangementsďż˝Â Â (259KB)


Offshore natural gas storage and liquefied natural gas import
facilities: Government response to public consultationďż˝Â Â (187KB)


Review of UK oil refining capacity for Department of Trade and
Industryďż˝Â Â (968KB)


UK biomass strategy 2007. Working paper 1: economic analysis of
biomass energyďż˝Â Â (376KB)


Defra: Biomass StrategyÂ 



Weblinks To Other Supporting Documents:


Consultation on Sustainable Products Policy Brief, Energy in Use:
Consumer ElectronicsÂ 


Defra: Consultation on Carbon Emissions Reduction TargetÂ 


Department for Transport: Low Carbon Transport Innovation Strategy
(LCTIS)Â 


ÂŠ Crown copyright 2007
NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium

Project Title:

PIN: PHPH-H-06-01-A        

 Institute of Medicine

Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

RSO: Mitchell, Abigail

Subject/Focus Area: 

Project Scope
A committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will review,
evaluate, and summarize scientific and medical literature regarding
the association between exposure to depleted uranium and chronic
human health effects. The study committee will focus on literature
published since the IOM's 2000 report, Gulf War and Health, Volume
1: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines was
written.

The committee will make determinations on the strength of the
evidence for associations between exposure to depleted uranium and
human health effects. The report might include recommendations for
additional scientific studies to resolve areas of continued
scientific uncertainty.

The findings will not be limited to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.
They also will be applicable to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom.

This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The start date for the project is September 18, 2006.
A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately
15 months.

Project Duration: 15 months    

Provide FEEDBACK on this project.

Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.

Committee Membership

Meetings
 Meeting 1 - 03/22/2007
 Meeting 2 - 06/28/2007
 Meeting 3 - 09/27/2007


Reports
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office

 Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
 42 Hindustan Times: Right to reprocess spent fuel major snag- 

   Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Manoj Joshi

As New Delhi readies to welcome United States Undersecretary of
State Nicholas Burns on Thursday and resume negotiations on the 123
Agreement to make the Indo-US nuclear deal operational, reprocessing
rights appear to be the principal hurdle. Indiaâs three-stage
nuclear power programme is built around the need to reprocess spent
fuel into plutonium.

A senior official familiar with the negotiations told the Hindustan
Times that while there was agreement on 80-85 per cent of the text
of the draft, a great deal of work remained to be done to finalise
the other issues. He said some genuine problems and âsome
unreasonable demands on both sidesâ were holding up the final
agreement. He, however, exuded optimism saying "Despite all the
problems we will probably cut a deal this time.â

On reprocessing, he said, âWe simply cannot take chances, given
the US record on this issue, and we do need to nail it down because
we cannot sell the deal internally otherwise.â He said on this
there was unanimity between the Ministry of External Affairs and the
Department of Atomic Energy, alluding to the well publicised
differences between the two on some other issues. The official said
this was an area where the US could accommodate India because there
was no US law prohibiting the administration from giving India the
right to reprocess. Citing a precedent, he said the US had allowed
Japan and Euratom (an European consortium) to reprocess spent fuel.

If the US was unreasonable on this, India too was less than helpful
on other issues. For example, âegged on by some domestic elements,
we are demanding the sky in terms of reprocessing and enrichment
technology from the US.â The senior official wondered why India
needed these technologies, when its scientists claim they had
mastered them anyway. India runs reprocessing facilities in Tarapur,
Trombay and Kalpakkam, as well as a small uranium enrichment
facility in Karnataka.

While the US has given the rights to Japan and Europe to enrich
uranium and reprocess plutonium, it has not provided them any
technology license. In fact, under the Hyde Act, India is the only
country that could be entitled to such technologies, if they were
run under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and
dealt with proliferation-resistant technologies.

Indian experts acknowledge that the Indian demand for such
technology hits at the very heart of US concerns that technology
could slip from the civilian part of the Indian programme to the
military one. âThe US is not worried that we will use the
facilities for military purposes, but that we could copy enrichment
and reprocessing technologies for military use,â said one retired
nuclear scientist, adding âafter all we have successfully cloned
and improved on the CANDU Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor in the
past.â

On conducting a nuclear test, the senior official said that there
was no way India could commit itself not to test, âBut this does
not mean that our position will be 'we will test and you will commit
yourself not to react to our test.ââ But, he felt that this was
an issue where a compromise formulation was possible. Another issue
that could be bridged easily was the right of return of US equipment
in the event of the deal being terminated for some reason.

According to another senior Ministry of External Affairs official,
time was now running out on the deal. "President George W. Bush no
longer has the kind of control over the Congress that he had before
we lost critical momentum in 2005 and 2006," he said. Democratic
front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the "killer
amendments" during the vote on the Hyde Act, and Indian official
assessments are that the chances of getting a better deal from any
Democrat successor to Bush are next to zero.

manoj.joshi@hindustantimes.com

News & Star: Nuclear firm tests beaches

Published on 28/05/2007

BEACHES between Ravenglass and St Bees are set to be monitored by
the British Nuclear Group after the Environment Agency placed a
statutory requirement on the company.

The work, which will be carried out by NUKEM on behalf of
Sellafield, will take place during daylight hours depending on the
tides.

Any material detected will be retrieved and delivered to Sellafield
for analysis.

The first phase of work was due to start on May 21, from St Bees to
Seamill.

It restarted at Ehen Spit on Saturday and will continue there until
June 3, before continuing at Seascale North from June 4 until June 9.

The rest of the work will be carried out after the school summer
holidays and it is due to be completed next March.

Local parish councils have been briefed about the work and are set
to receive notification before the monitoring starts.

Sellafield officials claim the beaches will remain safe to use
throughout the monitoring, which will be carried out using
vehicle-mounted equipment.

*****************************************************************
 43 London Times: Haven't we been here before?

May 29, 2007

The Government is to reform planning laws. Do we need another change
in philosophy?

Edward Fennell

When the historians tot up the achievements of the Blair legacy,
will reform of the planning process be counted among them? It does
not need a Machiavellian analysis to work out the correlation
between the release last week of the White Paper Planning for a
Sustainable Future and the Blair Government&rsquo;s commitment to
further nuclear power stations.

If the Prime Minister could claim a solution to the intractable
problems of planning delay &ndash; as embodied by the epic tale of
Terminal 5 and which would also confront power stations proposals
&ndash; then it would add lustre to his twilight years. But maybe
that is to dream the impossible dream.

Planning reform is one of the issues that this Government has picked
at again and again. As Tim Hellier, of Berwin Leighton Paisner,
observes: &ldquo;Seeing the publication of this White Paper is like
going through déjŕ vu. We have been here before in 2004 when the
same kind of claim was made about speeding up and streamlining the
process. The fact that the Government has come back to it so soon is
an indictment of the 2004 reforms. Frankly, I&rsquo;m staggered that
they are already changing a system that was introduced so recently
and has not had time to bed down yet. I suppose it indicates that
the Government believes that the previous reforms will simply not
work. It all fits together with the priority now being given to
nuclear power.&rdquo;

Michael Gallimore, of Lovells, also claims to be a victim of déjŕ vu
&ndash; although in his case he is reliving the 2001 Green Paper
that contained a number of proposals that were not followed up at
the time yet which have surfaced again in Planning for a Sustainable
Future. If this is true, then in the eyes of some people that may
look like six wasted years.

So the key question is whether or not this latest round of reform
will deliver a fair but faster planning result. Undoubtedly the
proposed reforms are on a bigger scale than anything we have seen
since 1990 and they build on the recommendations of the Barker and
Eddington reports.

Most notably, maybe, they try to get to grips (as far as important
projects are concerned) with one of the basic problems about the
current system &ndash; the bundling up of the big strategic issues
with the localised detailed planning points. The interplay of the
macro and micro issues was a recipe ripe for delay and enabled
opponents to fight across a giant battlefield.

By setting out the Government&rsquo;s policy on big infrastructure
developments in national policy statements &ndash; such as transport
and energy &ndash; but then handing over decisions about specific
projects to the notionally independent Infrastructure Planning
Commission, the aim is to depoliticise these issues and clear the
way for simpler planning judgments. As Martin Evans, of Nabarro,
points out: &ldquo;What you are doing is creating a presumption in
favour of development of a kind that we have not seen in this
country in 20 years. It represents a major change in philosophy.
Where the jury is out, however, is whether the decisions which
result will be robust enough to withstand challenges.&rdquo; In some
respects it must be said that there is limited room for manoeuvre.
Significant public consultation is built in while EU human rights
considerations also give scope for those who want to hold up the
process. As a result the trench warfare of fighting planning
proposals is likely to switch to judicial review (although the
issues of procedure will be more limited). Not surprisingly then
perhaps, according to Gallimore, the initial response from his
clients &ndash; primarily big developers &ndash; to the proposals
is, &ldquo;pretty jaundiced. They have seen that the 2004 reforms
did not work so they are sceptical over this round.&rdquo;

Meanwhile, according to Simon Ricketts, of S J Berwin, the new
approach will be good for &ldquo;ports and porches&rdquo; &ndash;
that is for the very large and the very small projects &ndash; but
may not do much for the intermediate schemes. This is the territory
largely occupied by the clients of Christopher Proudley, of Trowers
& Hamlins, who is sceptical about whether there will be much
improvement. &ldquo;We need a lot more detail on the proposals
before we can judge whether they will work,&rdquo; he says.
&ldquo;My biggest concern, however, rests with the lack resources.
We need more planning inspectors and they need more assistance. That
way we would not have to wait so long for inquiries and the results
would come out much faster.&rdquo;

This chimes with Ricketts&rsquo;s view that &ldquo;there is a
delicate eco system of checks and balances in our system and it is
the way the system works rather than the Black Letter law that is
most important&rdquo;. Changing that culture is then a key objective
and one of the aims of the proposals is to make the system more
lawyer-lite. &ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s clear that the White Paper
wants to squeeze lawyers out of the inquiry stage,&rdquo; Ricketts
says.

So maybe the unwritten agenda driving the reforms is that the
biggest delaying factor is the lawyers. Can that really be true?

Š Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd
Athens NEWS: Meeting on nuke waste storage plan threatens to melt down

2007-05-29

By Mike Ludwig Athens NEWS Campus Reporter

Over 50 local residents and activists grilled a member of the
nuclear-energy industry Thursday night in Athens over a
controversial proposal to reuse spent nuclear fuel rods at the
former uranium enrichment site in Piketon, Ohio.

The proposal, known as Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
"holds great promise for supporting the worldwide growth of nuclear
energy, and SODI supports the efforts to revitalize nuclear power in
the United States, to diversify its energy portfolio, increase
energy security, and to reduce greenhouse-gas emission in the
production of electricity," according to a newsletter produced by
the Southern Ohio Diversity Initiative (SODI), a U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) designated "community reuse organization."

If the project went forward, new nuclear energy operations requiring
stored nuclear waste would begin about 50 miles west of Athens.

Greg Simonton of SODI was the only speaker on a nine-member panel
who spoke in favor of the proposal during the town meeting Thursday
in the Athens City Council chambers. His claims that the project
would be safe, help Ohio meet the public's demand for electricity,
and bring much-needed labor opportunities to the region prompted
strong challenges from fellow panel members and meeting participants.

They charged that the creation of a nuclear fuel recycling center
will lead to the local storage of nuclear waste from the 103
existing reactor sites throughout the country.

"This is not going to be a nuclear waste dump," countered Simonton,
who objected to the connotations of the word "dump."

In disagreeing withi Simonton, Piketon resident Geoffrey Sea, a
member of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group, cited a quotation
allegedly pulled from a draft application for DOE funding from the
Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative (SONIC), the main
group of industry members involved in the project.

"Separate from this proposal, though integral to it, SONIC has
proposed a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) facility at Portsmouth
(Piketon)," Sea read aloud during the question-and-answer session.

Simonton responded by denying that statement had ever been made and
said the document Sea referred to "does not exist."

According to an informational tabloid published by SONIC, "GNEP
implementation will greatly reduce the long-term storage
requirements for used nuclear fuel by utilizing recycling methods to
reuse this spent fuel currently stored at 103 existing nuclear
reactor sites across the country."

Simonton said that existing technology could recycle certain
portions of radioactive waste for use as reactor fuel for creating
electricity.

Nuclear operations at Piketon/Portsmouth's former Gaseous Diffusion
Plant have had a troubled history. According to a 2006 special
report by the Dayton Daily News, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency estimated that more than $3 billion had been spent cleaning
up the site of the plant, which began enriching atomic metals for
nuclear weapons over 50 years ago. The cost of cleanup could
eventually top $4.5 billion, the paper reported, making it the most
expensive environmental cleanup in Ohio's history.

During emotional testimony Thursday evening, panelist Vina Colley, a
former Piketon Gaseous Diffusion Plant employee and president of
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety, claimed that
many of her co-workers became ill and died of cancer and
radiation-related illness.

"My friends and co-workers are dying of cancer, and the government
waits until they die to pay their families any compensation," Colley
said.

Thursday's meeting was organized by concerned citizens who feel
their voices were ignored during informational events sponsored by
proponents of the proposed project, according to a press release for
the event.

"We are concerned about the process," the Rev. William Carroll said
in a prepared statement. "The sponsors of this plan have organized
so-called 'public hearings,' which have made a mockery of democratic
values. At one, the announced question-and-answer session was
cancelled over the objection of several community members. In other
cases, people were not allowed to testify at all." Carroll is the
rector of Athens' Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd.

"We are part of this Creation," Carroll said. "We don't stand above
it."

Some participants suggested focusing on wind- and solar-energy
sources as an alternative to relying on nuclear power for jobs and
electricity in southern Ohio.

"I have seen the renewable-energy industry grow by leaps and bounds
over the past several years," Michelle Greenfield, co-owner of Third
Sun Wind and Power, said in a statement read aloud by one of the
panelists. "And guess what? Solar power has no emissions as it is
producing power and has no toxic waste that needs to find a place to
be buried and does not pose a national or international security
risk."

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and a bipartisan group of U.S. House
members have voiced support for the nuclear-waste recycling project,
though they say their support is dependent on Piketon not becoming a
nuclear-waste dump.

It's far from a foregone conclusion that the U.S. Department of
Energy will choose Piketon for such a facility, since it has
received site-study reports for 10 other locations around the
country. Opponents, however, fear that underlying the nuclear
recycling proposal is a plan to use the Piketon facility for
storage, even if the recycling operation goes elsewhere.

For more information on SONIC's plans to reuse nuclear fuel in
Piketon, visit www.safesonic.net and www.gnep.energy.gov. To sign
the SONG petition against the GNEP proposal, visit
www.progressohio.org/page/petition/DOEpetition.

*****************************************************************
 44 Burlington Free Press: Develop small-scale hydro in state

Opinion


  burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont
 
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

I agree with Sandy Wilbur ("Water: Vermont's answer to energy
crisis," May 17) that hydroelectric power has an important role in
Vermont's future energy supply, but I disagree on several
significant points.

First, nuclear power does produce carbon dioxide. The power plant
itself does not, but mining, transporting, and purifying the uranium
fuel does, as well as the reprocessing, disposal, and long -term
storage of the waste. Right now, with the relatively high grade ores
available, a nuclear power plant produces about a third of the
carbon dioxide of a natural gas fired plant of the same size. As
time goes on the industry will use lower grade ore, requiring more
energy and producing more carbon dioxide. At some point it will be
useless to mine uranium as it will take as much energy to extract
and purify as there is contained in it.

Second, relying on Hydro Quebec does nothing to keep money in
Vermont. It would be much more advantageous to Vermont to develop
many smaller hydro projects in-state. This would require some
regulatory changes, a movement that has been started by the passage
of H.520 by the Vermont Legislature. I hope Gov. Jim Douglas signs
this bill.

Third, in a world of scarce fossil fuels we will be grateful for any
and all forms of renewable energy, commercial scale wind included. I
predict that people's aesthetic objections to wind power will soften
as their power bills get uglier.
HILTON H. DIER III
Middlesex
Contribution limits
stem big money

Rob Roper, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party doesn't
understand why us Vermonters fight the good fight for campaign
finance reform.

He may bemoan contribution limits, but the cold hard facts are that
they are needed to stem the tide of big money in politics. When only
the rich can run for office, those on the bottom rung of the ladder
get short shrift every time. Not letting the rich buy House and
Senate seats is important so that the issues and problems of the
poor get addressed or represented properly.

We Democrats understand the proper function and role of government.
To see that those on the bottom run of the ladder don't fall through
the cracks of society, and get the proper food, clothing and
housing. Republicans think the main function and role of government
is to see that middle-class people become rich -- how oblivious!
KEN COOK
Bennington
Cook is the secretary of the Bennington County Democratic Committee.
Support override
of veto on July 11

The state Legislature recently did some excellent work in passing
H.520, a bill that will expand the already successful Efficiency
Vermont and move us towards a renewable energy future. Sadly, it
seems that the opposition may win out in the end anyway.

Gov. Jim Douglas has openly stated that he will veto this bill. Why?
Apparently because saving Entergy, an out-of-state multibillion
dollar company, a few bucks is more important that creating jobs for
Vermonters and creating a sustainable energy base that will serve us
for generations to come. Sadly, this is not surprising when you
realize who financed Gov. Douglas' run for the governor's office.

I am glad to see that most of our representatives here in Chittenden
County voted yes for the bill. And when the bill is vetoed and the
override vote comes up on July 11 I would ask them, along with Rep.
Timothy Jerman and Rep. Linda Myers, Rep, Jim Condon, Rep. Kurt
Wright, and Rep. Debbie Evans, to vote yes for our future.
LUKE MCHALE
Burlington
Gonzales scandal
latest in long list

Is anyone out there surprised that Alberto Gonzalez is the latest --
in a long list of -- Bush administration officials under fire for
firing eight attorney generals? Let's see, there was Scooter Libby,
Donald Rumsfeld, Scott Mclellan Jack Abramoff, Dennis Hastert, and
the list goes on. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for
the Democrats to come up with something on Gonzalez. We can thank
Sen. Pat Leahy (thank you for having the chutzpah) for leading the
charge against this lying no good creep.

It seems no matter where you turn these days, another Bush cronies
or appointee, is in hot water. Paul Wolfowitz would be another. And
finally he got the message and stepped down.

The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that
President Bush isn't the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and
replace them with loyalists. While that's true, the current case is
different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a
new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration.
Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are
usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed
them is re-elected.

Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice
Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the
president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered
the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to
remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for
his second term. Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his
second term.

So it shouldn't be a surprise to us that they're investigating
Gonzalez, the man Bush says "is doing a fine job", didn't he say
that about Mike Brown at FEMA too?
HAROLD F. SKORSTAD
South Burlington

     Copyright Š2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
CP: Cameco signs nuclear fuel deal with Kazakhstani national atomic company

Published: Monday, May 28, 2007 | 3:24 PM ET

Canadian Press

SASKATOON (CP) - Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO) has signed a memorandum of
understanding with Kazakhstani national atomic company Kazatomprom
to co-operate on building a uranium conversion plant and expand
uranium production.

Cameco said Monday it and Kazatomprom will study the feasibility of
a plant to convert uranium into nuclear fuel "in Kazakhstan and
elsewhere."

The Canadian uranium-mining giant would provide the technology and
potentially own up to 49 per cent of the plant, with the rest held
by Kazatomprom, which is owned by the government of the central
Asian country.

"We are pleased to build on the long-standing and strong business
relationship we have with Kazatomprom," stated Cameco CEO Jerry
Grandey.

The memorandum of understanding provides for doubling eventual
production from the Inkai uranium deposit - owned 60 per cent by
Cameco and 40 per cent by Kazatomprom - to 10.4 million pounds
annually "on a timeframe to be confirmed." A Cameco-Kazatomprom
joint venture expects to begin commercial production at Inkai next
year, reaching 5.2 million pounds annually in 2010.

Cameco said it expects binding agreements will be signed this year.

Š The Canadian Press, 2007

Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
*****************************************************************
 45 Reuters: UK to be 2nd best for clean energy - analysts 

Tue May 29, 2007 11:10AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Renewable energy could boom in Britain under
planning and energy policy changes announced last week, making it
the second most attractive country for investment in clean energy,
analysts at Ernst & Young said.

Although the blustery British Isles have huge potential for wind,
tidal and wave power, earlier this year the country slipped down the
consultancy's league table of best places to invest in clean energy
because of a lack of investment in the power network which is needed
to connect new projects.

But last week's energy and planning policy papers have reversed that.

The proposed changes to the way renewables are supported through the
UK government's Renewables Obligation and a more streamlined
planning system could make Britain equally as attractive as Spain
and India but still less of a lure for renewable energy than the
United States, the consultancy said.

"The proposed changes to the Renewables Obligation (RO) and reforms
to planning should level the playing field for many technologies
competing for development capital in the UK," Jonathan Johns, head
of Ernst & Young's Renewables Waste and Clean Energy Group, said in
a statement.

"The challenge now is for industry and the finance providers to make
the necessary investment in these new and emerging technologies in
order to meet the UK's goals for renewable energy in the future."

As a result of last week's proposals -- aimed at cutting Britain's
carbon emissions while ensuring future energy supplies -- the UK is
set to overtake Germany in Ernst & Young's league table of most
attractive countries in which to invest in clean technologies.

The government last week put cutting energy use, boosting support
for clean technologies and replacing Britain's ageing nuclear power
reactors at the centre of its strategy to reduce emissions of the
gas largely responsible for climate change.

Under the proposed reforms, which are yet to become law, more
expensive and newer technologies like offshore wind and tidal power
will get more money than established and cheaper types such as
onshore windfarms.

The other countries that Ernst & Young keeps track on are:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark,
Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey.

Š Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
Reuters: Nuclear dump to leave Taiwan tropical isle 

Mon May 28, 2007 9:24PM EDT

By Ralph Jennings

ORCHID ISLAND, Taiwan (Reuters) - Taiwan will shut a nuclear waste
dump on sparsely populated Orchid Island by 2016, eliminating a
toxic risk and a source of friction with indigenous people on this
tropical paradise in the Pacific Ocean.

The decision to move the dump from this island 65 miles

east of Taiwan follows a complex, 25-year battle between the site's
operator, Taiwan Power Co., and Orchid Island natives who believe
they have been poisoned.

It was a classic case of hazardous waste dumps located in a sparsely
populated, isolated region despite protests, the same sort of
problem that has addled communities in Japan and South Korea.

"They tend to locate in far-off islands and isolated communities, in
fact in places where the local governments can be bought off," said
Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace
International in Asia.

Greenpeace says the site contains "a soup of highly radioactive
poisons," even as Taipower insists the waste there contains low
levels of radiation.

What the Lan Yu Storage Site does contain is 97,672 barrels of
semi-solid nuclear waste in a poorly marked former millet-growing
area along the rocky coastline. That waste will move to one of three
sites on Taiwan's main island.

Many of the island's 3,100 aboriginal Tao people welcome the
departure plan, because they suspect nuclear waste has caused an
increase in stomach cancer, mutated fish caught in the Pacific Ocean
and contaminated soil where they grow taro and yams.  Continued...

Š Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 Albuquerque Tribune: Plutonium lab plan put in cold storage 

Staff and wire Tuesday, May 29, 2007

LOS ALAMOS ? The federal government has put the brakes on a proposed
billion-dollar Los Alamos plutonium lab.

Preliminary estimates have jumped from $837 million to as much as
$1.5 billion, National Nuclear Security Administration officials
told Congress recently.

There also is skepticism about whether the project may be obsolete
if plans for the U.S. nuclear stockpile change.

The federal government had hoped to begin construction next year.
The agency is now is reviewing its options, chief Thomas D'Agostino
says.

This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are
the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Readers will be
banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an
invasion of privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement.

Š 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune
Magnetic Island News: Greens seek to protect troops at Shoalwater

Magnetic Island, North Queensland, Australia
editor@magnetictimes.com  

May 29th 2007

Magnetic Islanders may protest at the impacts of inappropriate
development but, to our south and still bordering the World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Shoalwater Bay is soon to be
subjected to another military bombardment with the US/Australian
Talisman Sabre exercises. But the Townsville Greens are going beyond
environmental concerns to call for assurances that radioactive
depleted uranium (DU) - linked to Gulf War Syndrome - will not be
deployed, for the benefit of soldiers, civilians and the environment.

Greens candidate for Herbert Ms Jenny Stirling is asking the
Australian and USA governments to give the public assurances that
Depleted Uranium will not be used in it's up coming war games,
Talisman Sabre.

How can the Australian Defence Force prove that DU will not part of
this years Talisman Sabre exercises? How can we be certain that the
US military will honor the Australian directive not to use the
materials in these exercises? How can we trust the US military when
we see their track record in telling the truth about the use of DU
in their own bases?, asks Ms Stirling.

According to the Greens, the 14 000 strong US military presence
arriving in Australia next month will include nuclear powered
submarines and nuclear weapons capable and depleted uranium weapons
equipped US warships off Yeppoons coast in June.

The Australian Defence Force denies that DU will be used (read here)

However, in 2003, in response to questions about Australian support
for US use of DU, then Defence Minister Robert Hill stated: In
relation to DU used by our allies we have said that, if they believe
it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular
munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is
appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.

According to a Greens media statement, Growing evidence from
reputable organizations like the UN are proving that the use of
depleted uranium poses extreme health risks to anyone in contact
with these materials, including cancer, genetic damage that can
cause horrific birth defects and even sexual dysfunction.

Jenny Stirling said: We want an unequivocal statement from the
Australian government to the Australian public and our troops to the
effect that US forces will not be firing any DU weapons in the
Talisman Sabre exercises at Shoalwater Bay.

Suggestions that DU may have been utilised at Shoalwater Bay in the
past, though strongly denied by Defence, were first aired by Academy
Award-nominated Film maker David Bradbury in Blowin in the Wind
which examines the secret treaty that allows the US military to
train and test its weaponry on Australian soil,(click here).

The Greens maintain that it is time come clean about the clear and
present danger posed by these war games - on soldiers, the general
public and the wildlife threatened by the biggest ever military
exercise held in Shoalwater Bay.

A Peace Convergence protest at Shoalwater Bay against the exercises
is planned for the Talisman Sabre period of June 18 to 24.

Greens Senate candidate, Anja Light will be holding Peace
Convergence events in Ayr (31st May, 6.30pm), Bowen (6th June) and
Airlie Beach (7th June) to raise awareness about the impact on these
war games. For More information www.peaceconvergence.com


*****************************************************************
 47 Gallup Independent: Matheson requests hearing on RECA expansion - 

By Kathy Helms Gallup Independent

Saturday, May 26, 2007

WINDOW ROCK -- U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, 2nd District/Utah, and Rep.
Mike Simpson of Idaho have asked the U.S. House Committee on the
Judiciary to conduct a hearing on the possibility of expanding the
federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover potential
victims of radioactive fallout in Utah and Idaho.

Matheson, who represents Utah Navajo, said the RECA program, put in
place by Congress in 1990, currently covers a limited number of
counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

RECA provides monetary damages to victims of cancer and other
illnesses linked to exposure from radioactive fallout during the
nuclear weapons testing of the 1950s and 1960s at the Nevada Test
Site. To date, more than $1 billion in compensation has been paid to
"downwinders" and uranium miners, millers and ore transporters.

"As you know, over the course of more than two decades, the United
States carried out more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests," the
Congressmen said.

"The radioactive debris from these tests entered our nation's
atmosphere and was later deposited, in the form of radioactive
fallout, all across our nation."

For decades, individuals living within the fallout areas have lived
with adverse health effects caused by radiation exposure. Today,
individuals meeting certain criteria can apply for compensation
ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 per individual, the letter states.

"Eligibility for compensation, however, is limited to certain
counties in just a few states. These geographical boundaries are,
quite frankly, arbitrary boundaries that do not account for the fact
that radioactive fallout does not abide by lines on the map," the
Congressmen said.

"Some of the counties experiencing the largest concentration of
fallout in the entire nation are not included in the current RECA
program --including areas in our home states of Idaho and Utah,"
they said.

Matheson noted that in 2000, Congress chose to enhance the RECA
program by adding additional categories of compensable illnesses.

"However, we believe that since RECA has not received serious review
by the Congress in the past seven years, now is an appropriate time
for the Judiciary Committee to hold an oversight hearing on this
important federal law," the letter states.

Matheson and Simpson said if a hearing is granted, they are
available to help gather witnesses and assist in crafting the scope
of the hearing.

On Wednesday, Matheson applauded action by the House Energy and
Water Subcommittee which zeroed out funding in the Fiscal Year 2008
budget for the Reliable Replacement Warhead -- a proposed new
nuclear bomb. The Energy and Water Subcommittee also provided no
funding for a plutonium pit center proposed by the administration.

Last week on the House floor, Matheson urged colleagues to show
restraint in supporting the new warhead program, which he fears will
result in a resumption of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test
Site.

"I question why we'd invest billions of dollars in a program that
scientific experts have said isn't needed and can't be certified as
reliable in the absence of testing," he said.

"We know our current stockpile containing thousands of nuclear bombs
is reliable. In fact, contrary to the administration's claims, an
independent review panel just concluded that the existing plutonium
pits have life spans of at least 85 years and most are good for 100
years or more.

"We should not be in any hurry to go down this new nuclear weapons
path until we have more information about the purpose, the cost and
the potential for resumed testing of new nuclear weapons," he said.

"The history of the Department of Energy includes a long list of
canceled and over-budget projects that were started before the
objective was thoroughly understood. We cannot make that mistake
with the nation's nuclear weapons complex, or the decision to begin
building new nuclear weapons."

Matheson said he is pleased that the bill provides no funding, as
past defense authorization bills did, for the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator, or "bunker-buster," as it is called.
Gallup Independent: Matheson pushes for Atlas cleanup - 

By Kathy Helms Gallup Independent

Saturday, May 26, 2007

WINDOW ROCK -- Language added last week to the annual defense bill
by U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, 2nd District/Utah, would require the
Department of Energy to complete removal and cleanup of 16 million
tons of radioactive waste from the Atlas uranium mill tailings site
near the Colorado River by the year 2019.

Matheson said the timetable recently outlined by U.S. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman projecting completion after 21 years is
arbitrary and unacceptable.

"DOE has a miserable record here, to be honest, and I've fired many
shots across the bow before, but this was the time for the direct
hit," he said. "This business to say 2028 is just unacceptable."

Matheson noted that DOE's own Record of Decision issued in 2005 has
a seven to 10 year timeframe for cleanup. Yet the agency continues
to delay and most recently said it wouldn't finish removal of the
tailings pile and cleanup before 2028.

"There's overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable
and that the contamination, already migrating under the river toward
the town of Moab, could, with one major flood event, be dumped into
the Colorado. That disaster would put the health and safety of 25
million downstream users at risk," he said.

The 94-foot-high pile of uranium mill tailings from the Atlas site
near Moab lies in a flood plain next to the Colorado River, where it
is leaching chemicals into the river and groundwater of local
communities, posing health and safety concerns for downstream users
in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California, he said.

Matheson has been leading the fight in Congress to push DOE to
remove the tailings pile and clean up the site. In 2005, DOE signed
a Record of Decision clearing the way for removal of the tailings.

Under the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Site
Record of Decision, the tailings are to be moved by rail to the
proposed Crescent Junction site, more than 30 miles from the
Colorado River. However, DOE continues to delay the timeline and now
proposes to complete the project 16 years later than it originally
proposed.

Cleanup of the tailings stalled when Atlas Corp. declared bankruptcy
in 1998, leaving behind an interim cap over the tailings pile and
inadequate cleanup funds. In 2000, Congress mandated that DOE find a
way to clean up the site and move the tailings.

The mandate called for ground water restoration, removal of the
tailings to a site in Utah for permanent disposal and any necessary
stabilization of residual radioactive material and other
contaminated material from the Moab site and Colorado River
floodplain.

Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the National Research Council, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the State of Utah, and independent scientists all
have pointed to the dangers of leaving the tailings pile in place.

The studies show that contaminants already have traveled beneath the
river, and indicate that it may take only episodic high flows and
the natural wandering of the Colorado to undercut the tailings pile
and flood the river corridor for miles with radioactive waste.
*****************************************************************
 48 AU ABC: Uranium miner struggles to find Honeymoon workers. 

28/05/2007. ABC News Online

Last Update: Monday, May 28, 2007. 1:00pm (AEST)

An executive of the company planning to mine uranium at Honeymoon,
west of Broken Hill, says it is quite tough finding workers for the
mining industry.

Uranium One's executive vice-president, Greg Cochrane, says people
he has hired have been lost to competitors.

He says the company is talking to the TAFE college and other bodies
in the city to try to get training for some of the work force it
will need.

Mr Cochrane says up to 70 people will be needed for construction and
about 50 full-time staff will be needed for mining.

"We are getting to the point of the development of Honeymoon where
we need to keep ahead of the game as far as employment is
concerned," he said.

"In the first few months the focus is around construction, so people
that have generic construction skills, certainly in the six to nine
months time frame, obviously plant operators, process people and
metallurgists and people who are experienced in the development and
drilling are the sorts of skills we are looking for."

&copy; 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy
AU ABC: Uranium miner struggles to find Honeymoon workers. 

28/05/2007. ABC News Online

Last Update: Monday, May 28, 2007. 1:00pm (AEST)

An executive of the company planning to mine uranium at Honeymoon,
west of Broken Hill, says it is quite tough finding workers for the
mining industry.

Uranium One's executive vice-president, Greg Cochrane, says people
he has hired have been lost to competitors.

He says the company is talking to the TAFE college and other bodies
in the city to try to get training for some of the work force it
will need.

Mr Cochrane says up to 70 people will be needed for construction and
about 50 full-time staff will be needed for mining.

"We are getting to the point of the development of Honeymoon where
we need to keep ahead of the game as far as employment is
concerned," he said.

"In the first few months the focus is around construction, so people
that have generic construction skills, certainly in the six to nine
months time frame, obviously plant operators, process people and
metallurgists and people who are experienced in the development and
drilling are the sorts of skills we are looking for."

&copy; 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 49 AU ABC: Owners made right decision on waste dump - nuclear physicist.

28/05/2007. ABC News Online

One of Australia's leading nuclear physicists says Aboriginal
traditional owners who have agreed for their land to be used as a
national nuclear waste dump have made the right decision.

On Friday a group of Ngapa people gave the Commonwealth permission
to test a pocket of Muckaty Station near Tennant Creek in the
Northern Territory as a possible low and intermediate level dump
site.

Professor George Dracoulis from the Australian National University
was on the task force that reviewed the prospects for an Australian
nuclear power industry.

He has told an APEC energy forum in Darwin that the volume of
nuclear waste is small and relatively safe.

"Really it's a very benign system," he said.

"The low level waste is almost no waste in a sense that it's simply
material glass, for example, for medical work that's probably not
contaminated but just because of procedures you have to put it away.

"So I don't think it's an issue for either radioactivity or any
other burden on society."

*****************************************************************
 50 NewsRoom Finland: Greenpeace activists scale crane at Finnish nuclear site

28.5.2007 at 9:11

Greenpeace environmental activists climbed up a crane at the nuclear
power station building site in Olkiluoto on the west coast of
Finland on Monday morning.

According to Greenpeace spokesman Mikael Sjövall, six activists
climbed up the crane to the height of about 60 meters. Police and
firemen arrived at the scene.

Earlier in the night, eight activists had chained themselves to
barrels brought to the gates of the construction site.

Mr Sjövall said Greenpeace had been protesting against inadequate
security measures at the site.



/STT/

Š Copyright STT 2007


Š 1995  2005, Virtual Finland
Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and
PRN: Northwestern reports 1.0% uranium mineralization on its Niger properties

    TORONTO, May 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Northwestern Mineral Ventures
Inc. (TSX-V: NWT; OTCBB: NWTMF) is pleased to report results from
above-limit rock chip samples, which were collected from outcrops on its
Niger uranium properties. The samples were submitted for re-analysis after
they exceeded the detection limits of uranium tests routinely used to
analyze samples from Niger. Further analysis of these above-limit samples
reveals uranium values of up to 1.0% U(3)O(8).
    "We are extremely excited by these high-grade uranium levels, which are
widely distributed and likely part of a larger mineralized system. Not only
are they the highest values discovered on our Niger properties to date,
they further validate our belief that In Gall and Irhazer host the
structures commonly associated with uranium deposits in Niger," said Marek
J. Kreczmer, President and CEO of Northwestern. "It is also important to
note that producing mines and deposits in Niger typically grade from 0.1%
to 0.42%. We are scheduling an aggressive expansion of our exploration
efforts and look forward to revealing the full potential of our concessions
in Niger."
    Results
    Northwestern has confirmed that its 100%-owned uranium properties in
Niger host high-grade uranium mineralization of up to 1.0% U(3)O(8).
Details of the five samples submitted for re-analysis, which returned
results ranging from 0.22% to 1.0% U(3)O(8), are provided in the table
below:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sample ID                 Target      Scintillometer             U(3)O(8)
                                          Intensity (cps)              XRF %
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ING_A10-001            Target 10                8000                0.30
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ING_A10-002            Target 10,              37000                0.47
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      50 meters west
                      of ING_A10-001               17000                0.29
    ING_A10-003            Target 10,
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      15 meters west
                      of ING_A10-002               26000                0.22
    TNX_002                 Target 9
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TNX_004                 Target 9,                350                1.00
                    500 meters south
                          of TNX_002
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The samples were collected from outcrops during a first-pass
reconnaissance exploration of airborne anomalies covering a large area on
Northwestern's In Gall and Irhazer uranium concessions in Niger.
    In Gall and Irhazer cover 988,000 acres (4,000 square kilometers) of
highly prospective land within the same stratigraphy as two operating
uranium mines that together provide almost 10% of worldwide production.
Niger currently ranks as one of the world's top producers of uranium.
    Quality Assurance
    Fieldwork in Niger is being conducted under the supervision of
Abdelkarim Aksar, P.Geo., Northwestern's Niger Project Manager. Laboratory
analysis was conducted by SGS Lakefield Research Africa by Aqua Regia
Digest followed by ICP-OES. Analysis of all samples is carried out using
Standard Reference Materials and a minimum of 10% of samples are analyzed
in duplicate. Re-analysis was conducted by SGS using borat fusion followed
by x-ray fluorescence. Northwestern and SGS both maintain comprehensive and
independent Quality Control/Quality Assurance programs.
    ABOUT NORTHWESTERN:
    Northwestern Mineral Ventures (http://www.northwestmineral.com


SOURCE Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc.

Copyright Š 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.


*****************************************************************
 51 Hindustan Times: N-deal awaits final push by PM, Bush- 

Burns arrives this week to put talks back on track

May 28, 2007

Nilova Roy Chaudhury

It will take a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
United States President George Bush to provide the final push to the
bilateral 123 Agreement, to operationalise the Indo-US civil nuclear
deal. The two are scheduled to meet in Heiligendamm on the Baltic
coast of Germany on the sidelines of the outreach meeting of the G-8
summit on June 7.

Speaking to HT, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said he
did not think the agreement would be finalised before that. Foreign
Secretary Shivshankar Menon has been talking with US Under Secretary
of State Nicholas Burns to iron out differences on the deal.

âIt is very difficult for us to go out of the framework and
parameters of the agreement reached on July 18, 2005 and the
Separation Plan of March 2, 2006 and the Prime Minister's statement
to the Rajya Sabha,â (on August 17, 2006) he said.

The bilateral 123 Agreement will have to adhere to the PMâs
commitments to Parliament, he said.

The minister explained that the problem areas remain the
reprocessing of spent fuel, assurances of permanent fuel supply, the
right to return (which the United States must invoke, according to
its domestic law) and the ban on India conducting a nuclear test.
âWe have declared a voluntary moratorium on testing,â Mukherjee
said. âThere is no question of agreeing to a binding, legal
obligation.â

While the civil nuclear collaboration is not intended to impact
India's strategic programme, âa lot of scientists feel this deal
will disturb the indigenous programme,â Mukherjee said.

When asked if the deal was in danger of not happening, he said he
did not think so and remained optimistic that it could be done.


Hindustan Times: Right to reprocess spent fuel major snag- 

   Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Manoj Joshi

As New Delhi readies to welcome United States Undersecretary of
State Nicholas Burns on Thursday and resume negotiations on the 123
Agreement to make the Indo-US nuclear deal operational, reprocessing
rights appear to be the principal hurdle. Indiaâs three-stage
nuclear power programme is built around the need to reprocess spent
fuel into plutonium.

A senior official familiar with the negotiations told the Hindustan
Times that while there was agreement on 80-85 per cent of the text
of the draft, a great deal of work remained to be done to finalise
the other issues. He said some genuine problems and âsome
unreasonable demands on both sidesâ were holding up the final
agreement. He, however, exuded optimism saying "Despite all the
problems we will probably cut a deal this time.â

On reprocessing, he said, âWe simply cannot take chances, given
the US record on this issue, and we do need to nail it down because
we cannot sell the deal internally otherwise.â He said on this
there was unanimity between the Ministry of External Affairs and the
Department of Atomic Energy, alluding to the well publicised
differences between the two on some other issues. The official said
this was an area where the US could accommodate India because there
was no US law prohibiting the administration from giving India the
right to reprocess. Citing a precedent, he said the US had allowed
Japan and Euratom (an European consortium) to reprocess spent fuel.

If the US was unreasonable on this, India too was less than helpful
on other issues. For example, âegged on by some domestic elements,
we are demanding the sky in terms of reprocessing and enrichment
technology from the US.â The senior official wondered why India
needed these technologies, when its scientists claim they had
mastered them anyway. India runs reprocessing facilities in Tarapur,
Trombay and Kalpakkam, as well as a small uranium enrichment
facility in Karnataka.

While the US has given the rights to Japan and Europe to enrich
uranium and reprocess plutonium, it has not provided them any
technology license. In fact, under the Hyde Act, India is the only
country that could be entitled to such technologies, if they were
run under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and
dealt with proliferation-resistant technologies.

Indian experts acknowledge that the Indian demand for such
technology hits at the very heart of US concerns that technology
could slip from the civilian part of the Indian programme to the
military one. âThe US is not worried that we will use the
facilities for military purposes, but that we could copy enrichment
and reprocessing technologies for military use,â said one retired
nuclear scientist, adding âafter all we have successfully cloned
and improved on the CANDU Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor in the
past.â

On conducting a nuclear test, the senior official said that there
was no way India could commit itself not to test, âBut this does
not mean that our position will be 'we will test and you will commit
yourself not to react to our test.ââ But, he felt that this was
an issue where a compromise formulation was possible. Another issue
that could be bridged easily was the right of return of US equipment
in the event of the deal being terminated for some reason.

According to another senior Ministry of External Affairs official,
time was now running out on the deal. "President George W. Bush no
longer has the kind of control over the Congress that he had before
we lost critical momentum in 2005 and 2006," he said. Democratic
front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the "killer
amendments" during the vote on the Hyde Act, and Indian official
assessments are that the chances of getting a better deal from any
Democrat successor to Bush are next to zero.

manoj.joshi@hindustantimes.com

*****************************************************************
 52 SCMP: Guangdong Nuclear in Anhui plant deal

BIZCHINA / Center

(South China Morning Post)
Updated: 2007-05-28 11:34

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding, the smaller of the 
nation's two dominant nuclear energy producers, has agreed to 
develop a large plant in Anhui province to meet growing demand 
for clean power in the local market and in Shanghai.

The company said it had signed a framework deal with Shanghai power
and natural gas supplier Shenergy, Anhui Energy Group and Shanghai
Electric Power on the project's construction in Wuhu city.

It did not give details but Anhui Commercial Daily cited Anhui
Energy sources as saying the project would consist of four 1,000
megawatt generators, two in each of two phases of development.

The first phase will be 51 per cent owned by China Guangdong
Nuclear, 20 per cent by Shanghai-listed Shenergy, 15 per cent by
Anhui Energy Group, the parent of Shenzhen-listed power producer
Anhui Wenergy and 14 per cent by Shanghai-listed utility Shanghai
Electric Power.

The project will be part of China's plan to boost its nuclear power
capacity to 40,000 MW by 2020 from 6,850 MW at the end of last year.

The first phase is estimated to cost 23.4 billion yuan and may come
on stream in 2015, according to a preliminary feasibility study by
the Anhui government. This implies a per-MW cost of US$1.5 million,
about three times that of a typical coal-fired plant.

Despite high construction and depreciation expenses, fuel costs at
nuclear plants are much lower, with uranium making up only 10 per
cent of their operating costs compared with 60 per cent for
coal-fired plants.

Half of the power to be generated by the Wuhu plant will be
distributed locally, with the rest going to Shanghai as part of a
programme aimed at transmitting power from energy-rich Anhui
province to the densely populated Shanghai market.

Coal-rich Anhui supplies about 75 per cent of its output to
neighbouring regions. As coal-fired and limited hydropower plants
supply 95 per cent of China's energy needs, the country relies on
nuclear power to stem growing air pollution.


China Guangdong Nuclear has signed a framework agreement to buy
nuclear islands equipment from Hong Kong-listed Shanghai Electric
Group for the proposed plant.

(For more biz stories, please visit Industry Updates)
Illinois Wesleyan: Workshop on the Nuclear War Legacy to be Held for College Professors

IWU Magazine

May 29, 2007

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. &ndash; Illinois Wesleyan University will host its
annual one-week workshop, &ldquo;Hiroshima and Nagasaki for College
Teachers,&rdquo; Monday, June 25 through Friday, June 29 in the
Center for Natural Science Learning and Research (201 Beecher St.,
Bloomington). Guided by Raymond G. Wilson, emeritus associate
professor of physics, the workshop is open to all college professors
interested in teaching a course on nuclear issues. The workshop is
endorsed by the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and by friends of
the workshop.

Now in its fifth year, the workshop provides detailed resources and
planning tools for a course or unit on nuclear war and disarmament
problems. It deals with the social, biological, and physical effects
of nuclear warfare, as experienced by the people of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, by atomic veterans, and by other &ldquo;downwinders&rdquo;
in America and elsewhere. The workshop will also consider &ldquo;a
new way of thinking about achieving and preserving peace.&rdquo; The
Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bomb experience was voted by journalists
to be the &ldquo;story of the century.&rdquo;

Wilson has taught about the effects of nuclear war since 1959, and
has spent eight summers of study in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
workshop is based upon a course he created in 1979, &ldquo;Problems
of Nuclear Disarmament.&rdquo; Since his retirement in 1997, Wilson
has returned every May to teach the course, which, he says,
&ldquo;has become a &lsquo;popular&rsquo; course among
students.&rdquo; He is also associated with the AtomicBombMuseum.org
Web site and is co-director of the online Hiroshima Panorama Project.

There remain a few openings for workshop participants. For more
information, contact Professor Wilson by email at rwilson@iwu.edu or
visit the workshop Web site at
http://titan.iwu.edu/~physics/Hiroshima.html.

Contact: Sherry Wallace, (309) 556-3181

All content and images copyright Š 2005-07 Illinois Wesleyan
University

*****************************************************************
 53 Hanford News: PNNL, UW team up on climate change study

This story was published Monday, May 28th, 2007

Andrew Sirocchi, Herald staff writer

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists will team up 
with the University of Washington to produce an in-depth view of 
localized environmental and economic impacts of climate change on 
specific regions around the state.

The state granted PNNL and the university $1.5 million to 
undertake the study, which is expected to start in July and 
should be completed within 18 to 24 months.

"If you're going to cope with climate change, you really have to go
to the local level," said Ruby Leung, a climate physics scientist
and a leader in regional climate modeling for PNNL. "Different areas
will definitely experience different changes, even on the east side
or the west side (of the state.)"

Leung said PNNL's contribution to the study will be to provide the
detailed projections that show how more than a dozen regions
throughout the state will be affected by higher average
temperatures, more rain and less snow - all expected impacts of the
changing climate.

The University of Washington will look a sea level rise, and the
impact on crops, agriculture and water resources.

PNNL scientist Michael Scott will join Leung in her work to detail
the economic impacts that climate change may have on different
sectors of the economy.

Scott, who has worked on climate issues for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, already has done work to examine potential
impacts of climate change on salmon, agriculture, fire danger and
how human settlements in the Northwest affect energy production.

The objective of the study, Scott said, is not to produce a
cost-benefit analysis of climate change that shows potential
money-making opportunities versus expected losses throughout the
economy.

The unpredictable nature of the Northwest's weather patterns have
made it difficult for scientists to distinguish the impacts of
climate change from normal variability.

But PNNL scientists have been working for more than 20 years to
filter out the "noise" from the signals that indicate the region is
getting warmer.

One of the largest impacts so far have been in mountain areas where
temperatures already are close to being too high to prevent snow
from melting. In the future, scientists project another 40 percent
reduction in snowpack.

While climate change isn't expected to affect the amount of
precipitation the region gets, Leung and other scientists say it
will change the type and timing of the precipitation.

So, instead of having a large snowpack that will melt slowly as the
seasons change, Leung said the region is more likely to get rain
that will flow away into the ocean and can't be stored for other
uses.

The effects of those types of changes will differ throughout
Washington and the Northwest.

Colder regions, such as Montana, may not feel the impacts of a
warmer climate as much as Western Washington because snow still will
form.

But in Eastern Washington, where so much depends on the storage of
water during the dry summer months, Leung said the potential impacts
are large.

"It's true there's not much we can do to affect the next 20 to 50
years," she said.

"But don't give up hope. If we don't do anything now, imagine what
the second half of the century will be like."

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
KnoxNews: ORNL processing spent fuel

Work part of controversial Bush strategy to promote worldwide
nuclear revival

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
May 28, 2007

OAK RIDGE - A pilot project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory will 
process highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear reactors, 
fabricate pellets of recycled fuel, and test the technologies 
considered essential to the Bush administration's plan to expand 
the use of nuclear energy.

Work is under way on a small scale, using old fuel already in 
storage at ORNL. The workload is supposed to grow substantially 
in coming months as the lab receives fuel rods from other 
sources.

Overall, the tech demonstration is supposed to last three years,
cost about $60 million and involve about 50 kilograms of spent
nuclear fuel.

Processing of the radioactive material takes place in the
laboratory's unique collection of "hot cells" - enclosures that are
shielded with lead glass and concrete walls that are 4 1/2 feet
thick. The cells are equipped with manipulators to perform tasks
remotely so that operators are not exposed to high radiation levels.

The work is part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Bush
strategy that has fed a fever for nuclear revival in the United
States and abroad but also drawn controversy and concern. A
congressional subcommittee last week marked down the
administration's 2008 funding request for GNEP, and critics have
suggested that the entire effort is misguided and could exacerbate
the nation's waste problems and add to proliferation concerns - just
the opposite of the stated goals.

There is a sense of urgency at ORNL, where some activities started
within weeks of the first funds from the Department of Energy. Lab
officials acknowledged that they're under pressure to succeed.

"We're feeling it," said Jeff Binder, a 43-year-old nuclear engineer
who is the project manager.

If the Oak Ridge team, with the assistance of other labs around the
country, can't demonstrate the fuel-reprocessing technologies on a
small scale, it doesn't bode well for the strategy as a whole.

Stakes are high, but so is the excitement level among those working
on the project.

"I've been in the nuclear business for about 20 years, and this is
probably the most exciting thing to happen," Binder said. "I see
this as a part of the whole picture of a nuclear renaissance. I
believe if new plants are going to be ordered, the spent fuel issue
has to be resolved, and we need to begin. This is the research and
development. It's exactly what we need to be doing."

The premise of GNEP is to work with other nations to use nuclear
power to meet growing energy demand in an environmentally
sustainable manner.

It proposes to develop and share technologies that can safely
recycle spent fuel from reactors and provide a reliable energy
supply - while reducing the availability of weapons-usable
plutonium. The program also would develop and deploy advanced
reactors to burn up some of the nastier parts of the recycled fuel
and make nuclear waste less hazardous over the long term.

Binder said ORNL's "end-to-end" demonstration is designed to test a
whole range of techniques needed for the work - everything from
chopping up the fuel rods and analyzing their isotopic contents to
chemically dissolving the fuel and separating the various
radioactive elements.

Operators will use a small furnace to heat some of the fuel, a
process known as "voloxidation," which converts the material to an
oxide. They will fabricate fuel pellets and reactor targets from
some of the separated materials.

Bob Alvarez, a former Energy Department official during the Clinton
administration, released a report this month that said the GNEP plan
isn't credible and could create a financial burden on the nation, as
well as new safety risks.

The urgency of the research effort at Oak Ridge is symptomatic of
the problem, he said.

"It's clear to me they're trying to push this program as fast as
they can because they realize politically that time is running
against them," Alvarez said in a telephone interview from his
Maryland home.

Both of the ORNL hot-cell facilities to be used for the project were
built in the 1960s, and Alvarez questioned whether they're
adequately equipped to deal with all the potential hazards.

Tim Powers, director of the lab's nonreactor nuclear programs, said
he is totally confident in the operations. "Everything is shielded
and well ventilated," he said. "We can do it very safely. I'm
looking forward to it."

Binder said waste disposal following the GNEP demonstration would
not be a significant issue, because nearly all products will be
retained and shared with other labs for further research and
analysis.

Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight
Committee, which reviews environmental issues for local governments,
said she was aware of the project but not in detail.

"I guess they know what they're doing," Gawarecki said. "I don't
have any objection to it. It's high-hazard stuff, and I suspect
their systems are robust enough to deal with those materials and
those wastes."

Binder said the lab has about $12 million in project funding this
year, which includes $2.9 million for capital improvements at the
nuclear facilities.

The spent fuel coming to ORNL will arrive at the Irradiated Fuel
Examination Laboratory on the lab's main campus, where it will be
chopped up or "segmented" and fully characterized. The voloxidation
also will be done there.

The chemical dissolution and extraction of materials will be done in
hot cells at the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, which
is a few miles away in a complex adjacent to the High Flux Isotope
Reactor.

Binder said Oak Ridge is collaborating with a number of other
research labs, including Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico and Argonne National Laboratory in
Illinois.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.


 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 54 Illinois Wesleyan: Workshop on the Nuclear War Legacy to be Held for College Professors

IWU Magazine

May 29, 2007

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. &ndash; Illinois Wesleyan University will host its
annual one-week workshop, &ldquo;Hiroshima and Nagasaki for College
Teachers,&rdquo; Monday, June 25 through Friday, June 29 in the
Center for Natural Science Learning and Research (201 Beecher St.,
Bloomington). Guided by Raymond G. Wilson, emeritus associate
professor of physics, the workshop is open to all college professors
interested in teaching a course on nuclear issues. The workshop is
endorsed by the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and by friends of
the workshop.

Now in its fifth year, the workshop provides detailed resources and
planning tools for a course or unit on nuclear war and disarmament
problems. It deals with the social, biological, and physical effects
of nuclear warfare, as experienced by the people of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, by atomic veterans, and by other &ldquo;downwinders&rdquo;
in America and elsewhere. The workshop will also consider &ldquo;a
new way of thinking about achieving and preserving peace.&rdquo; The
Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bomb experience was voted by journalists
to be the &ldquo;story of the century.&rdquo;

Wilson has taught about the effects of nuclear war since 1959, and
has spent eight summers of study in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
workshop is based upon a course he created in 1979, &ldquo;Problems
of Nuclear Disarmament.&rdquo; Since his retirement in 1997, Wilson
has returned every May to teach the course, which, he says,
&ldquo;has become a &lsquo;popular&rsquo; course among
students.&rdquo; He is also associated with the AtomicBombMuseum.org
Web site and is co-director of the online Hiroshima Panorama Project.

There remain a few openings for workshop participants. For more
information, contact Professor Wilson by email at rwilson@iwu.edu or
visit the workshop Web site at
http://titan.iwu.edu/~physics/Hiroshima.html.

Contact: Sherry Wallace, (309) 556-3181

All content and images copyright Š 2005-07 Illinois Wesleyan
University

Santa Fe New Mexican: New Los Alamos plutonium lab on hold

Tue May 29, 2007 8:42 pm
 
Sen. Pete Domenici says project is "absolutely necessary."

By ASSOCIATED PRESS


LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) _ The federal government has put the brakes on
a proposed billion-dollar Los Alamos plutonium lab due to concerns
over rising cost estimates and congressional skepticism.

In the last year, preliminary cost estimates on the project have
jumped from $837 million to as much as $1.5 billion, National
Nuclear Security Administration chief Thomas D'Agostino told members
of Congress in a recent hearing.

There also is skepticism about how the project fits into the NNSA's
longer range plans for maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile _
plans that could render the project obsolete a decade after it is
completed.

The federal government had hoped to begin construction next year.
D'Agostino said his agency now is reviewing its options.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he will continue to push for the
project, calling it "absolutely necessary."

"It is needed to support the ongoing plutonium mission," he said.

For D'Agostino and the U.S. nuclear weapons establishment, decisions
about whether to proceed with the nuclear lab are tied up in a
complex debate now under way in Washington about what the future
U.S. arsenal will look like, and how to build and manage it.

The Bush administration is pushing for development of a new Reliable
Replacement Warhead, and a national nuclear production complex to
produce it. The complex would include a "consolidated plutonium
center" _ a single factor and lab site that would take over much of
the plutonium work now done at Los Alamos.

The big new Los Alamos plutonium lab would serve as a bridge to
handle the workload until the consolidated plutonium center is built.

In a report last year, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, called building
the Los Alamos lab only to replace it within a decade "irrational."

Deputy NNSA chief Marty Schoenbauer said the agency has gotten the
message that Congress might be unwilling to fund both the lab and
the factory-lab complex soon after.

| Š2007, Santa Fe New Mexican
*****************************************************************
 55 UPI: India's NTPC seeks help for project

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: May 29, 2007 at 1:33 PM

NEW DELHI, May 29 (UPI) -- India's state-run National Thermal Power
Corp. asked the government to intervene on the change of site for
its 500 megawatt power plant in Sri Lanka.

NTPC's coal-based power project is in Trincomalee district,
territory formerly dominated by Sri Lanka's rebel Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam.

The company earlier expressed reservations because the Sri Lankan
government offered NTPC a chance to set up the plant in the
district's Sampur area, which was recently evacuated by the LTTE. In
a letter to the Indian foreign ministry, NTPC said it was not
possible to accept the new proposal. It said the new site was
accessible only by boat and would require large-scale infrastructure
investments.

"The foreign affairs ministry's view is sought on whether or not the
company should go ahead with the development of the project at the
new site," said an NTPC statement.

The Indian Foreign Ministry said the Sri Lankan administration has
assured India and the NTPC it will provide all infrastructure
facilities for the project.

Under an agreement signed between NTPC and Sri Lanka's Ceylon
Electricity Board last year, the coal-based thermal power plant was
to be set up in Trincomalee district.

Š Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Albuquerque Tribune: Plutonium lab plan put in cold storage 

Staff and wire Tuesday, May 29, 2007

LOS ALAMOS ? The federal government has put the brakes on a proposed
billion-dollar Los Alamos plutonium lab.

Preliminary estimates have jumped from $837 million to as much as
$1.5 billion, National Nuclear Security Administration officials
told Congress recently.

There also is skepticism about whether the project may be obsolete
if plans for the U.S. nuclear stockpile change.

The federal government had hoped to begin construction next year.
The agency is now is reviewing its options, chief Thomas D'Agostino
says.

This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are
the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Readers will be
banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an
invasion of privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement.

Š 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune
*****************************************************************
 56 AFP: Russia tests missile able to 'penetrate' defences - 

Tue May 29, 1:15 PM

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia on Tuesday said it had successfully tested 
a new multiple warhead ballistic missile designed to overcome 
air-defence systems such as the US shield planned for deployment 
in central Europe.

Fired from the north-eastern Arkhangelsk region, the RS-24 rocket
hit its target on the Kamchatka Peninsula that juts into the Pacific
Ocean 6,000 kilometres away, the country's strategic missile forces
said in a statement.


"The RS-24 reinforces the military potential of the strategic forces
to overcome anti-missile defence systems," the statement said.


The test comes as Russia is locked in a diplomatic battle over US
plans to expand a missile defence shield into central Europe, a move
Moscow portrays as an attempt to tip the nuclear balance in
Washington's favour.


First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a former defence minister
and widely seen as a potential successor to President Vladimir Putin
in 2008, said the RS-24 could overcome any such anti-missile system.


"These complexes are capable of penetrating all existing and
perspective anti-missile systems. So from the point of view of
defence and security, Russians can look at the future calmly," he
was quoted as saying by Interfax.


The United States says the planned radar base in the Czech Republic
and 10 interceptor missiles in neighbouring Poland would defend
Europe against potential threats from Iran and North Korea, while
posing no threat to Russia.


However, President Vladimir Putin announced Moscow was freezing
compliance with a European conventional weapons control treaty and
has warned that a new arms race is possible.


The missile forces statement said the new rocket meets the standards
of START-II missile treaties, which impose restrictions on the use
of multiple warhead missiles.


"It is a genuine new missile but it uses technologies of the
Topol-M," missile, a spokesman for the strategic forces told AFP.


Unlike the Topol-M, the prototype RS-24 rocket is equipped with
multiple independently targetable warheads to overwhelm defence
systems, the statement said.


The ministry of defence refused, however, to reveal the
characteristics of the new missile other than saying it was designed
to replace the Soviet-era RS-18 and RS-20 rockets.


Ivan Safranchuk, director in Moscow Centre for Defence Information,
described the RS-24 as "a significant modernization of Topol-M."


"The main advantage is that this is a Russian rocket. The other
multiple warhead missiles that Russia were built in Ukraine. Before,
there was no Russian-built multiple warhead missiles."


Military analyst Alexander Golts said the test was part of a massive
push by the Russian government to catch up with the United States'
strategic missile forces.


"The main military political aim of the current Russian leadership
is to regain parity with the United States," he said.


Copyright Š 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
Tri-City Herald: Umatilla depot commander leaving post with rockets destroyed

Published Monday, May 28th, 2007

By Jeannine Koranda, Herald Oregon Bureau

HERMISTON -- Lt. Col. Donna Rutten has no problem picking her
proudest moment during her time in charge of the Umatilla Chemical
Depot -- the day the final shipment of GB sarin-filled M55 rockets
were delivered to the incinerator.

"I'm so happy with the rockets because that is where the risk was,"
she said.

For the past two years, Rutten has commanded the Army depot near
Hermiston. On July 12, her successor, Lt. Col. Robert Stein, will
take over.

When Rutten took command, the depot and its incinerator had been
destroying sarin-filled rockets for almost a year. With the end of
her time in Hermiston approaching, she could oversee the Oregon
site's final shipment of the sarin-filled projectiles.

But not even that will top getting rid of the rockets, she said.
That's because one exploding rocket could potentially detonate
several others, sending a vapor cloud of sarin into the air and
those were the most dangerous to the community, she said.

During her tenure, about 3,368 steel reinforced shipping containers
have ferried sarin-filled munitions to the site's incinerator where
the weapons are drained and burned. About 155 shipments remain until
all the sarin-filled weapons are out of their protective storage
bunkers.

"It could be right down to the wire," she said.

The depot command change-over is a biannual event and has not
influenced the processing or shipping schedule, said Bruce
Henrickson, depot spokesman.

In her final months, Rutten has been focused on preparing the depot
staff and surrounding community for the next part of the campaign --
VX nerve agent.

Both sarin and VX attack the central nervous system and are
potentially deadly but they are slightly different. GB sarin
evaporates at the same rate as water so it can spread quickly in a
vapor cloud, Rutten said.

VX is more like a thick oil with very little vapor, she said. It is
more deadly if it comes in contact with the skin.

Rutten has started talking to emergency responders near the depot
about the differences they can expect with the new agent.

She hopes her successor will continue a similar dialogue.

"It is important to keep communication open with the leaders of the
communities," she said.

When Rutten leaves Hermiston, she will be moving to a staff position
at U.S. Northern Command in Colorado Springs which monitors threats
in Alaska, Canada, Mexico and the continental United States.

Her successor, Stein, graduated from Washington and Jefferson
College in Washington, Pa., in 1988 and entered the Army. Since
2005, he has been serving in the Republic of Korea as the U.S.
Forces Korea/Combined Forces Command chemical officer.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 57 PRN: Westinghouse Submits NRC Application to Revise AP1000 Design

    PITTSBURGH, May 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Westinghouse Electric Company has
formally submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an
application to revise its AP1000 certified design.
    Revision 16 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) includes
modifications to the design that will aid in reducing the cost, schedule
and risks for U.S. utilities that plan to apply for combined construction
and operating license (COL) applications with the NRC later this year.
Additionally, the revision will contribute to increased standardization of
the AP1000, making the NRC's review of AP1000 combined COL applications
more efficient.
    "The revision includes design changes to the AP1000 requested by our
customers and developed by Westinghouse as part of design finalization,"
said Ed Cummins, vice president, Regulatory Affairs and Standardization,
Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plants. "We're happy to be working with our
customers through NuStart to bring the AP1000 to design finalization and,
ultimately, closer to new nuclear build."
    Revision 16 of the AP1000 DCD also incorporates measures to enhance
security and aircraft crash resistance, and addresses approximately 40
percent of the 166 COL information items that were included in the AP1000
Design Certification issued by the NRC in December 2005. The remaining COL
information items, mostly related to site-specific issues, will be
addressed by utilities when submitting COL applications to the NRC.
    For more information about the Westinghouse AP1000, visit
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/index.shtm. For AP1000 images,
visit http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/News_Room/image_gallery.shtm. To
download an AP1000 brochure, visit
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/News_Room/publications_video.shtm


SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company

Copyright Š 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved.
A United Business Media company.
KFDA: Strike Over for Pantex Guards

NewsChannel 10 / Amarillo, TX: newschannel10.com - 

Frank White, PGU President

Pantex guards are preparing to get back to work now that they've
agreed on a 5 year contract from the company.

Within the last few hours hundreds of PGU members met at the
Ambassador Hotel in hopes of ending their strike, and with an
overwhelming majority vote that is exactly what they did.

They say Pantex is now offering them the seniority rights and other
benefits they originally hit the picket line for back in mid-April.

Although they had hoped it wouldn't take this long they say the
strike was worth it.

The union hopes all the guards will be back at work on Monday.

They are in the process right now of packing up their strike
headquarters outside the plant.

Pantex Official Statement

Earlier today, the Pantex Guards Union (PGU) voted to ratify a new
five-year labor agreement proposed by BWXT Pantex for work at the
Pantex Plant. The PGU represents approximately 500 Security Police
Officers at the site.



BWXT Pantex is pleased that the PGU membership voted to accept the
company's proposal that recognizes our Security Police Officers'
important contributions to national security. Among many other
provisions, the agreement contains increases in wages and employee
cost sharing for medical insurance.



The company will immediately implement a transition plan for
returning the Security Police Officers to work as soon as possible.
The contingency security force that has been protecting the site
will remain in place until the company's Security Police Officers
return to work.


 All content Š Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KFDA. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 News & Star: Nuclear firm tests beaches

Published on 28/05/2007

BEACHES between Ravenglass and St Bees are set to be monitored by
the British Nuclear Group after the Environment Agency placed a
statutory requirement on the company.

The work, which will be carried out by NUKEM on behalf of
Sellafield, will take place during daylight hours depending on the
tides.

Any material detected will be retrieved and delivered to Sellafield
for analysis.

The first phase of work was due to start on May 21, from St Bees to
Seamill.

It restarted at Ehen Spit on Saturday and will continue there until
June 3, before continuing at Seascale North from June 4 until June 9.

The rest of the work will be carried out after the school summer
holidays and it is due to be completed next March.

Local parish councils have been briefed about the work and are set
to receive notification before the monitoring starts.

Sellafield officials claim the beaches will remain safe to use
throughout the monitoring, which will be carried out using
vehicle-mounted equipment.

Hanford News: PNNL, UW team up on climate change study

This story was published Monday, May 28th, 2007

Andrew Sirocchi, Herald staff writer

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists will team up 
with the University of Washington to produce an in-depth view of 
localized environmental and economic impacts of climate change on 
specific regions around the state.

The state granted PNNL and the university $1.5 million to 
undertake the study, which is expected to start in July and 
should be completed within 18 to 24 months.

"If you're going to cope with climate change, you really have to go
to the local level," said Ruby Leung, a climate physics scientist
and a leader in regional climate modeling for PNNL. "Different areas
will definitely experience different changes, even on the east side
or the west side (of the state.)"

Leung said PNNL's contribution to the study will be to provide the
detailed projections that show how more than a dozen regions
throughout the state will be affected by higher average
temperatures, more rain and less snow - all expected impacts of the
changing climate.

The University of Washington will look a sea level rise, and the
impact on crops, agriculture and water resources.

PNNL scientist Michael Scott will join Leung in her work to detail
the economic impacts that climate change may have on different
sectors of the economy.

Scott, who has worked on climate issues for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, already has done work to examine potential
impacts of climate change on salmon, agriculture, fire danger and
how human settlements in the Northwest affect energy production.

The objective of the study, Scott said, is not to produce a
cost-benefit analysis of climate change that shows potential
money-making opportunities versus expected losses throughout the
economy.

The unpredictable nature of the Northwest's weather patterns have
made it difficult for scientists to distinguish the impacts of
climate change from normal variability.

But PNNL scientists have been working for more than 20 years to
filter out the "noise" from the signals that indicate the region is
getting warmer.

One of the largest impacts so far have been in mountain areas where
temperatures already are close to being too high to prevent snow
from melting. In the future, scientists project another 40 percent
reduction in snowpack.

While climate change isn't expected to affect the amount of
precipitation the region gets, Leung and other scientists say it
will change the type and timing of the precipitation.

So, instead of having a large snowpack that will melt slowly as the
seasons change, Leung said the region is more likely to get rain
that will flow away into the ocean and can't be stored for other
uses.

The effects of those types of changes will differ throughout
Washington and the Northwest.

Colder regions, such as Montana, may not feel the impacts of a
warmer climate as much as Western Washington because snow still will
form.

But in Eastern Washington, where so much depends on the storage of
water during the dry summer months, Leung said the potential impacts
are large.

"It's true there's not much we can do to affect the next 20 to 50
years," she said.

"But don't give up hope. If we don't do anything now, imagine what
the second half of the century will be like."

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 Hanford News: Top officials to negotiate Hanford cleanup guidelines

This story was published Saturday, May 26th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

Key federal and Washington state officials will meet Wednesday in 
Richland to negotiate possible changes to the Tri-Party Agreement 
amid the state's growing concern over missed legal deadlines for 
cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation.

The Department of Energy will be represented by James Rispoli, 
DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, and Inés 
Triay, the chief operating officer for DOE's environmental 
management program.

The state is sending Jay Manning, director of the Washington State
Department of Ecology, and Rob McKenna, the Washington state
attorney general, to the negotiating table.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which is a Hanford regulator
along with the state, will be represented by Elin Miller, EPA
regional administrator.

The conference is planned to allow officials with decision-making
authority to meet face to face and directly negotiate changes to the
Tri-Party Agreement.

The Tri-Party Agreement deadlines are often adjusted, but usually
for short amounts of times to allow more information to be gathered
or for technical reasons. DOE is expected to have to agree to new
requirements or do some additional work to offset current cleanup
delays.

The state announced in early April that it would enter into
high-level negotiations with DOE over missed deadlines rather than
moving toward legal action. However, if negotiations fail, it is
reserving the option of going to court.

Among the state's concerns is the delay in constructing the $12.2
billion vitrification plan to treat some of Hanford's worst wastes.
The plant may not open until 2019, eight years past a legal deadline.

It also is concerned about other deadlines, some missed and some
that may be missed without more aggressive action and higher
budgets. DOE is behind schedule on emptying leak-prone underground
tanks of radioactive waste and on testing bulk vitrification as a
technology to supplement waste treatment at the main vitrification
plant.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 Hanford News: Bulk vit test under way to resolve issues

This story was published Saturday, May 26th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

The bulk vitrification test plant started up this week in the 
first of two final runs planned to resolve issues before a pilot 
plant treating radioactive waste might be built.

Two issues remain that the Department of Energy believes could be 
resolved this summer:

- DOE needs to show that the components of a pilot plant would work
together after testing them separately.

- It also needs to show it has solved the problem of molten ionic
salts carrying radioactive technetium 99, and allowing it to leak
out of what's supposed to be a solid block of glass incorporating
the radioactive waste after it hardens.

Bulk vitrification is being considered as a technology to supplement
work of the $12.2 billion vitrification plant under construction in
central Hanford. The main vitrification plant would treat all of the
high-level radioactive waste now being stored in underground tanks
at Hanford. But it was never planned to be large enough to treat all
the low-activity radioactive waste by legal deadlines.

Either a supplemental technology such as bulk vitrification must be
used, or the main vitrification plant will need to be expanded to
treat as much as 25 million gallons of the total 53 million gallons
of tank waste. The waste is left from separating plutonium from
irradiated fuel to use in the nation's nuclear weapons program.

Bulk vitrification would make blocks of waste-containing glass the
size of land-sea shipping containers instead of the smaller glass
logs produced by the main vitrification plant. In bulk
vitrification, waste and glass-forming materials would be heated
with electrodes inside a 24-foot-long metal box to 2,400 degrees,
leaving a glass box that would be buried - container, electrodes and
all.

It's been proposed as a more economical way of treating the waste.

To make sure it works, a pilot plant must be built at Hanford to
practice treating radioactive waste. Construction of the concrete
pads for the project started on the plant in early 2005, but then
work stopped amid technical questions about the project and a
concern that the design should be completed before the test plant
was built. Cost estimates of the project also were starting to rise.

In the meantime, tests are being conducted with a nonradioactive
surrogate for the waste at a test site just off the Hanford nuclear
reservation.

An independent review of the bulk vitrification pilot plant
completed in October found no fatal flaws. But it identified 19
technical issues that needed to be resolved to make sure it would
operate effectively and produce good data for a decision on whether
to use bulk vitrification on a large scale.

Some of the issues were operational improvements that could be fixed
by changes to parts of the design, such as the treatment system for
off gases and the system to transfer dried waste to the box to be
melted.

"We've identified improvements and completed the conceptual design
on the improvements," said Ben Harp, DOE project director. The final
design is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2008.

Contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group and subcontractor AMEC have
tackled another of the problems, the leak of radioactive technetium
99. They have been able to eliminate leaks in small-scale tests with
a change in materials. At high temperatures, molten ionic salts flow
easily and carry the technetium into a refractory that surrounds the
waste box forming the glass box.

CH2M Hill had planned to use Hanford soil to mix with the waste to
melt into glass. But it's had better luck using a commercial
glass-forming material with cellulose that provides more surface
area to bind waste materials.

The project also needs to show that all parts of the pilot plant
work well together. In a three-week test that started this week,
CH2M Hill is demonstrating the operation of a mixer-dryer that would
be moved to Hanford for the pilot plant there.

In technology used in the drug and food processing industry, it uses
heat from steam to boil off water from waste, said J.R. Biggs, AMEC
operations manager. Then it's mixed with the glass former to make
small pellets to be transferred to the melt box.

In June, the off-Hanford test plant should have what's hoped to be
its final run to prove that the technetium can be contained in the
glass and that all parts of the system work together. That includes
the mixer-dryer, the feed system to the melt box and the melt box.
It will also test the off-gas system.

In 2002, when the project was little more than a concept, the
preliminary cost estimate was $45 million. But now the estimated
cost of building and operating the pilot plant is around $224
million, a number that is still being validated.

Congress gave the project $3 million this year after the Bush
administration requested no money for the project. That's been
combined with savings in other CH2M Hill projects to come up with
$11.3 million this year.

If CH2M Hill gets construction approval for the pilot plant in March
2008, it would need funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget for
construction. That would allow the pilot play to operate in 2010.

The Tri-Party Agreement called for having the pilot plant built and
operating in time to assess whether bulk vitrification should be
used as a supplemental technology in June 2006. No construction
funding until 2009 will push out the decision on whether to expand
the main vit plant or use a supplemental technology to treat about
25 million gallons of low activity radioactive waste four or five
years.

"Sooner is better," said Laura Cusack, section manager of tank waste
treatment for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

The state would like construction to be included in the 2008 budget
if the tests this summer are successful. It is concerned that if
proving the concept at the test pilot takes longer than expected or
the process doesn't work, DOE is running out of time to go ahead
with the expansion of the main vitrification plant.

Ground would need to be broken in 2012 on a second low activity
waste facility at the vitrification plant to have it operating with
the rest of the plant in 2019.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 61 Hanford News: Audit criticizes layoff bonuses for nuclear workers

This story was published Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

Voluntary layoffs at the Department of Energy's Idaho Cleanup 
Project were "exceptionally costly and, in certain respects, 
inefficient," according to an audit by the DOE's Office of 
Inspector General.

The audit recommended DOE adopt a consistent approach to work 
force restructuring at all of its nuclear cleanup sites.

After CH2M Washington Group Idaho took over management and operation
of cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory in 2005, 291 employees
took voluntary layoffs at a cost to the government of $14 million,
the audit said.

The program offered an average of $35,000 per worker in supplemental
voluntary separation payments that were in addition to traditional
layoff benefits to bring the average payment to $48,900.

About $10 million of the $14 million cost was for the incentive
payments.

In contrast, 397 Hanford workers lost their jobs in involuntary
layoffs in 2005 without an incentive program that offered the
additional benefit, the audit said. Traditionally, Hanford workers
receive a week's pay for each year worked for up to 20 years and
some health insurance benefits.

The audit also looked at two other voluntary layoff programs in
recent years in the DOE complex for comparison.

A voluntary reduction of 193 workers at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., site
increased severance benefits by 50 percent for volunteers for an
average incentive of $12,800 per employee. At the Carlsbad Field
Office in New Mexico, a bonus of $5,000 was paid to employees
volunteering for layoffs in 2004.

The Idaho layoffs were supposed to be for workers with skills no
longer needed at the site. But the audit found that within six
months of the voluntary layoffs 44 of the positions, or 15 percent
of them, had been filled again.

The audit estimated $2 million was spent on bonuses for employees
whose jobs were filled after they left.

DOE responded to the audit, saying it did not take into account
local circumstances such as site labor agreements and available
funding. It estimated the net savings of the layoffs over the life
of the contract to be $143 million.

It also questioned whether the audit had accurately matched
positions cut to new hires when it said positions had been filled
again. The inspector general's office responded that its analysis
had been conservative.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************