***************************************************************** 07/05/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.156 ***************************************************************** 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 New Iaea Report Outlines Plans For Monitoring Nuclear Facility In Dp 2 US: [NYTr] Obama's Nuclear Ambitions 3 Guardian Unlimited: Senate threatens Bush missile plan 4 BBC NEWS: Russia issues new missile threat 5 YONHAP NEWS: U.S. erred not following up HEU discussions with N. Kor 6 AFP: Fresh protests in India over docked US carrier 7 Comment is free: The Kennebunkport fallout 8 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Predicts Progress in US Relations 9 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report 10 RIA Novosti: Japan first female defense chief sworn in, vows to rest 11 Daily Times: Pakistan and India should resolve issues through dialog 12 Jakarta Post: PDI-P, court hold 3-day workshop on state affairs 13 Japan Times: Thoughtless nuclear-bomb remarks 14 UPI: Japan's new minister sees new threats 15 UPI: Analysis: Interpreting nukes in Japan 16 Japan Times: Koike takes defense helm, condemns '45 A-bombings 17 Japan Times: Kyuma incident rekindles A-bomb debate 18 AFP: Russia threatens European rocket deployment - 19 asahi.com: EDITORIAL: Kyuma's resignation - 20 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Vows Missile-Defense Response NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 [NYTr] Nuke Power a Pipe Dream: Report; 22 US: Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report 23 Platts: Tokyo Electric idles 1.10 GW Kashiwazaki nuclear unit 24 Platts: UK PM Gordon Brown reaffirms call for new nuclear build 25 US: OS: Special Briefing on Cooperation in Nuclear Energy and Nuclea 26 US: YubaNet.com: Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Civil Nuclear Powe 27 US: Journal News: Indian Point siren test in Putnam not so silent 28 Bangkok Post: Nuclear plants must wait for changes to law 29 Financial Express: Nuclear deal talks nearing the end 30 AFP: Activists demand full details of German nuclear plant fire - 31 globeandmail.com: Ontario powers up nuclear ad campaign 32 Prague Daily Monitor: Czech mayors against research preceding nuclea 33 Hemscott: UK government approves four nuclear plant design pre-licen 34 Hemscott: Brown says UK energy supply would be 'safeguarded' by new 35 ITAR-TASS: Rosatom hails Russia-US document to push peaceful n-energ 36 ITAR-TASS: Lithuanian president signs law on nuclear power plant con 37 Deccan Herald: N-deal almost final - US 38 US: ajc.com: Doomsday backlash: Georgia Power slams nuclear report 39 PR Web: Nuclear Energy Back on Agenda as Sustainability Forces Reapp 40 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Atomic Safety in Germany: Reactor Affected in Nuclea 41 Hindustan Times: India to join ITER to boost nuclear fusion technolo 42 WNN: UK considers uranium and plutonium stocks 43 Guardian Unlimited: Australia, US Concerned by Chinese Power NUCLEAR SECURITY 44 edmontonsun.com: Lost radioactive gear poses threat 45 ITAR-TASS: Russia rules out nuke fuel may fall into wrong hands NUCLEAR SAFETY 46 US: SPI: Radiation from health scans causes concern 47 Massey News: British MPs acknowledge nuclear test veterans report NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 US: Tennessean: Radiation levels in landfill raise group's concern - 49 Brattleboro Reformer: Duration of spent fuel storage at VY depends o 50 US: Murfreesboro Post: State officials: Landfill safe 51 Ely Times: Water fight at Yucca Mtn. 52 News & Star: Sellafield safety rows cost me job PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 Hanford News: Report says workers exposed to radioactive materials i 54 Inside Bay Area: Congress members lobby for lab workers 55 Inside Bay Area: Compensation for nuclear workers lost in red tape 56 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL's Fischer accepts Battelle position 57 lamonitor.com: Task force effort results in drug arrest 58 Oak Ridger: Hiroshima fallout expert visits Cytogenetic Lab - 59 Oak Ridger: ORNL wins six R&D 100 Awards, pushing total to 134 - 60 LocalNews8.com: Spark from unknown source blamed for flash fire in l ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 New Iaea Report Outlines Plans For Monitoring Nuclear Facility In Dpr Korea Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:00:25 -0400 New York, Jul 4 2007 10:00PM The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which recently sent a team of experts to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), has released a report on its future activities in the country, which has been under United Nations sanctions since last year when it claimed to have conducted a nuclear test. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's report, circulated Monday, is restricted, but the Agency said in a news release that it "outlines agreed arrangements for monitoring and verification by the IAEA of the shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility and the reactor under construction in Taechon, that were reached between the IAEA team and the DPRK during their visit last week." The team, led by Olli Heinonen, Deputy Director General for Safeguards, was in the country from 26 to 29 June. DPRK ordered IAEA inspectors out at the end of 2003 and formally withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- including the pact's inspections and other safeguards against fuel diversion from energy generation to weapons production. Mr. ElBaradei visited DRPK in March to discuss plans for the country to get rid of nuclear weapons in what he called "the first step in a long process" toward normalizing relations with the country. The IAEA's 35-member Board will consider the report at its next meeting on 9 July in Vienna, according to the news release. 2007-07-04 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Obama's Nuclear Ambitions Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:57:25 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Counterpunch - Jul 4, 2007 http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07042007.html Barack Obama's NuclearbAmbitions Another Automaton of the Atomic Lobby By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR and JOSHUA FRANK It is fast becoming one of the most important issues of the 2008 presidential campaign. Oil prices are expected to rise to even higher levels as the United States dependence on foreign crude is becoming increasingly unstable. And the perceived threat of global warming is making even the most skeptical of politicians nervous. The future of planet Earth, they claim, is more perilous than ever. Al Gore has made an impact. But the Gore effect is like a bad hangover: all headache no buzz. The purported solution to the imminent warming crisis, nuclear technology, is just as hazardous as our current methods of energy procurement. Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's most problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs. And, of course, Bill Clinton backed the Entergy Corporation's outrageous plan to soak Arkansas ratepayers with the cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana. The Clinton years indeed saw an all-out expansion of nuclear power, not only in the US, but all over the globe. First came the deal to begin selling nuclear reactors to China, announced during Jiang Zemin's 1997 visit Washington, even though Zemin brazenly vowed at the time not to abide by the so-called "full scope safeguards" spelled out in the International Atomic Energy Act. The move was apparently made over the objections of Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who cited repeated exports by China of "dual use" technologies to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also weighed in against the deal, pointing out in a report to the President that "China was the single most import supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction" worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said these nuclear reactors will be "a lot better for the planet than a bunch of dirty coal-fired plants" and will be "a great opportunity for American vendors" -- that is, Westinghouse. A day later Clinton signed an agreement to begin selling nuclear technology to Brazil and Argentina for the first time since 1978, when Jimmy Carter canceled a previous deal after repeated violations of safety guidelines and nonproliferation agreements. In a letter to congress, Clinton vouched for the South American countries, saying they had made "a definitive break with earlier ambivalent nuclear policies." Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Steinberg justified the nuclear pact with Brazil and Argentina as "a partnership in developing clean and reliable energy supplies for the future." Steinberg noted that both countries had opposed binding limits on greenhouse emissions and that new nuclear plants would be one way "to take advantage of the fact that today we have technologies available for energy use which were not available at the time that the United States and other developed countries were going through their periods of development." The atom lobby during the 1990s had a stranglehold on the Clinton administration and now they seem to have the same suffocating grip around the neck of the brightest star in the Democratic field today: Barack Obama. Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator. The Illinois-based company also helped Obama's 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper's, "[Exelon] is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default." "Senator Obama has all the necessary leadership skills required to be president,'' says Frank M. Clark, chairman of Exelon's Commonwealth Edison utility. These gracious accolades come from one of Exelon's top executives, despite the fact that Obama proposed legislation in 2006 that would require nuclear plant operators to report any hazardous leaks. While introducing the legislation Obama noted the failure of Exelon to report a leak of radioactive tritium into groundwater near one of their Illinois plants. But the senator's criticism of nuclear power goes only so far. During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions "on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable -- and realistic -- for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration." Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry's top trade publication, praised the senator. "Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common sense solutions.' And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind." Sadly for the credibility of the atom lobby, some of their more eye-grabbing numbers don't check out. For example, as noted in a report by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuke industry claims that the world's 447 nuclear plants reduce CO2 emissions by 30 percent. But the true villain behind global warming is carbon. Existing nuclear plants save only about 5 percent of total CO2 emissions, hardly a bargain given the costs and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, the nuclear lobby likes to compare its record to coal-fired plants, rather than renewables such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Even when compared to coal, atomic power fails the test if investments are made to increase the efficient use of the existing energy supply. One recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that "even under the most optimistic cost projections for future nuclear electricity, efficiency is found to be 2.5 to 10 times more cost effective for CO2-abatement. Thus, to the extent that investments in nuclear power divert funds away from efficiency, the pursuit of a nuclear response to global warming would effectively exacerbate the problem." Clearly Senator Obama recognizes the inherent dangers of nuclear technology and knows of the disastrous failures that plagued Chernobyl, Mayak and Three Mile Island. Yet, despite his attempts to alert the public of future toxic nuclear leaks, Obama still considers atomic power a viable alternative to coal-fired plants. The atom lobby must certainly be pleased. [Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book is End Times: the Death of the Fourth Estate, co-written with Alexander Cockburn. St. Clair's new book on the environment, Born Under a Bad Sky, will be published in December. Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. They can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Senate threatens Bush missile plan Ewen MacAskill in Washington Friday July 6, 2007 President George Bush's controversial plan to establish a missile defence system in eastern Europe could be scuppered next week if Congress votes to block funding. The Senate appears ready to join the House in cutting from the defence budget the millions Mr Bush requested to fund US missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The president would have to use his veto to go ahead but that would put the whole defence budget in peril. The Senate move would add to the lengthy list of obstacles that have built up to Mr Bush's plan. A consequence would be to end the stand-off with Moscow, which views the missile system as a threat. Speaking on Monday at the Bush family retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, reiterated his opposition to placing the missile system so close to Russia. There is also opposition within Poland and the Czech Republic. Congress is seeking ways to reduce the 2008 defence budget that has already ballooned because of the billions needed for Mr Bush's Iraq "surge". The House voted last month to cut the $40m (19.9m) needed to begin preparations to establish bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Senate armed forces committee, which has been looking in detail at the missile plan, has come out against it not only on cost grounds but because it is sceptical about the technology. Mr Bush wants to place 10 interceptor missiles in silos in Poland and a radar tracking system in the Czech Republic. He insists they would be aimed not against Moscow but Iran, but Mr Putin has not been persuaded. The Senate committee said that work should be delayed until the stand-off is resolved. Negotiations between the US and the Polish and Czech governments have also not been completed. The Bush administration, in evidence to a committee hearing, argued that it would be dangerous to delay because Iran may be further forward in developing its alleged nuclear weapon programme than the rest of the world realises. But the committee's conclusion, reported in the Washington Post yesterday, said: "There is uncertainty about whether Iran will have such long-range missiles, or nuclear warheads that could work on such missiles, by 2015." The committee said that the US missile "has not yet been developed...and is not currently planned to be flight-tested until 2010". It also said that going ahead without Nato, which has not yet decided whether to participate, would cost the US an estimated $4bn up to 2013. On Wednesday, Sergei Ivanov, a Russian deputy prime minister, warned of a new arms race if the US went ahead. He said this could be avoided if the US adopted a plan suggested by Mr Putin to base the US missile system in Azerbaijan and Russia - a plan rejected by Mr Bush on Monday. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 BBC NEWS: Russia issues new missile threat Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 July 2007, 15:20 GMT 16:20 UK Russia has raised the idea of moving new missile forces to Kaliningrad, close to Poland and Lithuania. First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov linked the possible move to US plans for a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia has already threatened to hit back by targeting missiles at Europe. Russia says the US plans for a limited missile defence shield, including bases close to Russia's borders, represent a threat to its security. If our proposals are not accepted... an asymmetrical and effective response has been found Sergei Ivanov First deputy prime minister It has proposed that the US should use a radar facility in Azerbaijan, and another installation currently being built in southern Russia. US President George W Bush has described the idea as "innovative" but indicated that the US will press ahead with the plans for a radar station in the Czech Republic, and a missile base in Poland. The US says its missile shield is not directed at Russia, but at what it considers "rogue states" such as Iran. 'Effective response' "If our proposals are accepted, the need will disappear for Russia to deploy new missile weaponry in the European part of the country, including in Kaliningrad Region," Mr Ivanov said, on a visit to Uzbekistan. Click here for a map of US missile defence bases "After this, you will forget about the term 'Cold War'. It will simply disappear. There simply won't be cause for speaking of it," he added. "If our proposals are not accepted - and I cannot rule that out... an asymmetrical and effective response has been found." Mr Ivanov is a former defence minister, and his current brief includes overall control of the defence sector. He is also seen as a possible successor to President Putin. 'Empty threat' How defence system works Correspondents say Mr Ivanov's comments indicate that US hopes of toning down Russia's Cold War-style rhetoric by hosting a relaxed weekend meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Mr Bush in Maine have not borne fruit. Russian defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer described Mr Ivanov's comments as an "empty threat". Russia had no missiles with the right range to be fired from Kaliningrad and hit the proposed interceptors in Poland, he said. "It's a threat aimed at the Polish people" designed to encourage them to protest against the US plans, Mr Felgenhauer said. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 5 YONHAP NEWS: U.S. erred not following up HEU discussions with N. Korea - Pritchard 2007/07/06 06:00 KST WASHINGTON, July 5 (Yonhap) -- The United States erred in not immediately resuming discussions with North Korea over a suspected uranium-based nuclear weapons program, an issue of controversy to this day, when it first surfaced five years ago, a former senior negotiator said Thursday.    The U.S. team, led by then-Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, was under strict instructions to report back to Washington and had to leave soon after raising the issue in Pyongyang at the time, recalled Jack Pritchard, a former U.S. policy coordinator on North Korea.    Kang Sok-ju, North Korea's foreign minister, may have been planning to return to the table and deny having a program to develop highly enriched uranium (HEU), but never had the opportunity because Kelly left, Pritchard said.    "So when Kelly and the team left North Korea, I think they were very surprised," he told South Korean reporters at a roundtable discussion. "A strategic mistake that happened was no follow-up discussions immediately with the North Koreans." Pritchard was with Kelly's team that went to Pyongyang in October 2002 to confront North Korea about what the U.S. intelligence community believed was an operating HEU program to produce nuclear weapons.    The verbal exchanges, the atmosphere and the attitude at the meetings with North Koreans are recounted in detail in his recently published book, "Failed Diplomacy." Although Kang never said North Korea had an HEU program, an assessment by the translators and everyone present was that it was clearly an admission, according to Pritchard. What ensued was a collapse of a U.S.-North Korea agreement of 1994 that froze Pyongyang's nuclear activities. International inspectors were kicked out, and North Korea reprocessed its spent fuel to amass weapons-grade material to possibly more than double its nuclear stockpile.    Pritchard, now head of the Korea Economic Institute, said Pyongyang may have decided not to contest the HEU issue because it actually wanted to resolve it with the U.S.    Just months before Kelly's visit, North Korea's top leader admitted that Pyongyang in the past had kidnapped Japanese citizens to train its spies.    Acknowledging the abductions and the HEU could have been "strategic admissions" that were supposed to lead to a discussion, a solution and then moving on.    Pyongyang on July 1 of the same year announced economic reforms, which could be why North Korea wanted to get the HEU issue out of the way with the U.S., according to Pritchard.    "The necessity of establishing relations with the U.S. to allow those economic reforms to take hold was pretty evident," he said. "North Korea did not need a problem with the U.S. at that point in time." He also recommends in his book that the U.S. and its allies immediately establish a Northeast Asian security mechanism, but without North Korea as a starting member.    Pritchard changed his mind and now argues that such a mechanism would not develop on its own with the success of the ongoing six-party talks, a denuclearization forum involving South and North Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan.    Instead, there has to be a separate mechanism that deals with issues not covered by the six-party talks, he said.    "And it cannot include North Korea as an original member with consensus powers," he emphasized.    Pyongyang's track record guarantees that it will control the agenda, pace and timing of the regional security talks, Pritchard said.    ldm@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: Fresh protests in India over docked US carrier Wed Jul 4, 5:43 AM ET CHENNAI, India (AFP) - Fresh protests have been staged in southern India over the visit of a US aircraft carrier, with a prominent Muslim group dismissing efforts by servicemen to take part in community activities. The Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam described the nuclear-powered USS Nimitz as a "threat to mankind" that has been "responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians." "It is a pity that Manmohan Singh, the present PM, has bent so low to barter the safety of the country for friendship with the rogue US state," the leader of the group, M. H. Jawahirullah, said late Tuesday as several thousand supporters staged an anti-US demonstration in Chennai. The USS Nimitz, one of the world's largest warships and on the way back from the Gulf, is currently anchored two nautical miles (3.7 kilometres) off the coast of Chennai, a city formerly called Madras. Crew members have been on a goodwill offensive, visiting schools and hospitals, and have been generally getting good press in the local media. But according to Jawahirullah, "the hypocritical drama enacted by the US navy men will not wash away their sins in Iraq and elsewhere." India's defence ministry has said the visit by the 333-metre long warship -- with a crew of 5,000, including nuclear reactor engineers, radiation experts and aviators and with more than 60 fighter jets aboard -- is a routine part of boosting ties between the two countries. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Comment is free: The Kennebunkport fallout guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Julian Borger While Russia and the US are jousting over influence in eastern Europe, the real issue of containing Iran's nuclear ambitions goes unresolved. Julian Borger July 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Printable version A good catch: Vladimir Putin hauls in a striped bass, while George W Bush applauds. Photograph: Mikhail Klementyev/AFP/Getty Images. So much for the lobster summit. Scarcely had the shellfish from the Bush-Putin Kennebunkport meeting been digested, than the heir apparent to the Kremlin throne, Sergei Ivanov, issued a threat that added weight to the fears that if the US is not already in a cold war with Russia, the peace is getting distinctly chilly. Ivanov, the first deputy prime minister, warned that Russia would deploy missiles in its westerly exclave, Kaliningrad, if the US did not go along with a Russian proposal to cooperate on a missile defence system in Azerbaijan and southern Russia. The proposal was made by President Putin at Kennebunkport, and was an elaboration of an offer he first put forward at the G8 summit at Heiligendamm last month. The idea is that instead of putting an anti-missile radar station in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptors in Poland - an American plan that is anathema to Moscow - Nato and Russia should cooperate in building an anti-missile system in the Gabala radar station that Russia leases from Azerbaijan, and in a unspecified site in southern Russia. The Russians do not accept US insistence that the Czech and Polish sites are intended as an umbrella for Europe and the US from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. Instead, they see the digging of missile silos so close to the Russian border as blatantly aimed neutralising Russia's own nuclear deterrent. If the threat really comes from Iran, Moscow is saying, why not put the counter-measures on the Iranian border? In Russian eyes, Washington's refusal to go along with that would prove that its eastern European plans were a Trojan horse, and putting Russian missiles on the Polish border are a logical response. Needless to say, there is a lot of posturing going on here. Ten missile interceptors in Poland would do little to blunt the deterrent effect of Russia's nuclear arsenal of about 10,000 strategic, medium- and short-range weapons, particularly if the technology behind the US missile defence system is as questionable, as its critics say. For the same reason, a lot of missile experts are questioning the Bush administration's wisdom in investing large amounts of resources in an unproven system to counter a threat that does not exist yet, and may never. Indeed, the pursuit of the system suggests that, contrary to its own rhetoric, Washington is preparing for life with a nuclear-armed Iran. The row over missiles is not so much over the weapons themselves as over the territory on which they are based. Washington is flaunting its influence in the old Soviet bloc, and Moscow is trying to reassert at least a right of veto in what it sees as its own backyard. In terms of dealing with the Iran threat, it could well make more sense for the US to suspend its plans in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for closer cooperation with Moscow now, in the effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. If Washington and Moscow acted in unison in the UN security council, the missiles in eastern Europe would almost certainly be unnecessary. del.icio.us | Digg it | Tailrank | Reddit | Newsvine | Now Public | Technorati This entry was tagged with the following keywords: kennebunkport vladimirputin georgewbush summit maine missiledefensesystem sergeiivanov russia unitedstates azerbaijan washington moscow Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Predicts Progress in US Relations Wednesday July 4, 2007 12:16 PM MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin, in a statement on Wednesday marking the Fourth of July, said he was certain relations between Russia and the United States would progress despite disagreements. Tension between Washington and Moscow has been growing. The U.S. has accused Russia of backing away from democratic reforms, and the Kremlin vehemently objects to U.S. plans to deploy elements of a missile defense system in former Soviet Bloc countries. ``We look with certainty to the future of mutually satisfactory working together. I am sure that, despite known disagreements, which are unavoidable in an open and honest dialogue, the policy of comprehensive development of bilateral ties in all areas will continue,'' Putin said in the statement, released by the Kremlin while Putin was in Guatemala. During a visit earlier this week to Maine, Putin and President Bush met in an effort to halt the deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations at a critical time. In a sign of some progress on that front, the two countries pledged Tuesday to reduce their stockpiles of long-range nuclear weapons ``to the lowest possible'' level. Meanwhile, one of the leading contenders to succeed Putin in next year's presidential elections warned that Russia would base new missiles in western Russia if Washington continued with its plans to set up a missile defense system with components in the Czech Republic and Poland. Putin offered a second proposal on Monday: modernize the capabilities of a Russian-operated radar in Azerbaijan, as well as link to the system a new radar facility being built in southern Russia. He also proposed making the shield more regional by bringing in NATO and setting up joint early warning missile launch centers. ``If the proposal is accepted, then Russia will not have need to base new rocket forces in the European part of Russia, in Kaliningrad, in order to parry the threats which will arise from the missile defense system,'' Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and former defense minister, was quoted as saying by ITAR-Tass on Wednesday. ``If our proposal is not accepted, we will take adequate measures. An asymmetrical and effective response will be found. We know that we will do this,'' Ivanov was quoted by Interfax as saying. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report John Vidal, environment editor Wednesday July 4, 2007 Many nuclear reactors are nearing the end of their useful lives. Photograph: George Widman/AP A worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism, says a leading research group that has analysed the possible uptake of civil atomic power over the next 65 years. The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon. For nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global carbon emissions in the next two generations, the paper says, the industry would have to construct nearly 3,000 new reactors - or about one a week for 60 years. "A civil nuclear construction and supply programme on this scale is a pipe dream, and completely unfeasible. The highest historic rate [of build] is 3.4 new reactors a year," says the report. The paper - Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power - comes as the UK government consults on a new generation of nuclear power stations and at a time of increased terrorist activity. It argues that worldwide stocks of high-grade uranium are expected to have run dangerously low within 25 years and that a significant increase in nuclear power beyond then will require a new generation of "breeder" reactor. Though this will reduce the need for high-grade uranium, it says, it will also add immensely to the amount of weapons-grade plutonium being produced. "Even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power for electricity generation would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism," it says. The researchers say that nuclear proliferation is inevitable in the next decade. If all the reactors planned today are built, a further seven countries will have nuclear power. Nine more potentially volatile Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, have expressed interest in civil nuclear power, says the paper. In addition, future demand for electricity will come from the world's poorest countries, which are expected to add nearly 3.5 billion to their populations in the next 60 years. "If nuclear power is to play more than a marginal role in combating global warming, then nuclear power will have to be operated in countries like Bangladesh, Congo, Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, which at present have no nuclear reactors", it says. "According to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, within 30-40 years at least 30 countries are likely to have access to fissile materials from their civil nuclear power programmes that can be used for nuclear weapons and competent nuclear physicists and engineers who could design and fabricate them. "Future breeder reactors will be fuelled with plutonium and only a small input of uranium. The plutonium will be of a type suitable for use in the most efficient nuclear weapons. The normal operation of these reactors will, as a matter of course, multiply the amount of weapons-usable plutonium available across the world. "If the decision to go with nuclear power is taken, then the UK will implement a flawed and dangerously counter-productive energy policy. "The question is whether in the 21st century the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed, or not? Society has to decide whether or not the risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism in a world with many nuclear power reactors are acceptable." Backstory A scramble for uranium to feed the new generation of nuclear plants in China and Russia has led to a huge price increase: the commodity shot up 45% to $138 a pound in the past three months alone - as compared with $10.75 in early 2003, when atomic power was out of favour and nobody wanted to construct facilities. Nuclear is now seen as one way of meeting soaring energy demand while keeping greenhouse gas emissions low. Oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 10 RIA Novosti: Japan first female defense chief sworn in, vows to restore trust 14:05 | 04/ 07/ 2007 TOKYO, July 4 (RIA Novosti) - Japan's first-ever female defense minister was sworn into office Wednesday, vowing to restore trust in the government following the resignation of her predecessor over his controversial comments regarding the WWII atomic bombing of Japan. Yuriko Koike, 55, a former national security advisor in the Japanese Cabinet was nominated by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for defense minister Tuesday. She stressed a priority of her post should be given to reinforcing Japan's defense capability in light of the existing situation in East Asia, as well as the problem of redeploying U.S. military bases in Japan. She also said she would like to "help restore public trust in the Abe government." Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said he had high expectations for Koike, who has developed extensive contacts and studied security issues. Koike replaces Fumio Kyuma who resigned Tuesday, which the prime minister accepted. In his comments made over the weekend, Kyuma, from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he did not resent the U.S. nuclear attacks because they prevented the Soviet Union from occupying the island of Hokkaido. The statement came under fierce criticism from public organizations representing survivors of the atomic bombings, opposition lawmakers, and even several Cabinet members. Kyuma's comments seriously weakened the position of the ruling Liberal-Democratic Party less than a month before July 29 elections for the upper house of parliament. Recent polls indicated the dwindling popularity of the increasingly unpopular government, led by Shinzo Abe, hitting a record low of 30%. The majority of Japanese people strongly believe that the U.S. atomic bombings caused grave harm to Japan and can never be justified. The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II, in the world's only nuclear attacks. The bombs killed at least 215,000 people and survivors have developed various illnesses from the exposure to radiation, including cancer and liver disease. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 11 Daily Times: Pakistan and India should resolve issues through dialogue Leading News Resource of Pakistan Wednesday, July 04, 2007 Staff Report LAHORE: An Indian Youth delegation on Tuesday urged Pakistan and India to resolve their mutual disputes through dialogue. They were speaking at a dialogue held at the Institute of Communication Studies (ICS) on Tuesday. They said that all outstanding issues between the two nuclear states should be resolved soon. They are visiting Pakistan at the invitation of the federal Ministry of Youth Affairs. Head of the Indian delegation, Sarada Ali Khan, director of the Indian Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, termed the dialogue a useful activity. Secular India, she pointed out, had a multi-religious and multi-cultural outlook. Therefore, the question of a threat from Pakistan was immaterial. She said New Delhi understood the geographical importance of Islamabad and both the governments had chalked out a plan to promote mutual understanding through such youth exchange programmes. Punjab Universitys Institute of Communication Studies director Dr Mugheesuddin Sheikh said Indian authorities cold shoulder towards Pakistans initiatives for the solution of the Kashmir issue had disappointed Pakistanis. He said no country, India in particular, should be afraid of Pakistans strategic location and political manoeuvres in the region. Earlier, the delegation was received at the Wagah border by representatives of the All Pakistan Youth Federation (APYF). Speaking at the APYF headquarters, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Indian minister for Panchayati Raj, Youth Affairs and Sports, said young people could play a vital role in promoting peace and development in the subcontinent. The minister proposed that youth exchanges be broad-based and made regular between India and Pakistan. He said the Pakistan government should send 100 youth to India every year. Sarada Ali Khan said on this occasion that she was very impressed by the dynamic work of the AYPF for channelling the vast energies of the Pakistani youth. She said the Youth Ministry of India would entertain Pakistani delegations, adding that such exchanges provided an opportunity for better understanding between countries and could help resolve mutual issues amicably. AYPF president Tariq Haleem Chaudhry praised the Indian government for sending its first official youth delegation to Pakistan. He said such steps would strengthen the peace process between Pakistan and India. He said development was not possible in the subcontinent without peace. Chaudhry said that in order to fight poverty, illiteracy and overpopulation in both countries, solid foundations were needed for the promotion of peace in the subcontinent. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 12 Jakarta Post: PDI-P, court hold 3-day workshop on state affairs National News July 06, 2007 The Constitutional Court in cooperation with the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) is holding a three day workshop on state affairs and the general elections. "This workshop is aimed at information exchange regarding public interest, because the Constitutional Court, as a new institution, has to work together with political parties like PDIP," Head of the Constitutional Court Jimly Asshiddiqie said in his speech Thursday. He added that the Court's officials were planning to organize the same workshop for all of the political parties to familiarize them with the job of the Constitutional Court. "The program must be finished by the end of this year so that next year the Constitutional Court can focus on finishing all cases that it handles," he said. He said the Court had the authority to both protect and to disband political parties. "Besides, we are also responsible to resolve problems between political parties occurring in general or regional elections," he said, adding that not many parties were ready to bring their cases to the Constitutional Court. "Most cases that happened in regions are not resolved since political parties do not know how to litigate their cases in the Court," Jimly said. According to Jimly there were more than 500 cases during the 2004 elections but only 376 were reported to the Court. He added that after the general elections, political parties should have been ready to litigate any cases occurring in the election process. "Do not underestimate the importance of such election cases since they are related to the people's aspirations. If the cases are not resolved political and social conflict could expand since the people are disappointed with the results of the election," Jimly said. He added that the Court was preparing itself to welcome the 2009 election, which he said might be "hotter" than the 2004 election. "We see that there will be more parties participating in the 2009 election, so we have to prepare the Court to handle more cases," he said. Expert staffer from the Constitutional Court Wasis Susetio said that the Constitutional Court which was established in 2001 had been doing everything for the first time during the 2004 elections. "There are many things to be improved, including management of the General Elections Commission and political parties," he said. He added that they have to be able to better manage their documentation to be more efficient since most of the time their legal actions have not been supported by a proper documentation. The Secretary General of PDI-P Pramono Anung said in his speech that constitutional problems should be handled well so that Indonesia would have a strong constitutional foundation. Jimly said that so far Indonesia depends on personal leadership. "We have to learn to change that into a systemic leadership so that we do not depend on one person only," he said. The Constitutional Court is the top of the system. "Constitutional rules basically put the leadership at the forefront," Jimly said. ***************************************************************** 13 Japan Times: Thoughtless nuclear-bomb remarks japantimes.co.jp Web Wednesday, July 4, 2007 Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma has resigned over the remark that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States at the end of World War II "could not be helped." His comments on Saturday had offended Japanese people, the world's first victims of nuclear weapons. The Aug. 6, 1945, bombing of Hiroshima killed some 140,000 people, and the Nagasaki bombing three days later, some 70,000 people. Many survivors still suffer from illnesses related to radiation exposure, including cancer. Mr. Kyuma's remarks not only made light of these people's sufferings but also could undermine Japan's and other parties' efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. In a speech at a university in Chiba Prefecture, Mr. Kyuma said that although the U.S. knew Japan's surrender was imminent, it dropped the atomic bombs to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war against Japan: "Hokkaido could have been taken by the Soviet Union. . . . My conclusion is that (the atomic bombing of Nagasaki) ended the war and that (the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) could not be helped." In saying so, Mr. Kyuma, from Nagasaki Prefecture, justified the first use of nuclear weapons in history. He should have recognized that his remarks can be taken to condone future use of such weapons, thus undermining the efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, which indiscriminately kill people and cause continuing devastating effects on survivors' health through radiation exposure. This must serve as a precious lesson for everybody in the world, including the North Koreans who have been using the matter as a bargaining chip. The Japanese public censured him over the remarks. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had tried in vain to protect Mr. Kyuma by saying that the latter had merely expressed U.S. thinking. Some Asian people regard the atomic bombings as having ended Japan's aggression against them. To gain support in Asia and elsewhere for efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, politicians must neither make thoughtless comments on the weapons nor try to dilute Japan's responsibility for its wartime behavior. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 14 UPI: Japan's new minister sees new threats United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: July 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM TOKYO, July 4 (UPI) -- Japan's new Defense Minister Yuriko Koike Wednesday said new threats to the country include terrorism and North Korea's missile and nuclear program. Speaking to her staff, the 54-year-old Koike, Japan's first woman to occupy the defense post, called for the creation of a "multifunctional, flexible and effective defensive power" to protect the country, the Kyodo news service reported. She also urged Japan to take an active role in global peace cooperation efforts to fully respond to the needs of the world community. Koike promised to work to further enhance the close ties with the United States and the bilateral security arrangement and to move forward with implementing the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan, Kyodo reported. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for whom Koike worked as a special security adviser prior to her current appointment, has already instructed her to implement the agreement to realign U.S. military presence in Japan on a priority basis, the report said. Koike succeeds Fumio Kyuma who quit his defense post Tuesday over his controversial remarks on the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 UPI: Analysis: Interpreting nukes in Japan United Press International - International Intelligence - Analysis Published: July 5, 2007 at 2:45 PM By SHIHOKO GOTO UPI Senior Correspondent WASHINGTON, July 5 (UPI) -- If the United States had not dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, World War II could have dragged on even longer and claimed more Japanese as well as American lives. That line of thinking is a mainstream U.S. theory when justifying the Truman administration's decision to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But merely mouthing that idea in front of a group of university students is ill-advised for a public figure, as Japan's defense minister found out earlier this week. On Tuesday, Fumio Kyuma was forced to step down as calls for him to resign continued to escalate over a speech he made three days earlier stating that the U.S. nuclear attacks "could not be helped" as a means to bring a swift end to World War II. Kyuma added that the atomic bombs also saved Japan from a joint Allied occupation including the Soviet Union, as had been the case of Germany, rather than being just under U.S. rule after the war. Yet Japanese academics continue to debate that argument, with many insisting that Japan would have had to surrender even if the bombs were not dropped. Those who were the most offended by Kyuma's comments, however, were people who continue to live with the after-effects of the nuclear attacks, and public opinion sided with them. An estimated 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima as a direct result of the atomic bomb, while about 70,000 perished in Nagasaki. Moreover, the descendants of those who survived continue to suffer from a higher rate of cancer than the general population, while a number of those who actually survived the bombings continue to live. Another reason Kyuma's comments angered bomb survivors in particular is that the 66-year-old himself is a native of Nagasaki, so he was expected to be more sensitive to the plight of those who still have to deal with the consequences of the war even today. In fact, a protest was held in the city Thursday demanding that he actually resign as a member of parliament, in addition to stepping down as a Cabinet member for what many voters regard as his particularly insensitive remarks. Meanwhile, Nagasaki's Mayor Tomihisa Tagami said Wednesday that he would like to have Kyuma explain himself to the bomb survivors directly when he is next in the city. Kyuma's performance at a press conference Tuesday announcing his resignation as defense minister certainly won him no favors from his constituents back home, as he defended himself by stating that "we shouldn't blame America now" for past incidents. Granted, Kyuma may be right in calling for a practical interpretation of history. Nevertheless, public outrage over his comments underlines just how sensitive the subject of nuclear attacks remains in the minds of Japanese voters. After all, while Japan continues to be attacked by neighboring China and South Korea in particular for the atrocities it committed while occupying the two countries both during and before World War II, the Japanese view themselves more as victims than aggressors during the war, precisely because it remains the only country that has been attacked by nuclear bombs. Yet perhaps the most surprising outcome of all was the extent of public outcry over Kyuma's comments, 62 years after the bombings took place. Japan's biggest-selling daily Yomiuri Shimbun, for one, pointed out that this was not the first politically ill-advised comment by Kyuma since he came to office 10 months ago. His comment that attacking Iraq was a "mistake" soon after becoming defense minister came under fire among policymakers in particular, given Japan's relations with the United States, which requires full U.S. military support in light of the ongoing nuclear stand-off with neighboring North Korea. Still, it was not the possibility of antagonizing the United States that proved to cost Kyuma his job, but rather the interpretation of the history of World War II, which remains a sensitive subject for voters that continues to be interpreted differently from other countries. Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Japan Times: Koike takes defense helm, condemns '45 A-bombings japantimes.co.jp Web Thursday, July 5, 2007 Security ties with U.S. upheld anew By REIJI YOSHIDA Staff writer Newly appointed Defense Minister Yuriko Koike pledged Wednesday to further strengthen the Japan-U.S. military alliance but also denounced the 1945 U.S. atomic bombings of Japan as "unacceptable from a humanitarian viewpoint." Koike takes over from Fumio Kyuma, who resigned Tuesday to take responsibility for remarks he made Saturday interpreted as justifying the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which had killed an estimated 210,000 people mostly noncombatants by the end of that year. In her first news conference Wednesday as defense chief, Koike tried to avoid the domestic political minefield of the atomic bomb issue by criticizing the nuclear attacks in the closing days of World War II as "an outright challenge to human beings." She added, "Our country will lead the world toward abolishing nuclear weapons." Otherwise soft-pedaling on the nuclear issue, Koike said she would do her best to maintain a solid Japan-U.S. security alliance. "We will continue to firmly maintain the relationship with the U.S. under the Japan-U.S. security treaty," Koike, Japan's first female defense chief, told reporters. Koike, 54, had served as a security adviser to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe since September. A graduate of Cairo University, she speaks fluent Arabic and has many personal connections in the Arab world. Kyuma exits over A-bomb gaffe One of the highest-profile female politicians in Japan, she was a TV news anchorwoman before being elected to the Upper House in 1992. During the news conference, Koike was asked to respond to a comment made by U.S. nuclear nonproliferation envoy Robert Joseph on the atomic bombing issue. Joseph told a Tuesday news conference in Washington: "I think that most historians would agree that the use of an atomic bomb brought to a close a war that would have cost millions of more lives, not just hundreds of thousands of Allied lives but literally millions of Japanese lives." Kyuma caused controversy ultimately forcing him to step down by saying in a speech in Chiba Prefecture: "I understand the bombing (in Nagasaki) brought the war to its end. I think it was something that couldn't be helped." Koike sidestepped the question, saying only that Joseph's view is simply different from Japan's. "I'm well-aware of Joseph's view. That's nothing new," Koike said. In addition to building on the close relations with the U.S. military based on the Japan-U.S. security alliance, Koike also pledged that Japan would expand its security and military cooperation with India and Australia, which, she said, share common values with Japan. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 17 Japan Times: Kyuma incident rekindles A-bomb debate japantimes.co.jp Web Thursday, July 5, 2007 Attacks just bid to end war, keep Soviets at bay, or one huge atrocity? By REIJI YOSHIDA Staff writer Fumio Kyuma's resignation Tuesday as defense minister over his remarks on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spotlighted the still sharply divided perception gap between Japan and the United States over what some see as one of the most horrific war atrocities in history. In a speech in Chiba Prefecture on Saturday, Kyuma said the atomic bombings "could not be helped" as a means to end the war and avoid a postwar joint occupation of Japan that would include the Soviet Union. He was excoriated by various circles in Japan, who accused him of using, in part, the same logic as the Americans to justify the strikes. The atomic bombs had left an estimated 140,000 people, most of them noncombatants, in Hiroshima, and another 70,000 in Nagasaki dead by the end of 1945. Even today, survivors who were exposed to radiation suffer health problems. "It has become clear that what Defense Minister Kyuma really thinks is exactly the same logic as that of America," said Yukio Hatoyama, secretary general of the Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition force. Although in the minority, Kyuma is hardly alone in his opinion in Japan. Meanwhile, in the U.S., polls have shown a majority of Americans feel the bombings were justified as a way to end the war quickly and to prevent a costly invasion of Japan. According to a 2005 joint poll by Kyodo News and AP, about 68 percent of 1,000 American adult respondents said dropping the atomic bombs was necessary to bring the war to a swift end, an opinion that only about 20 percent of 1,054 Japanese shared. In contrast, over 75 percent of the Japanese respondents said the bombings were unnecessary, while less than 30 percent of Americans said so. Motofumi Asai, president of the Hiroshima Peace Institute, a research center at Hiroshima City University, maintained that Japan would have soon surrendered even without the atomic bombings. The U.S. used the bombs mainly because they needed to test and demonstrate the power of nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union before the end of the war, Asai said, echoing many other Japanese academics. "I was surprised to see about 20 percent of Japanese still believe the bombs were necessary to end the war early, which was not true," Asai said. American scholars, on the other hand, have been divided between traditionalists who argue the necessity of the atomic bombs to avoid the casualties predicted in an outright invasion of the Japanese mainland, and revisionists who maintain use of the bombs was politically motivated and the killing of vast numbers of civilians was unnecessary. The politically sensitive nature of the issue in America was clearly shown in 1995 and 2003, when the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum put the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, on display. In 1995, U.S. veterans and politicians protested the Smithsonian's attempt to add to the exhibit mention of the damage and human casualties that the atomic bombing caused in Hiroshima. The institution's director, Martin Harwit, was forced to resign as a result and the exhibition of the atomic bomb's destructiveness was canceled. In 2003, when the institute put the plane on permanent display, it announced it would not include a description of the human cost of the atomic bombing, this time drawing strong protests from survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as groups of American scholars. The Japanese government has meanwhile maintained an ambiguous attitude. As the only country ever to have been attacked with nuclear weapons, Japan has tried to act as a leader in international nuclear disarmament movements. At the same time, Japan has been protected by the postwar U.S. "nuclear umbrella." Washington has pledged to defend Japan, even with nuclear weapons, if the country suffers an atomic attack. The Japanese government has not argued that the use of nuclear weapons including those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an outright violation of international law. Instead, the government has maintained the attacks were not "in harmony with the spirit of international law," which is based on humanitarianism, according to Foreign Ministry officials. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Russia threatens European rocket deployment - by Nick Coleman Wed Jul 4, 5:48 PM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia issued a veiled threat on Wednesday to deploy rockets in its Kaliningrad region bordering the European Union if the United States built a missile defence shield in central Europe. Moscow and Washington are locked in a standoff over the US plans for a radar station in the Czech Republic and interceptor rockets in Poland. Russia says the plans threaten its security. The threat to put missiles in Kaliningrad was made by the influential First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov only two days after President Vladimir Putin again raised the missile shield dispute with US President George W. Bush. Putin has suggested to Bush that the United States use a Russian-controlled radar in ex-Soviet Azerbaijan, near the Iranian border, instead of having a shield in central Europe. Putin has also offered the use of another radar under construction at Armavir in southern Russia. "If our offers are accepted, Russia will not consider it necessary to deploy new rocket units in the European part of the country, including Kaliningrad, to counter the threat" from the United States, Ivanov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies. Ivanov, who was on a visit to Uzbekistan, said Russia had "found an asymmetrical and effective response" to the US project for a European shield. "We know what we're doing.... If our proposals are not accepted, we will take adequate measures," Ivanov said. Washington insists that its proposed missile shield is intended to guard against possible attack from "rogue states" such as Iran. Moscow believes the systems are directed against Russia. On Friday Ivanov stressed Russia's readiness to pool information with the United States gained from its radar facilities and said Moscow would be ready to update the radar in Azerbaijan if necessary. "Today there is no better station for locating rockets, including cruise missiles.... If a question arises about modernising the station, we will do it," he said. Ivanov's comments suggested that tensions remain high despite efforts to calm the atmosphere at a meeting between Putin and Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine this week. Putin has already suggested that Russia could point its missiles at European targets if the US plans go ahead. Kaliningrad, which Russia won at the end of World War II, lies on the Baltic Sea separated from the rest of Russia by EU and NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The territory gives Russia extra influence in the Baltic region, being home to the navy's Baltic Fleet, although Russia has officially declared it a nuclear-free zone, a press official at the defence ministry confirmed to AFP. Analysts in Moscow said that Russia currently lacks missiles suitable for firing from Kaliningrad to hit Poland. Moscow scrapped its medium-range arsenal under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Its planned Iskander short-range missile has become bogged down due to manufacturing problems, said Alexander Konovalov of the Institute for Strategic Assessments. Kaliningrad in any case would be an unsuitable site for such missiles as its location makes it vulnerable, he said. "I'm extremely sceptical that Russia is ready to produce the Iskander system quickly. Not all components of the system are ready to be produced seriously," Konovalov said. "It would be stupid to deploy them in this easily accessible enclave." Independent defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer agreed. "It's a threat aimed at the Polish people" designed to encourage them to protest against the US plans. "It's an empty threat," he said. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 asahi.com: EDITORIAL: Kyuma's resignation - EDITORIAL: Kyuma's resignation 07/05/2007 Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma resigned Tuesday for saying in a speech last week that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "could not be helped." Kyuma's remarks, which came across as legitimizing the 1945 U.S. nuclear attacks, were not only insensitive to the feelings of atomic bomb survivors and victims, but also seriously undermined Japan's "non-nuclear" stand. Resignation was his only option. Initially, Kyuma stood by his remarks, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tried to shrug them aside. But public outrage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not abate, while the Cabinet's approval ratings kept sliding in opinion polls. With the Upper House election less than four weeks away, Kyuma came to be seen as detrimental for the ruling coalition. We believe he was effectively forced to resign. The horrors experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki became an integral part of the keystone upon which post-World War II Japan was built. We can only conclude that our politicians, including Kyuma, have grown insensitive to this fact. Kyuma has resigned, but that does not mean the case is closed. His gaffe is still only a part of a much larger picture. By that we mean the Japanese government was not harsh enough in its condemnation of the nuclear attacks by the United States, nor did the Japanese people react appropriately. Within days of the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the government lodged a protest with Washington on Aug. 10, asserting that the United States had violated international law. In September, after the war was over, Ichiro Hatoyama--who would later become prime minister--accused the United States of war crimes. The Asahi Shimbun printed Hatoyama's comments, and was ordered by the Allied Occupation forces to suspend publication. During the Tokyo war crime trials, the Japanese government continued to assert the illegality of the U.S. action against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that was as far as the government went in condemning the U.S. action. The government became silent thereafter, mainly because it had waived its claim against the United States and other allies under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. In other words, Japan was no longer in a position to speak out in the name of the law. However, that was not the only reason for Japan's "acquiescence." Our guess is that the people of Japan in the immediate postwar years had a collective "hang-up" about the fact that Japan had foolishly gone to war with the United States and lost, and that Japan had refused to give up even in the face of certain defeat. We believe this was the sort of mentality that Kyuma inadvertently let surface in his remarks. Still, it does not mean one is allowed to resort to any means to win a war. Nuclear bombs are not only extraordinarily destructive, but they also cause health damage to survivors. The sheer inhumanity of these weapons can never be condemned enough. It is a herculean task to convince the United States that it should not have dropped those atomic bombs in 1945. Many Americans believe the bombs hastened Japan's surrender. Washington has never officially apologized, nor has any sitting U.S. president ever visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But heated controversy arose over an atomic bomb-related exhibition that marked the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. And some Americans condemned what their country did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the documentary film "The Fog of War," former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who was involved in planning the indiscriminate bombings of many Japanese cities, including the atomic bombings, said he was behaving as a war criminal. But he wondered why one does not have to be prosecuted if one wins the war. The people of Japan must keep trying to tell the American people that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong, and that the bombs caused unimaginable suffering to the citizens of these two cities. Kyuma's remarks reminded us anew of the need to keep trying. --The Asahi Shimbun, July 4(IHT/Asahi: July 5,2007) * The Asahi Shimbun Company ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Vows Missile-Defense Response Thursday July 5, 2007 1:31 AM By JIM HEINTZ Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - A senior Russian official warned Wednesday that Moscow could put new missiles in western Russia if Washington pursues plans to build a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. President Vladimir Putin, who has suggested alternatives to the U.S. plan, said he is sure Russia and the United States can continue to work together despite disagreements. President Bush and Putin met this week at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, in an effort to halt the deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations. Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and former defense minister, said Russia would not need to rethink its missile deployments if Washington drops its plans to build the system in Central Europe and accepts Putin's proposal to expand the system and use Russian installations. But Ivanov, considered a leading contender to win Putin's endorsement in the March presidential contest, warned there would be consequences if the U.S. does not compromise on the issue. ``If our proposal is accepted, then we will have no need to deploy new weapons including missiles in the European part of Russia, including Kaliningrad, in order to parry the threats that could arise - and they definitely will arise - if a decision is made to deploy a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland,'' Ivanov said in a televised remark. ``If our proposal is not accepted, we will take adequate measures. We are already taking them; an asymmetrical and effective response has been found,'' ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ``We know what we are doing.'' Putin has also said Russia could deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and is Russia's westernmost region, if the U.S. pushes ahead with its missile defense plans. Polish Defense Ministry spokesman Jaroslaw Rybak said Russia made similar threats before Poland joined NATO in 1999. ``I think this is just another step, and the Russians want to show that on the one hand they want to cooperate and then on the other hand they threaten,'' Rybak said on Poland's TVN24 television. Putin suggested the U.S. use current or proposed radar sites in Azerbaijan and southern Russia, adding this would eliminate the need for a proposed radar site in the Czech Republic and a battery of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The U.S. says the missiles are intended to protect Europe from the potential threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran. Russia says the U.S. anti-missile system is really aimed at its nuclear arsenal, and would upset the balance of strategic forces in Europe. Despite Ivanov's comments, Putin marked the Fourth of July holiday with a statement saying he was certain relations between Russia and the United States would progress despite disagreements. ``We look with certainty to the future of mutually satisfactory working together. I am sure that, despite known disagreements, which are unavoidable in an open and honest dialogue, the policy of comprehensive development of bilateral ties in all areas will continue,'' Putin said in the statement, released by the Kremlin while Putin was in Guatemala. Putin last month proposed that the U.S. share the use of a mammoth Russian-leased radar installation in Azerbaijan, aimed south toward Iran, as an early warning system. He suggested an interceptor missile site could be built only if Iran developed the capability of launching nuclear missiles. Experts have said the Azerbaijan radar system at Gabala is not capable of directing interceptor missiles. But in Kennebunkport, Putin offered to modernize Gabala, as well as link to the system a new radar facility being built in southern Russia. He also proposed making the shield more regional by bringing in NATO and setting up joint missile launch early warning centers. In a sign of some progress, the two countries pledged Tuesday to reduce their stockpiles of long-range nuclear weapons ``to the lowest possible'' level. --- Associated Press Writer Douglas Birch contributed to this report from Moscow. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 [NYTr] Nuke Power a Pipe Dream: Report; Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:10:29 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Tom Simonds (activ-l) - Jul 4, 2007 The Guardian - Jul 4, 2007 http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2117711,00.html Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report * Hope for new era of cheap, clean power is a 'myth' * Building more stations would increase terror risk by John Vidal, environment editor A worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism, says a leading research group that has analysed the possible uptake of civil atomic power over the next 65 years. The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon. For nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global carbon emissions in the next two generations, the paper says, the industry would have to construct nearly 3,000 new reactors - or about one a week for 60 years. "A civil nuclear construction and supply programme on this scale is a pipe dream, and completely unfeasible. The highest historic rate [of build] is 3.4 new reactors a year," says the report. The paper - Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power - comes as the UK government consults on a new generation of nuclear power stations and at a time of increased terrorist activity. It argues that worldwide stocks of high-grade uranium are expected to have run dangerously low within 25 years and that a significant increase in nuclear power beyond then will require a new generation of "breeder" reactor. Though this will reduce the need for high-grade uranium, it says, it will also add immensely to the amount of weapons-grade plutonium being produced. "Even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power for electricity generation would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism," it says. The researchers say that nuclear proliferation is inevitable in the next decade. If all the reactors planned today are built, a further seven countries will have nuclear power. Nine more potentially volatile Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, have expressed interest in civil nuclear power, says the paper. In addition, future demand for electricity will come from the world's poorest countries, which are expected to add nearly 3.5 billion to their populations in the next 60 years. "If nuclear power is to play more than a marginal role in combating global warming, then nuclear power will have to be operated in countries like Bangladesh, Congo, Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, which at present have no nuclear reactors", it says. "According to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, within 30-40 years at least 30 countries are likely to have access to fissile materials from their civil nuclear power programmes that can be used for nuclear weapons and competent nuclear physicists and engineers who could design and fabricate them. "Future breeder reactors will be fuelled with plutonium and only a small input of uranium. The plutonium will be of a type suitable for use in the most efficient nuclear weapons. The normal operation of these reactors will, as a matter of course, multiply the amount of weapons-usable plutonium available across the world. "If the decision to go with nuclear power is taken, then the UK will implement a flawed and dangerously counter-productive energy policy. "The question is whether in the 21st century the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed, or not? Society has to decide whether or not the risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism in a world with many nuclear power reactors are acceptable." Backstory A scramble for uranium to feed the new generation of nuclear plants in China and Russia has led to a huge price increase: the commodity shot up 45% to $138 a pound in the past three months alone - as compared with $10.75 in early 2003, when atomic power was out of favour and nobody wanted to construct facilities. Nuclear is now seen as one way of meeting soaring energy demand while keeping greenhouse gas emissions low. *** The Guardian - May 14, 2007 http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2079401,00.html Alternative energy market lures controversy and venture capitalists by John Sterlicchi A surprising splash of red ink from a leading US maker of ethanol fuel, along with a research report warning of a potential dotcom-type bubble, has rocked confidence in the burgeoning cleantech market. The jolt comes at a time when venture capitalists are practically falling over themselves to invest in cleantech startups, no doubt reminiscing for the days when companies like Yahoo!, eBay and Amazon first floated their shares and gave them exit strategies they have been only able to dream about since the bubble burst. In the first quarter of this year US venture capitalists invested $264m (#133m) into 23 cleantech deals, a 41% increase in dollar value over the fourth quarter of 2006, according to the MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). The report, based on data by Thomson Financial, shows that while the 2006 US investment in cleantech of $1.5bn in was only slightly bigger than a blip in the overall total of $26bn, it is growing "exponentially" said Emily Mendell, the vice president of strategic affairs at the NVCA. According to Lux Research, which has just completed a comprehensive report on the sector, "the warning signs of a bubble are flashing in the energy technology segment, where initial public offering values and venture capital deployments more than doubled last year setting the stage for a boom and bust". Lux reported around 930 startups in global solar energy and biofuels arena and that some 200 of them have received some venture capital money. The $1.5bn figure MoneyTree reported was only $623m in 2005. Says Michael Holman, a senior analyst at Lux: "I think from looking at the sheer amount of money that is being invested right now we have to think that a lot of that money is now chasing after some opportunities it wouldn't be in a more sober climate." Later stage institutional investors have also been caught up in the hype. Lux reported that in the energy segment where IPO value rose from $1.6bn in 2005 to $4.1bn in 2006. Most of those companies came public either on London's Aim market or in Frankfurt, because there are less stringent revenue milestones that the US Nasdaq exchange. However, one ethanol company that chose the Nasdaq disappointed investors this month by reporting a loss when Wall Street analysts were confidently predicting another profitable quarter. That company is VeraSun Energy, which is the number two producer of ethanol in the US after giant Archer Daniels. It reported a loss of $312,000 on revenues of $144.5m when analysts thought it would better last year's corresponding quarterly profit of $2.7m. Those results sent its share price plummeting 15% to $16.72 , well below its IPO figure of $20. It also dragged down the share prices of Archer Daniels and others in the sector. Mr Holman is quick to point out that the public has not bought in on the hype as have venture capitalists and consequently many alternative fuels stock prices are not outperforming the market. "The herd mentality has begun to take over in the venture capital community and there is probably some not very wise money that is flowing into the ethanol segment in particular," he said. Even before those VeraSun financials came out, Lehman Brothers was also questioning the viability of ethanol suppliers, saying the US just did not have the infrastructure to digest the amount of fuel being manufactured. VeraSun blamed its travails on the high cost of corn a situation that may be alleviated when a massive planting of subsidised corn by US farmers is ready for harvest. But experts like Mr Holman believe the future lies not in fuel made from corn or sugar but from cellulose-based farm waste such as corn kennel, wheat and barley straw. Leaves and stalks of plants can also be used as the source of ethanol. Unperturbed by the hullabaloo about the viability of ethanol or the possibility of a "cleantech bubble" is America's most prominent venture capitalist in the renewable energy space, Vinod Khosla, whose firm has invested in 25 start-ups. Those companies include three that use corn or sugar and four that use cellulosic waste to produce ethanol as well as others that are looking for alternative energy sources using wind, solar and water. Khosla won't say how much he has invested estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars - but he believes the rewards will be high and that they will come sooner rather than later: "I suspect most of these (investments) will be public offerings and I expect to see IPOs in months not years. This area is really going to heat up." He admits there is a possibility of a bubble as "every market that is attractive goes through high expectations". Nonetheless he is delighted that more venture capitalists are investing and professes to welcome the competition for investment opportunities: "I am encouraging more people to come into this business because I think it will help us switch away from fossil fuels and that's a good thing. And the more experiments that we try the more likely we are to succeed." He attributes the bad press ethanol is getting to misinformation being supplied by the big oil companies. Those companies have a lot to lose and have launched a massive PR campaign to discredit new technologies, he claimed. Big Oil is "doing what the tobacco companies did when they tried to fight the notion that smoking caused cancer." * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 22 Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:46:02 -0500 (CDT) http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2117711,00.html Nuclear expansion is a pipe dream, says report 7 Hope for new era of cheap, clean power is a 'myth' 7 Building more stations would increase terror risk John Vidal, environment editor Wednesday July 4, 2007 Guardian A worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism, says a leading research group that has analysed the possible uptake of civil atomic power over the next 65 years. The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon. For nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global carbon emissions in the next two generations, the paper says, the industry would have to construct nearly 3,000 new reactors - or about one a week for 60 years. "A civil nuclear construction and supply programme on this scale is a pipe dream, and completely unfeasible. The highest historic rate [of build] is 3.4 new reactors a year," says the report. The paper - Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power - comes as the UK government consults on a new generation of nuclear power stations and at a time of increased terrorist activity. It argues that worldwide stocks of high-grade uranium are expected to have run dangerously low within 25 years and that a significant increase in nuclear power beyond then will require a new generation of "breeder" reactor. Though this will reduce the need for high-grade uranium, it says, it will also add immensely to the amount of weapons-grade plutonium being produced. "Even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power for electricity generation would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism," it says. The researchers say that nuclear proliferation is inevitable in the next decade. If all the reactors planned today are built, a further seven countries will have nuclear power. Nine more potentially volatile Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, have expressed interest in civil nuclear power, says the paper. In addition, future demand for electricity will come from the world's poorest countries, which are expected to add nearly 3.5 billion to their populations in the next 60 years. "If nuclear power is to play more than a marginal role in combating global warming, then nuclear power will have to be operated in countries like Bangladesh, Congo, Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, which at present have no nuclear reactors", it says. "According to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, within 30-40 years at least 30 countries are likely to have access to fissile materials from their civil nuclear power programmes that can be used for nuclear weapons and competent nuclear physicists and engineers who could design and fabricate them. "Future breeder reactors will be fuelled with plutonium and only a small input of uranium. The plutonium will be of a type suitable for use in the most efficient nuclear weapons. The normal operation of these reactors will, as a matter of course, multiply the amount of weapons-usable plutonium available across the world. "If the decision to go with nuclear power is taken, then the UK will implement a flawed and dangerously counter-productive energy policy. "The question is whether in the 21st century the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed, or not? Society has to decide whether or not the risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism in a world with many nuclear power reactors are acceptable." Backstory A scramble for uranium to feed the new generation of nuclear plants in China and Russia has led to a huge price increase: the commodity shot up 45% to $138 a pound in the past three months alone - as compared with $10.75 in early 2003, when atomic power was out of favour and nobody wanted to construct facilities. Nuclear is now seen as one way of meeting soaring energy demand while keeping greenhouse gas emissions low. ***************************************************************** 23 Platts: Tokyo Electric idles 1.10 GW Kashiwazaki nuclear unit 007-4J Tokyo (Platts)--4Jul2007 Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Co. began the process of idling the 1.10 GW No. 2 reactor at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in northwestern Japan at 5 pm (0800 GMT) Wednesday after finding oil leakage in a turbine, a company official said. Tepco's latest idle of the unit comes after the company restarted it June 4 after completing a scheduled maintenance. It remains unclear when the utility will be able to restart the unit this time, the official said. With the idled Kashiwazaki unit, Tepco is operating 11 units with a combined capacity of 11.09 GW, which accounts for 64% of its total nuclear capacity of 17.31 GW at 17 units across Japan. News of nuclear power plant outages in Japan are closely watched by players in the oil and gas markets, as such news could lead to spikes in demand for power generation feedstocks such as fuel oil, crude and LNG. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Platts: UK PM Gordon Brown reaffirms call for new nuclear build London (Platts)--4Jul2007 The UK would be foolish to base its energy security on "two or three regions in the world" and it must pursue construction of "new nuclear power stations," UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday during prime minister's questions in the House of Commons. Brown has supported ex-PM Tony Blair's call for a new fleet of nuclear power stations to replace aging reactors in the UK, but this was his first statement on the issue as premier. He was answering a question from Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who called on the government to reject Blair's pro-nuclear policy as part of Brown's agenda for change. Brown refused to do this, saying: "if we have learned anything from the last year or so, it is that it would be wrong to base our energy security around one or two regions in the world, that we must continue with nuclear power and that we must build new nuclear power stations." For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 25 OS: Special Briefing on Cooperation in Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Nonproliferation Independence Day at the State Department... | Daily Press Briefing Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs > Bureau of Public Affairs > Press Relations Office > Press Releases (Other) > 2007 > July Special Briefing Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC July 3, 2007 Briefing With U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert G. Joseph and Russian Federation Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak on Cooperation in Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Nonproliferation View Video (11:07 a.m. EST) MR. GALLEGOS: Good morning. I appreciate your coming. Today we have Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Joseph and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak, and they will be discussing cooperation in nuclear energy and nuclear nonproliferation. I realize that both presidents spoke yesterday on other issues. We'll be referring you to those or you can talk to me a little bit later. But I appreciate your all coming. Here you go. MR. JOSEPH: Good morning. I'd like to make several very brief opening points and then ask my colleague, Deputy Foreign Minister Kislyak, for any introductory comments he might have. First, let me say that the declaration by the two presidents reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power plays a central role not just in expanding nuclear energy in the industrialized world but in the industrializing countries as well, and not just in countries like India and China but a wide range potentially of other countries. This is about meeting the world's energy requirements and it's about development. It's about assisting nations to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power. It's about shaping the future of the nuclear enterprise in a way that meets not just our energy requirements but also our environmental goals. And most important, we want to do this in a way that reduces the risk of proliferation by discouraging the spread of the most sensitive technologies: enrichment and reprocessing. The declaration establishes a new format, a new baseline for action for working together with other countries to build this future. We want to have widespread participation, including both other suppliers as well as many potential beneficiaries. More than a dozen countries in Asia, in Africa, in the Middle East and elsewhere, have expressed interest in acquiring nuclear reactors. Now is the time to help shape their decisions in a way that advances our common interest. That is why this initiative is intended to support the anticipated near or mid term expansion of nuclear energy worldwide, and at the same time, as I mentioned, strengthen efforts to stop the spread of sensitive fuel cycle technologies that could lead to nuclear weapons. This joint initiative is very broad in scope. It builds on some of the ongoing international initiatives in this area, including the U.S. initiative for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Russian initiative to develop international nuclear fuel centers, and joint efforts that we have been undertaking in Vienna to establish a fuel supply mechanism through the International Atomic Energy Agency. The initiative also envisions working with others to put in place new elements such as facilitating the supply of modern appropriate reactors to new countries, infrastructure and financing support, and assisting in the management of spent fuel. The goal is to chart a comprehensive way forward by fashioning an attractive offer, as the declaration says, an attractive offer for countries to acquire power reactors without the need to pursue indigenous enrichment and reprocessing. The initiative also foresees a very important role for the IAEA. The two presidents support expanded resources for the agency to meet its safeguards responsibilities as nuclear power grows worldwide. Further, the IAEA could assist countries to help develop the infrastructure necessary for safe and secure operation of nuclear power facilities. And finally, I would emphasize that this is not about the rights of countries under the NPT. This is not about changing or taking away rights. This is about encouraging sovereign states to make sovereign choices based on their own interests, financial as well as nonproliferation interests. It's about providing an alternative path to energy development that becomes a win for energy security, a win for environmental security and a win for nonproliferation. And with that, let me ask my colleague, Sergei, to comment. DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Thank you, Bob. First of all, I'd like to concur with everything that Bob had to say because we worked together on the paper and I fully share what he said because that's the basic thrust of the declaration that we put up together and that is being available already for a couple hours to the press. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts about the -- putting this declaration into the context. A year ago in St. Petersburg, there was a summit of G-8 where we were focusing on energy security. And if you might recall, one of the conclusions that we came up with -- all of us in G-8 -- that the further expansion of nuclear energy is inevitable and it's something that needs to be encouraged in a safe, reliable and predictable way because we all need to address the energy requirements of the future, thinking about them today. That includes also not only providing new technology, but also providing for safe and reliable environment that takes care of nonproliferation concerns as well. So the idea behind this declaration of the two presidents was to give a good answer to those who criticize the Nonproliferation Treaty, the nonproliferation regime, for something allegedly being discriminatory in terms of access to technologies, to energy sources. And Russia and the United States have decided to put their heads together and to take actions together in order to promote a new format that would create predictable, reliable framework for cooperation. There are a lot of things that were discussed in different formats, like Russian proposal to establish a multilateral center to enrich uranium. And we are not only talking about the idea; we are doing it. We are creating the center together with our Kazakhstan friends. United States has launched GNEP initiative that those two elements are very much mutually complementary. There are other ideas that are being discussed and are being explored. One of them is INPRO program that our president has proposed and it was launched in the IAEA to build a concept of new, safe nuclear energy approaches to technologies. So there are many elements that were developing on their own. What this format does is to bring them together in systematic and a way that would be looking into the future. And what Russia and the United States want to do here is to put their acts together in order to promote a format that would benefit us all. And I fully agree with what Bob had to say, that this proposal, if fully implemented, is a win-win situation for both our two countries, for developing countries, and for countries that have already embarked on significant progress in nuclear energy. It's about cooperation. It's not about denying rights but rather, providing good, economically viable, technologically reliable alternative to the development of nuclear energy through multilateral and bilateral cooperation. So what we will try to do, together with other interested countries, relying on the expertise of multilateral organizations, first of all of the IAEA and with their support, is to create a framework that would give us all the opportunity of solving the energy problems with the use of nuclear energy on cooperative and reliable basis. I would like to add one additional point to this, is that when our presidents discussed the issue of addressing the current problems on nonproliferation, they also were mindful of the need to continue what Russia and the United States have been doing so far in terms of lowering the levels of the nuclear potentials. We do have an agreement, START, that is currently operational and will expire by the end of 2009. And what was agreed between the United States and Russia to embark on a significant series of discussions upon the instructions from the presidents to find a formula for continuing this process and as early as possible. So the statement of the Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Russia and Secretary of State in the United States was issued today on this score as well. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: Carol. QUESTION: Speaking about the statement by Minister Lavrov and Secretary Rice, it doesn't reflect any number, any target number, in terms of reductions and it doesn't say anything about the disagreements that have been going on between the United States and Russia over whether there should be a formal treaty, whether it should reflect specific numbers. Have you made any progress in that sphere and are you looking at any specific target numbers? MR. JOSEPH: Please, go ahead. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Yes. Well, I think it would be too early to announce any numbers because we haven't agreed on them. What we have agreed on, that the process of reductions need to continue, that we will be working together in order to explore what positive can be used from the current agreement into the future. It doesn't mean that we necessarily need to continue the treaty as it stands today, because a lot of things that are provided for in the treaty has been already completed. So we need to look now at the treaty, look to -- into the possibilities that we will have about the treaty, and it's something that we are embarking on and discussing seriously from now on. And we expect that there will be progress, at least in basic understandings, within months to come. MR. JOSEPH: And I would just add that Secretary Rice and Minister Lavrov did reiterate the position of both of our governments to continue reduction to the lowest level possible, consistent with our national security requirements and international alliance commitments. They also emphasized the importance of confidence building and transparency and continuing the dialogue. I think the statement pretty much is self-explanatory and points to the next steps in that regard. QUESTION: The new framework that's being worked out, how does it differ from the IAEA itself in terms of guidelines for countries, in terms of peaceful nuclear energy use? MR. JOSEPH: We'll alternate. I think what is new about the declaration of the two presidents and the initiative that is launched by the two presidents is that the United States and Russia will work together to put together a number of elements that are already in play, and we've mentioned several of those, including efforts to enhance reliability of access to nuclear fuel, the GNEP initiative, the Russian fuel center initiative. We would put those together with other elements in a very attractive offer, an attractive offer that does include several new things, including, as I mentioned, the possibility of financing and facilitating support for the development of infrastructure, which is broadly defined in the vision. And so by doing that, we can best help to shape this future in a way that does provide not only for meeting the goals that we have for energy, the urgency and the demands that we have for meeting worldwide energy, but we do it in a way that helps guard against what many are very concerned about, and that is a cascade of future proliferation. And I think that's what's new. That's what is new in this initiative. It's both substantive and process, I think. And it shows again, I think, the ability of the United States and Russia to work together when our interests intersect. Sergei and I, for example, worked together to put in place an initiative that the two presidents announced last July on nuclear terrorism. This is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which has moved from 13 original countries at our meeting in Rabat a year ago in October, to over 50 countries having endorsed this very aggressive, very ambitious initiative to deal with concrete actions, to put in place concrete measures to prevent access to sensitive materials by terrorists, to detect and interdict materials that terrorists may acquire, and to work together, to the degree that we can, to respond to a terrorist attack with nuclear or radiological weapons; for example, coming to each other's assistance in the event that a dirty bomb is used. I think that is an example and that has been a model for our work on nuclear energy. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: I cannot agree more with what Bob said. When we agree on the goals, we can find ways of working together effectively. And the example that I brought about the development of the initiative to combat nuclear terrorism is a good example of how things can be shaped by initiative of two countries supported by others. We went from two of us proposing the idea in the Petersburg summit. Our two presidents have advanced this. Then it was supported by G-8, then it became 13, now it's 53 and there are at least a couple of dozens of countries that are exploring how to associate themselves with these efforts. We are very much satisfied that the idea is getting more and more understanding among the countries, and more and more following, and more and more of practical contribution. So it's not about creating new legal instruments, about creating new bureaucracy. It's about working together to address specific challenges that we face together. So these philosophy that is put behind this proposal is in a way the same. We want to address a format of multilateral cooperation that would bring into the format all of the best that does exist now in different formats that provides for optimization of national and multilateral efforts in developing nuclear energy. And you should be reminded there are many countries that are looking now at the nuclear energy in the future, but many of them don't have infrastructure at home to support that kind of energy. They do not have a basic knowledge as to how to regulate it, what to do with the waste, how to get fuel supply lines on reliable basis. So what we will try to put together is what Bob called attractive offer that will try to be a format whereby countries interested in developing nuclear energy for their economic and development purposes would know that if they join that kind of format of cooperation they will be reliably supplied with what is needed for legitimate nuclear energy development, and it will be done in a way that will be relying on the expertise and the wealth of technological knowledge that has been applied already in our two countries and many others. So the idea is that we are now proposing in this declaration that we will work with others. The declaration speaks of us working with others to develop this format. So you asked how different it is from the IAEA. It's not the IAEA. It's an effort. It's not an organization. It's not a bureaucracy. But it will rely heavily on the assistance and expertise of the IAEA. It will rely heavily on the standards that have been developed in the IAEA and are being developed in the future. It will heavily rely upon the verification system of the agency. That is pretty unique and the only one that we have in the world in order to ensure that whatever is developed through cooperation is developed for peaceful purposes. So we expect that this initiative will be developing hand-in-hand with the capabilities that the agency developing itself. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: Yes. QUESTION: Can I go back to the Lavrov-Rice statement? There are some reports that what you're looking at is a formula that would involve exchange of data but not necessarily inspections, that -- which leads to some concern about the security of Russia's nuclear devices. Is that the kind of formula you're looking at, first of all? And secondly, given the fact that START goes through 2009 and we'll have a new administration in 2009, is this something that's designed to be a stopgap to alleviate concerns that there'll be nothing there? I mean, isn't there a chance that anything you negotiate may be over -- rewritten, renegotiated in 2009? I mean, how -- is this really what you think will be a long-term, lasting solution? MR. JOSEPH: Well, START does come to an end in December 2009. The Treaty of Moscow continues with the reductions through 2012 to what will be the lowest level of deployed strategic warheads in decades. What we have tried to do and what we would continue to do is develop ideas, develop measures that will provide for the confidence and the transparency that the START measures provided at the time, during the time of that treaty. We are involved in that dialogue. Now, as we haven't come to agreement on what will replace START, but we are in the process of talking about that. We both want transparency. We both want confidence-building measures. We have talked about measures that would involve data exchanges and site visits. We have, I think, you know, a way to go in terms of our discussion, but we are actively working now that. I should say that I'm no longer working that, but the United States and Russia are working together constructively on that. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: I will give you my Russian perspective, and I wouldn't say that we, the Russians, are looking only for confidence-building measures and data exchange. It's something that certainly is part and parcel of any big arrangement for nuclear reductions, but we think that we need to focus mainly on the basics as to what we want to see continuing. Is it a stopgap or is it a continuing process of nuclear reductions? For us, it's a continuing process. And we need to think what will come up after the treaty does expire, because we do not want this very important process to get lost or just to be discontinued. So the idea is that we will look into the treaty and the other ideas that are being fermented around the treaty and try to sort out what positive elements of this treaty should continue after it expires, and then we will build on that. That is the Russian concept. As to whether -- like I said, transparency would be enough for you to be reassured about the safety of nuclear facilities in Russia, I'm pretty comfortable about security of our facilities. The issue is how we can ensure that, first, there is a predictability in strategic relations between Russia and the United States, that we continue to rely on our security on lowest possible levels of nuclear capabilities, and certainly some measures to make sure that arrangements of this sort are being implemented needs to be developed. So as you might have noticed, there is a little bit -- I wouldn't call it difference, but nuances in our approaches. And it's normal, because we're in the process of developing a joint concept. Had we had one now, we would have announced this instead of announcing that we are going to have negotiations that need to be continued -- finished with a result in the near future. What is important today is the determination of both sides to work on this solution, and I hope it will be found. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: Please. QUESTION: I would like to ask the Deputy Foreign Minister a slightly off-topic question on Iran, if I may. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: We are working now on a different subject. I can -- QUESTION: It's very slightly off-topic. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Hmm? QUESTION: It's very slightly off-topic -- FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Slight? QUESTION: -- on nuclear cooperation between Russia and Iran. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Yes. QUESTION: The Iranian official speaking earlier today in Dubna at some kind of conference claimed that Bushehr power plant will be finished, basically, in two months and they expect the Russians to deliver fuel anytime now, as he put it. What I wanted to know, sir, is whether the differences between Russia and Iran, financial differences that previously took place are over and what, basically, your take on his comments? FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Well, usually, I do not comment on comments that I haven't read myself, but I'll give you a general answer to this. First of all, Bushehr is going to be continued. It's going to be built. It's fully compliant with all the requirements of the IAEA. It's fully under the safeguards agreements. And I would say that the arrangement around Bushehr is an example of what Iran would be well advised to choose as a method and way of developing its nuclear energy, whereby it gets a reactor based on cooperation with other countries. It's getting fuel. It -- the fuel will be taken back after the exposure. So it's a win-win situation for everybody, for Iranian economically because it's the most reliable way to get the modern technology. Secondly, they don't have to solve the problem of disposal of the residuals. And from the point of view of nonproliferation, it's one of the best schemes one can envisage. So Bushehr as a concept is something that we are going to guarantee and we are going to work to the completion of the treaty -- of the project, provided, of course, that all the verification requirements are in place in Iran. Concerning the timing, I am not the one who conducts negotiations on the payments and things like that. We have entities that are working on the basis of contracts and market economy rules. What I know about the timing is that it will be, I think, too -- what the English word will be -- it's ambitious to say that it will be completed within two months. It's not doable physically because the state of development requires, I think, a number of additional months to complete it. And certainly, they need to sort out all these technical and economic questions that need to be resolved. So the issue of sending fuel to Iran is not something that we'll have to resolve tomorrow. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: We'll just go in order here. QUESTION: Right. What do you expect -- a question to both of you. What do you expect the response of the Iranian and North Korean governments to this new international mechanism to be? And also just a clarification. The agreement mentions storage and management of spent fuel. Does it envisage storage on Russian territory according with the law that's been passed about four or five years ago? Thank you. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: What kind of agreement you are talking about? QUESTION: Well, I'm talking about the joint statement by the two presidents. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Cooperation. It's not yet an agreement. QUESTION: Right. A joint statement. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Well, it doesn't speak all about Russia -- only Russia per se. We have a law that provides for an opportunity for us to take back fuel of Russian origin, which we do. We do it for Ukraine, we do it for some European countries where we have constructed reactors, and it's normal. We can even take fuel and reprocess to send back the residuals under the Russian law. So that's a Russian situation, particular situation. But here, what we are talking about is a concept that is rather multilateral. We need to work together in order to develop an answer to the question as to what you are going to do with the spent fuel, how you manage this in a safe, reliable manner, both in terms of environmental protection, security and nonproliferation. And it's something that we need to work on together. GNEP, by the way, is a program that is also addressing that kind of stuff for the future, and we are going to work in GNEP with the American colleagues on all these issues among others. QUESTION: Iran and North Korea response? FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Oh, that one. Oh, I think that certainly if Iran and North Korea choose to develop their nuclear energy on the basis of cooperation we are offering, that would be the best achievement one can hope for. In a way, partially we did offer to the Iranian colleagues one of the options that is included in the declaration by our two presidents, and that is the participation in the multilateral fuel cycle, fuel enrichment facility that we are developing in Russia. And this offer still stands. MR. JOSEPH: I would just add that the declaration makes very clear the importance of nonproliferation; and cooperation, of course, would be with countries with good nonproliferation credentials. Neither North Korea nor Iran have good nonproliferation credentials. Iran, of course, is in violation of its safeguards obligations and there are many questions that are still outstanding with regard to the IAEA's investigation of the Iranian nuclear program. North Korea, of course, has agreed in the statement in September of 2005 to abandon or eliminate all of its nuclear programs, so I think it's premature by a long distance to start thinking about specific cooperation with Iran and North Korea. What's laid out here in the declaration and the vision of the two presidents is a framework for cooperation on nuclear energy. And what we are trying to preclude is facilitating the access of sensitive technologies to countries who might be interested in nuclear power for other than energy reasons. DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: I would add -- pardon me. MR. JOSEPH: Please. DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: Two words. On Iran and North Korea, I think that they joining this initiative is not a question of tomorrow because they haven't shown the interest in international cooperation so far. But we still hope that both issues can be resolved through negotiations and confidence building with the help of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And if these two countries develop a way of transparency and going through the agreements with the rest of the international community, working through the international organizations, and they achieve a confidence in the program that the other countries have, they will be as eligable as anybody else. Certainly, there is a long way to go before that. MR. GALLEGOS: We have time for two more questions. MR. JOSEPH: One here, and then maybe one in the back. QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, do you have any -- any negotiation underhand with the Iranian Government regarding to build another nuclear energy facility such as Bushehr? And if you do, what will be built? There is a contradiction between these joint actions and building another facility in Iran. FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: First of all, I don't know how building any facility will be in contradiction with this declaration, but I'm not aware of any specific negotiations, as you call, on any additional reactor today. And we certainly would like to see first of all that the Iranian issue in the IAEA has been successfully resolved before we are comfortable that kind of cooperation can continue. MR. JOSEPH: Sir. QUESTION: In 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on civilian centers over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, consequently killing over 200,000 people. In hindsight, I think we can all agree that that was a very irresponsible use of the technology at the time. So my question is what gives the United States the right to sit at the head of the table and dictate to other countries how the type of technology should be regulated today? MR. JOSEPH: I guess that's probably for me. (Laughter.) Well, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the question. And in fact, I think that most historians would agree that the use of an atomic bomb brought to a close a war that would have cost millions of more lives, not just hundreds of thousands of allied lives but literally millions of Japanese lives. And the United States has taken the lead in nonproliferation working with others, most recently with Russia in a number of initiatives, to deal with the threats that we face from nuclear proliferation with regard to countries in the near term like Iran and North Korea, with threats of today such as the threats from nuclear terrorism, which perhaps are the preeminent threat that we face as a nation, and trying -- working with others to shape the future so that we don't have a cascade of proliferation. The type of world that was envisioned by President Kennedy back in the 1960s in which we have 20 or 30 nuclear powers, that is something that we need to preclude, we need to avoid. At the same time, we need to move forward responsibly with others to ensure that we can meet our energy requirements, we can see industrializing countries develop, and we can do this in a responsible manner. And that's the chart -- that's the path that we have chartered and that's the path that I think our two presidents want to take, not just our two countries, but lead in the international community. Thank you. QUESTION: The United States has been stockpiling weapons, nuclear weapons, for over 50 years -- FOREIGN MINISTER KISLYAK: I would like to add a couple of thoughts to what Bob had to say. Certainly, among the historians there are more than one view as to the wisdom of the use of nuclear weapon in the end of the World War II. And it's not that (inaudible) assessment that we share. And there are some other differences that we have, but what is important that first of all neither United States nor Russia consider themselves as sitting in the Presidium and regulating the use of nuclear energy for the future. What we've tried to offer is a honest and constructive cooperation with the others in order to build together a format that is cooperative and that promotes development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a reliable and predictable fashion. I would like to add to this that this area of discussions and cooperations have become recently very, very productive new area of cooperation between Russia and the United States. And if you look carefully into the declaration by the two presidents, they took note of the fact that a bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation, bilateral cooperation between Russia and the United States, has been initialed. And it's going to be a new format for our own bilateral cooperation that would allow us too to work together better in the international formats. Thank you. MR. JOSEPH: Thank you. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein. FOIA | Privacy Notice | Copyright Information | Other U.S. Government Information ***************************************************************** 26 YubaNet.com: Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Civil Nuclear Power "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman By: Oxford Research Group Published: Jul 4, 2007 at 07:39 Four new nuclear reactors a month would have to be built from now to 2070 to make a significant difference to global CO2 emissions, says new Oxford Research Group report Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power. Even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism. A nuclear renaissance would create overwhelming challenges. The report, by Dr. Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, with a foreword by David Howarth MP (Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesperson) concludes that: "A world-wide nuclear renaissance is beyond the capacity of the nuclear industry to deliver and would stretch to breaking point the capacity of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor and safeguard civil nuclear power." Investing in nuclear power will make it much harder to achieve secure and sustainable energy policies: "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix." In the foreword to the report David Howarth MP reminds us that "many people seem to have forgotten about nuclear power's inherent problems." He says the authors "analyse in convincing and sometimes alarming detail the problems of international and domestic security that a worldwide revival in nuclear power would pose." In the UK a number of security measures physical and human convince the UK Office of Civil Nuclear Security and the Department for Trade and Industry to claim: "the risks associated with building new nuclear power stations can be appropriately managed." - This may be the case today, but will it be true in ten, twenty or thirty years time? - If the threat assessment changes, how will plant operators adapt and at what cost? - How would the market and public respond to a foiled terrorist attack against a nuclear plant, letalone a successful one? Even a failed terrorist attack on one of the first new builds would most probably cause subsequent new build to halt in many countries. If this happened, Governments would need to re-review energy policy minus civil nuclear power, further delaying progress towards a sustainable and secure energy policy and possibly causing the UK and other countries to miss the window of opportunity to tackle climate change. The question is whether, in the 21st century, the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed or not? Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent non-governmental organisation which seeks to bring about positive change on issues of national and international security. Established in 1982, it is now considered to be one of the UK's leading global security think tanks. ORG is a registered charity (No. 299436) and uses a combination of innovative publications, expert roundtables, residential consultations, and engagement with opinion-formers and government, to develop and promote sustainable global security strategies. In 2003, Oxford Research Group was awarded the Niwano Peace Prize, and in 2005 The Independent newspaper named ORG as one of the top twenty think tanks in the UK. Copyright 2007 YubaNet.com, all rights reserved. Email your ***************************************************************** 27 Journal News: Indian Point siren test in Putnam not so silent Thursday, July 5, 2007 By GREG CLARY Putnam County residents who may have heard Indian Point's emergency sirens sound about 10:15 a.m. today can rest easy - nuclear plant officials were conducting what was supposed to be a silent test and inadvertantly pushed the wrong button. "There was no emergency, but the sirens sounded for a couple of minutes," said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Indian Point. "We didn't get any calls from residents, but Putnam County did and at least they were able to say it was an error." Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point, is testing each of 150 new sirens it is installing in the evacuation zone that runs 10 miles in every direction from its Buchanan site. The company is working to meet an August deadline to replace a decades-old system and has run into some glitches with radio frequences and other technological problems that have twice delayed the new system. Copyright 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 28 Bangkok Post: Nuclear plants must wait for changes to law Friday July 06, 2007 Global Insights 2004 law restricts atomic energy usage ARANEE JAIIMSIN The government needs to amend a law regarding nuclear energy development to cover power production or Thailand cannot build any nuclear power plants in the future. Only small-scale activities without military applications, such as medical treatment and food preservation, are allowed to use nuclear energy under the country's Atomic Energy for Peace Act 2004, according to Kamol Takabut, director of the mechanical engineering division at the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat). ''Therefore, the scope of activities must be revised to cover nuclear power plants, too,'' said Dr Kamol, who is one of 10 experts in nuclear technology in Thailand. According to Dr Kamol, the Energy Ministry set up a committee to study nuclear power plant implementation in April. The body is scheduled to submit a master plan for nuclear power plants in October. Contents of the master plan will include proposals for relevant laws and regulations, a regulatory body, safety measures, public-relations plans, a community engagement programme and recommendations on the appropriate technology for nuclear power plants. ''If the new government approves the master plan, Thailand will have two nuclear power plants with electricity generating capacity of 1,000 megawatts each in the next 13 years,'' said Dr Kamol. According to the 15-year Power Development Plan drawn up by the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO), nuclear power would contribute 5% of the overall energy supply in Thailand by 2020, and increase to 9% the next year with supply capacity of 4,000 megawatts. ''Appropriate technology is whatever that gets acceptance from the government and local communities,'' said Dr Kamol. The committee will offer an opportunity to any company that wants to make nuclear technology presentations. Toshiba has already presented its boiling water reactor (BWR) technology, followed by Mitsubishi with proposals for a pressurised water reactor (PWR). Currently, the committee has appointments to meet Areva of France for a PWR presentation in September. After that it will meet GE for a BWR demonstration and a Russian company offering PWR technology. Investment costs for building a nuclear power plant total US$2,000 per kilowatt, so Thailand roughly would need $8 billion to build two nuclear power plants by 2021, noted Dr Kamol. ''We'll know about sources of funds only when the government puts the construction of nuclear power plants up for bidding,'' said Dr Kamol. Nuclear power plants should be located adjacent to beaches. The committee says places with huge potential include Ao Phai in Chon Buri; Ban Bangberd, Ban Lamthaen and Ban Lamyang in Prachuap Khiri Khan; Ban Thongching in Chumphon; and Ban Klongmuang in Phuket. Nevertheless, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world's centre of co-operation in the nuclear field, does not allow atomic plants in densely populated areas so those venues would not be selected, said Dr Kamol. Despite the fact that the master plan has bot been approved yet, the committee must work on public relations immediately in order to educate local people about the importance of nuclear power plants. Dr Kamol noted that the Japanese government began sending officials to villages up to 20 years before nuclear plants were built. Egat is now recruiting 10 engineers to join its nuclear engineering division this year. The division will require 36 officials in 2010, according to an IAEA recommendation. Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2007 Privacy ***************************************************************** 29 Financial Express: Nuclear deal talks nearing the end Thursday, July 05, 2007 POLITICAL BUREAU NEW DELHI, JUL 4: As India and the US are getting ready for another round of talks on the civil nuclear co-operation later this month, US Ambassador to India, David C Mulford, on Wednesday said that the two countries are nearing the end of the negotiations. Talking to reporters on the sidelines of the American Independence Day celebrations, Mulford said, We are nearing the end of the road (on civil nuclear negotiations). These are complex negotiations. Highlighting the issues that need to be resolved before the two sides can clinch bilateral nuclear pact, also called the 123 agreement, he stressed that negotiations are highly complex both from the political and technical points of view. In his Independence Day speech, the ambassador said the US saw India as a natural partner with which it shares common values of liberty, democracy, tolerance and diversity, not an ally. According to him, Its not easy. You are talking about one of the most technically complex negotiations. If it were easy, we could have done a long time ago. National security adviser (NSA) MK Narayanan and foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon will visit Washington on July 16 to sort out issues relating to the 123 agreement with US NSA Stephen Hadley and under secretary of state Nicholas Burns. The involvement of national security advisers from the two sides is intended to give a push at a higher level to the negotiations that have got stuck due to differences on issues like reprocessing. Both sides are expected to resolve the impasse over Indias insistence on getting prior US consent for reprocessing of US-origin or US-obligated fuel -- which Washington is not ready to grant yet. During informal talks between the two sides on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Germany last month, India had suggested setting up a stand-alone facility for reprocessing spent fuel and placing it under international safeguards as a way to break the deadlock over the reprocessing issue. India is also expected to insist on getting firm fuel supply guarantees from the US for imported reactors. The 123 agreement is expected to pave the way for the resumption of civil nuclear commerce between the two countries. 2007: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world. ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Activists demand full details of German nuclear plant fire - Wed Jul 4, 5:32 PM ET KIEL, Germany (AFP) - Environmentalists on Wednesday blasted an energy company for failing to reveal the full extent of a fire last week at a German nuclear power plant. The German branch of Friends of the Earth, BUND, demanded from European energy group Vattenfall "full transparency in the investigation of the causes of the fire and possible dangers." A company spokesman dismissed the criticism, saying it had provided quick and comprehensive information on the accident to the authorities. The blaze began last Thursday at the Kruemmel power plant in Geesthacht, 30 kilometres (20 miles) southeast of northern city of Hamburg, and came amid a fresh national debate about nuclear energy and global warming. The fire led to problems at the plant's nuclear reactor, the Schleswig-Holstein state social affairs ministry, which is responsible for the region's power plants, said in a statement released Thursday. Local police had reported last week that the fire, which started when coolant in a large electric power transformer substation ignited due to a short circuit, had been isolated from the atomic reactor. However experts investigating the incident found "several unusual things when the reactor was shut down" including evidence of damage related to the fire. But they said there was no radiation leak. Separately, another nuclear power plant in Schleswig-Holstein, Brunsbuettel, was temporarily shut down last Thursday about two hours before the Kruemmel fire because its capacity was overloaded. It reopened Sunday. BUND demanded the immediate closure of both plants. Germany has begun a long-term phase-out of its nuclear energy programme and expects to mothball its last plant around 2020. The plan was approved by the previous Social Democrat and Green government, but Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives argue that abandoning nuclear energy would seriously undermine the country's chances of slashing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union has set a goal of a 20-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, but Germany is aiming for a cut of up to 40 percent. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 31 globeandmail.com: Ontario powers up nuclear ad campaign MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT ENVIRONMENT REPORTER July 4, 2007 at 4:53 AM EDT Ontario Power Generation spent nearly $1.2-million since 2004 on advertising the benefits of nuclear and other power sources - about eight times more than the government-owned utility spent extolling its conservation programs. The figures, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request made by a private citizen, also showed OPG spending $150,000 so far this year on advertising designed to promote its coal-fired generating stations, even though the Liberal government recently pledged to shut them down because they are such high-polluting sources of electricity. The utility's advertising is controversial because Ontario is in the midst of a major debate over the future of its electricity sources. The Liberal government and Ontario Power Generation - which supplies 70 per cent of the province's electricity - want to start construction on new nuclear reactors. It would be the first time since the 1980s that new nuclear stations have been built, and the proposal has met vociferous opposition from many within the province's powerful environmental movement. The FOI request was submitted by Michael Polanyi, a Toronto resident. "It was just rising frustration about the number of ads I've been seeing for nuclear energy and promoting it as a clean alternative," Mr. Polanyi said in an interview. OPG has dramatically stepped up the advertising that promotes various electricity sources. In 2004, it spent only $25,000, almost entirely for its nuclear program. This year, up to May 16, the total had already reached $661,000, with $261,000 earmarked for promoting nuclear power, $250,000 for hydroelectric power and $150,000 for coal. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 32 Prague Daily Monitor: Czech mayors against research preceding nuclear waste repository - By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 4 July 2007 Nadejkov, South Bohemia, July 3 (CTK) - The mayors of municipalities in the vicinity of Bozejovice, south Bohemia, have turned to the government and parliament with a memorandum in protest against a possible research mapping Bozejovice as a potential site to host a nuclear waste repository. Nadejkov Mayor Zdenek Cerny told CTK today that the mayors have asked the government and parliament to respect their disapproving stand while planning further research works. They also push for a change in the atom law that would grant municipalities more powers in the process of permitting new nuclear facility projects. The memorandum was signed by mayors of 13 municipalities and representatives of two civic associations. The locals have expressed their opposition to the possible nuclear waste repository project several times in the past, for the last time in a petition in 2006. The signatories of the memorandum recall that the government policy statement sets municipalities' consent as an indispensable condition for a spent nuclear fuel repository to be located in a given area. However, municipalities' consent is not a legal condition in this case in the Czech Republic, unlike some other EU countries. The state plans to select two suitable localities from the currently discussed six by 2015 and to choose the definitive site by 2025. The construction of the repository is to be launched in 2050. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Hemscott: UK government approves four nuclear plant design pre-licensing aplications LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The new UK department for business, enterprise and regulatory reform (DBERR), which has recently substituted the DTI, has approved all four applications for the opening phase of generic design assessment for new nuclear reactors. The designs eligible under the first stage of the pre-licensing process, which will move onto a second stage subject to the outcome of the ongoing nuclear consultation, were put forward by AECL, Areva, GE-Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse. Applications for the pre-licensing process were invited through the nuclear consultation document, published alongside the Energy White Paper in May. If successful in phase one, which includes an assessment of the safety case for each reactor design, a design may be able to progress to phase two of the generic design assessment, where the designs will be assessed in more detail. The DBERR added that it is likely that only three designs will make it to phase two due to resource constraints of the regulators. TFN.newsdesk@thomson.com mr/jfr COPYRIGHT Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, ***************************************************************** 34 Hemscott: Brown says UK energy supply would be 'safeguarded' by new nuclear power LONDON (Thomson Financial) - Britain's future energy supplies would be 'safeguarded' by the construction of new nuclear power stations, said Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Speaking at his first Prime Minister's Questions, Brown said last year's events in Europe, where Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, 'should make it clear to everyone that we cannot rely on an energy policy that makes us wholly dependent on one or two countries or one or two regions around the world'. 'That is why the security of our energy supply is best safeguarded by building a new generation of nuclear power stations,' he said. TFN.newsdesk@thomson.com fp/hjp/fp/jlc/fp/jlc COPYRIGHT Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, ***************************************************************** 35 ITAR-TASS: Rosatom hails Russia-US document to push peaceful n-energy use 04.07.2007, 09.37 TASHKENT, July 4 (Itar-Tass) - Russian federal atomic energy agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko hails joint efforts on peaceful nuclear energy use and non-proliferation adopted by the Russian and US presidents at the Kennebunkport summit. The main thing is that we fulfilled the instructions the two leaders gave last year and adopted a document on peaceful nuclear energy use. The lack of the document hampered normal cooperation, he told Itar-Tass on Wednesday. He pointed out that it is good luck for such a document to be prepared so quickly, as it usually takes two-three years to process such papers. The text has been finalized and enters into force, Kiriyenko said. The Rosatom top official expressed the hope that the document will lead to the real and full-fledged opening of markets for Russia. The talks on anti-dumping procedures are close to completion. They are not easy, but the end is close, he said. Kiriyenko considers important Russian-US cooperation in nuclear energy development initiated by the two presidents. Vladimir Putins initiative to set up an international uranium enrichment centre has already been implemented in Angarsk. Armenia and Ukraine have already joined the project. Active talks with other countries are underway, he said. He expressed confidence that Russia and the US may implement an array of projects, including those on the creation and construction of new power-generating units. ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 36 ITAR-TASS: Lithuanian president signs law on nuclear power plant construction 04.07.2007, 23.50 VILNIUS, July 4 (Itar-Tass) -- Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus on Wednesday signed a law on the construction of a new nuclear power plant, the press service of the head of state said. On Tuesday, Adamkus met with the chiefs of the state security agencies and the special investigation service, as well as with the heads of the state control agency, the council for competition, and other structures to discuss the threats and challenges that may results from the implementation of this ambitious project, the press service said. The Lithuanian leader heard reports of the statesmen and made a decision to sign the law, the press service said. Under the law, a company will be set up for the construction of the nuclear power plant and it will be given the status of national investor. The company will incorporate the single electricity transmission system operator Lietuvos Energija, and two electricity providers the Western and Eastern power grids. The company that will be created before the yearend will select partners and finance the building process. The plants construction is the most expensive Lithuanian project during the years of independence. Its cost is estimated at 22 billion lits (or 6.4 billion euros), which is equivalent to the yearly budget of the country. Lithuanias share in the project funding will make 7.5 billion lits. The new nuclear power plant will be built on the site of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, which will be closed in 2009 at Brussels request. Jointly with Lithuania, taking part in the construction of the new nuclear power plant will be Latvia, Estonia and Poland. They plan to build the new station by 2015. The Lithuanian government will hold a 34-percent stake in the new plant through the national investor. ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 Deccan Herald: N-deal almost final - US Thursday, July 5, 2007 New Delhi, ians: India and the United States are nearing the end of civil nuclear negotiations as they get ready for another round of talks on a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation pact on July 16, US envoy David C Mulford said here ... India and the United States are “nearing the end” of civil nuclear negotiations as they get ready for another round of talks on a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation pact on July 16, US envoy David C Mulford said here on Wednesday. “We are nearing the end of the road (on civil nuclear negotiations). These are complex negotiations,” Mulford told reporters at The American Centre on the sidelines of the celebrations to mark the American Independence Day. Underlining the intricacies of issues that needed to be resolved before the two sides can clinch bilateral nuclear pact, also called 123 agreement, the US envoy stressed that negotiations are “highly complex” both from the political and technical points of view. “It’s not easy. You are talking about one of the most technically complex negotiations. If it were easy, we could have done a long time ago,” Mulford stated. In his Independence Day speech, the envoy said the US saw India as a “natural partner” with which it shares common values of liberty, democracy, tolerance and diversity, not as an ally. National Security Adviser (NSA) M K Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will visit Washington on July 16 to sort out issues relating to the 123 agreement with US NSA Stephen Hadley and Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. The two sides are expected to resolve the impasse over India’s insistence on getting prior US consent for reprocessing of US-origin or US-obligated fuel, which Washington is not ready to grant yet. India is also expected to insist on getting iron clad fuel supply guarantees from the US for the imported reactors. Copyright 2007, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 38 ajc.com: Doomsday backlash: Georgia Power slams nuclear report By MARGARET NEWKIRK The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 07/05/07 The figures were chilling. Cancer death rates for children and teens up 58 percent in the region around Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle since the nuclear facility went on line. Cancer death rates up 25 percent in Burke County, where the plant sits. Hundreds to die if two new reactors get built, as Georgia Power plans. The figures came from a report called "Health Risks of Adding New Reactors to the Vogtle Nuclear Plant." Georgia Power Co. The Vogtle nuclear plant near Waynesboro. Commissioned by a North Carolina-based group opposing Georgia Power's pending nuclear expansion and championed by other, Georgia-based opponents, the report was intended as a damaging shot at Georgia Power's nuclear ambitions. It didn't turn out that way, in what may be a sign of things to come as the nuclear industry and its foes battle for hearts and minds during the country's first nuclear resurgence since Three Mile Island. It took Georgia Power approximately a nanosecond to bloody the health study beyond recognition, with an assist from the well-organized and well-funded nuclear industry, the speed of the Internet and -- unfortunately for its sponsors -- the report itself. Nuclear opponents may be a little rusty. It's been decades since they had a new nuke to oppose. And other issues -- like where to store radioactive waste -- have a higher profile than the question of whether reactors harm their neighbors. The industry says that question has been long answered in the negative. Opponents say the question hasn't been studied enough to say that -- which is why they commissioned their own report. But even some of that report's disseminators, like the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, backed away from some of its more startling claims, including the clear implication that Vogtle had killed people and would kill more. "We're not saying that Vogtle is responsible" for the cancer deaths in the region, said SACE's Sara Barczak -- although the report's title suggests just that. "We're just saying that something is going on here. Shouldn't we be more cautious about putting in a facility that could exacerbate what is already happening?" The industry's much louder message was that the report's author, Joe Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project, was a well-known crank known for issuing scary scientific junk. The study "is an old scare tactic that has been disproved and rejected many times," Georgia Power spokesman John Sell said. The company then listed eight state health departments that had reviewed and rejected similar Mangano health findings -- a list provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, which is the industry's lobbying arm and think tank and has been busily discrediting Mangano for years. NEI has a blog full of disdainful posts about Mangano, has tracked him from state to state and had a health expert at the ready to talk about it. NEI chief health physicist Ralph Andersen said he hadn't seen the Vogtle study but would look at it "as a matter of course. But so far, the story has tracked the same. He crunches the numbers, alarms people and moves on. There is a pattern of selecting data and disregarding data to support conclusions." Warnings about Radiation and Public Health Project studies also are on the Web site for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC lists typical flaws, some of which even the study's circulators concede exist in the Vogtle study. The study had scary data but didn't connect the data to Plant Vogtle in a way that would pass scientific muster. It didn't use scientifically accepted controls, didn't consider other explanations for cancer deaths and drew overreaching conclusions. "The report has flaws," said Frank Bove, an epidemiologist and a member of Eco Action, which helped circulate the report. But he said it did show health problems in the area already overburdened with heavy industrial sites: "Our point is this: Why pile on?" Mangano, the study's author, wasn't surprised that the industry had taken him on: "Ho-hum," he said. "I'm very used to this." He said his studies have been published in 22 peer-reviewed publications, despite the opinions of state health departments which "aren't subject to peer reviews." He also said his study -- even if subject to challenge -- is filling a void. The nation's policy, he said, is to set limits on emissions and look no further if a reactor operator is below those limits. If the limits are met, "they say no one is being harmed without doing any of their own studies. We believe this is presumptive. You must do the studies." Is a flawed study better than no study? Not according to Richard Clapp, professor of environmental health at Boston University's School of Public Health and a well-known cancer expert. Clapp said he also has concerns about the coming nuclear resurgence -- although he said the real health danger will likely fall on those who mine and process nuclear fuel. Given the high-speed world of Internet debunking, the groups that circulated the Vogtle study handed Georgia Power a hammer, he said. "Their hearts are right and their instincts are right," Clapp said. "But this is not the way to prove it." 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 39 PR Web: Nuclear Energy Back on Agenda as Sustainability Forces Reappraisal, Says Comprehensive New Report 2007-07-05 ABS Energy Research has just released an exhaustive new report on the international nuclear energy scene. Essential for industry executives, policy makers, the report shows how nuclear power generation for may be poised to re emerge from the shadows. London (PRWEB) July 5, 2007 -- ABS Energy Research has just released a detailed study of the contemporary nuclear energy industry. International in scope and comprehensive in nature, the report is essential reading for energy professionals, legislators, and lobbyists everywhere. ABS's new report covers the current base of nuclear power and history of nuclear power development, outlines the technologies, and discusses the safety issues, the contemporary scene and possible future developments. While the pace of nuclear energy development stalled and fell off in the late 1970's due to political pressure stemming from public safety concerns, contemporary trends point to a potential resurgence in nuclear power. First, environmental consciousness means power policy professionals are looking for achievable alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear stations are more efficient than hydro or thermal stations and generate no greenhouse gas emissions. Second, public perceptions of nuclear safety lag behind the sophisticated safety measures being engineered into state of the art nuclear plants. Among report highlights are: * In 2007 there are 442 nuclear power reactors in operation in 38 countries, with total generating capacity of 370,721 MW, * The first commercial nuclear power plant was commissioned in the UK in 1956 and by 2005 nuclear power provided 6.5% of the world's primary energy consumption and 9% of electricity generation. * No fewer than 20 countries are rethinking their positions on nuclear energy. While official projections have shown a steady decline in the nuclear industry, these may not be borne out. Coal has already rebounded and circumstances may dictate that nuclear may well do the same. * Public perception of nuclear energy is generally negative, but in some countries, such as Finland, perceptions have recently changed. * Developing new plants is still very expensive, but standardized designs are bringing down development costs. * Analysts are rethinking the costs and security of gas supplies. For a copy of ABS Energy Research's wide-ranging report on nuclear energy and it's role in power generation, please visit www.absenergyresearch.com. An order form can be found in the pdf file attached to this press release. Contact: Melany Krangle ABS Energy Research +44 (0) 20 8 432 6378 melanykrangle @ absenergyresearch.com Post Comment: Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/SG9yci1Mb3ZlLVBpZ2ctUGlnZy1UaGlyLVplcm 8= nuclear energy nuclear power greenhouse gas environment sustainability public safety power electricity CONTACT INFORMATION Melany Krangle ABS Energy Research Visit Our Site 020 8 432 6378 Email us Here ABOUT PRESS RELEASES If you have any questions regarding information in these press releases please contact the company listed in the press release. Please do not contact PRWeb. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry. PRWeb disclaims any content contained in these releases. Our complete disclaimer appears here. Copyright 1997-2007, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC. Vocus, PRWeb and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC. ***************************************************************** 40 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Atomic Safety in Germany: Reactor Affected in Nuclear Power Plant Fire - July 04, 2007 Contrary to previous reports, a fire at a nuclear power plant in Germany last week did in fact affect the reactor. The disturbing news comes at a time when the German government is debating the future of nuclear power. DDP A transformer at the Krmmel nuclear power plant caught fire last Thursday. Now experts have found that the reactor was affected. Politicians in Germany are asking why the seriousness of an accident at a nuclear power plant last week was initially played down. Energy company Vattenfall had been quick to reassure the public that the reactor was not affected during a fire at a nuclear power plant last Thursday. Now the disturbing news has been revealed that the fire did in fact have an effect on the reactor. The fire took place at a nuclear reactor in Krmmel near Hamburg last Thursday. Officials said that the fire only affected a transformer in the plant but not the reactor itself and that there was no risk of a radioactivity leak. No one was injured in the fire. However experts who are investigating the cause of the fire have now discovered that the reactor was in fact affected. In a statement released Tuesday by the Health Ministry in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, which is responsible for nuclear safety, it reported that the authorities had checked "several incidents caused by the shutdown of the reactor." The experts had found that one of the pumps which supply water to the reactor had shut down unexpectedly, and two safety and relief valves had opened accidentally. The result was that the water level and the pressure in the reactor fell quickly. However the drop in water level and pressure could be "balanced out by switching on a reserve supply system," the ministry said. "Despite these incidents, the safety of the facilities was guaranteed," the ministry statement read. After the fire, Vattenfall, the utility company which operates the nuclear plant, had claimed that the reactor was not affected by the fire. Now politicians are asking why the seriousness of the problem wasn't made public earlier. The Christian Democrats (CDU) energy expert in the Kiel state parliament, Manfred Ritzek, demanded an explanation Wednesday. Experts have been studying the scene of the fire in Krmmel since Sunday. They were only able to get into the interior of the transformer hall on Monday, where they found the transformer has been so severely damaged that it cannot be repaired and will have to be replaced. The cable which connects the power station and the transformer may also have to be replaced, Vattenfall said. The reactor was shut down after Thursday's fire and it is not clear when the power plant, which came into operation in 1983 and is one of the oldest types of reactors still working in Germany, will be able to go on line again. A second nuclear power plant at nearby Brunsbttel was also shut down last Thursday after a short-circuit but has been back on line since Sunday. There is speculation that the problem at Brunsbttel may have caused the fire at Krmmel due to a change in voltage in the network after Brunsbttel was shut down. The problems come at an unfortunate time for the German government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is rumored to be (more...) as part of her climate change strategy, even though the government is commited to phasing out nuclear power by 2021. That strategy is currently impossible -- the nuclear shutdown is inked in the coalition contract between the two parties in Merkel's government, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats -- but Merkel is said to be laying the foundations to make nuclear energy an issue in the 2009 federal elections. dgs/dpa/ddp/ap/reuters SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007 ***************************************************************** 41 Hindustan Times: India to join ITER to boost nuclear fusion technology - Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times New Delhi, July 05, 2007 India will invest Rs 2,500 crore in an international nuclear fusion project aimed at providing an alternative to fossil fuels and conventional nuclear power production. India had formally joined the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project in December 2005 that had United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea as full partners. The main ITER facility will be built in Cadarache, France; all ITER partners will participate in its construction, research and development. In India, the Ahmedabad-headquartered Institute for Plasma Research would be carrying out activities related to the international project to be located at Cadarache in southern France. India’s contributions are largely based on the indigenous experience and expertise available in the Indian industry. "India's joining ITER is a recognition of its scientific and technical capability in fusion energy," Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi said after a meeting of the Union Cabinet. Besides the Indian participation, the Cabinet also approved constitution of an empowered board by the governing council of the institute in Ahmedabad that would have full financial and administrative autonomy. Officials said the board had been constituted to ensure that red tape did not come in the way of prompt decision-making required for the prestigious international project. "Considering India's large energy needs in future, our gaining technological capability in fusion energy will be of considerable long-term benefit," Dasmunsi said, hopeful that Indian participation would allow the country to leapfrog in terms of the national technological capability in fusion energy. India is the fourth largest electricity producing country in the world but the capita energy consumption is half of China’s and one-fourth of the world average. India aspires to reach at least the global average by 2050, a target that would require her to produce about 1300 Giga Watt of electricity, ten times more than the present value of about 130 GW. About 80 per cent of the current electricity generation comes from fossil fuels, Hydro accounts for about 15 per cent, renewable energy about 2 per cent and nuclear about 3 per cent. India hopes to progressively reduce its dependence on fossil fuels over the next few decades and raise the contribution of conventional nuclear energy to 20-25 per cent by 2050. Fusion energy is viewed as an advance nuclear technology in this context that provides an opportunity to countries like India to meet their energy needs without contributing to global warming. ***************************************************************** 42 WNN: UK considers uranium and plutonium stocks 04 July 2007 The UK has enough uranium and plutonium in stock to fuel three 1000 MWe reactors for their entire 60-year lives, a report has told the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The document, entitled Uranium and Plutonium: Macro-economic Study, and prepared by consultants Environmental Resources Managment and Integrated Decision Management, totals up the UK stockpiles resulting from nuclear fuel cycle activities before putting forward a range of scenarios for their long-term management. The NDA has the responsibility of managing the legacy of the UK's historic nuclear program, gaining the best value for the taxpayer. It will use information from the report to discuss the future management of uranium and plutonium with government. The report explains that at present the materials are financially accounted for as "assets of zero value" which could be considered as either an asset or a liability depending on a variety of factors including the uranium market price and the relative costs of treating them as waste, storing them, or of processing them for sale on the market in one form or another. In summary, the three long-term managment options discussed in the report are: * To treat the materials as waste, put them in a form suitable for geologic disposal and proceed with this as soon as possible. * To store the materials for the long-term on the assumption that they may have a value at some point up to 300 years in future. * To use the materials now as fuel, assuming a certain current market value for them. This would see uranium stocks put back into enrichment and fuel fabrication and plutonium used as an input to mixed-oxide fuel (MOX). An assumption of the re-use case is that the UK continues to use nuclear power at a capacity of 12 GWe (roughly equivalent to historical levels) and that an equivalent generation of fast-breeder reactors (FBRs) follows. THE UK STOCKPILE * 25,000 tonnes* of depleted uranium from enrichment activities in the form of uranium hexafluoride. This is solid and stored in steel cylinders. * 30,000 tonnes* of depleted uranium powder from the recycling of used fuel from the Magnox power reactors. * 5000 tonnes* of 'Thorp product uranium' powder resulting from the recycling of used fuel from Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs). * 100 tonnes* of plutonium dioxide from the recycling of Magnox and AGR used nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is the owner of around 50,000 tonnes of these materials. The UKAEA and the Ministry of Defence have holdings, while British Energy owns significant amounts of Thorp product uranium and plutonium. In addition there are various quantitites of low- and high-enriched uranium as oxide powders, fluoride powders and uranium metal. These 'clusters' amount to approximately around 2000 tonnes*. * Tonnes of heavy metal equivalent (uranium/plutonium) within the materials. Analysis in the report showed that the re-use option could yield enough nuclear fuel to power three pressurized water reactors of about 1000 MWe for their entire 60-year lifespans. The existing stocks of uranium and plutonium would also be enough to power a 12 GWe FBR fleet for 700 years. In terms of discounted costs, the quick disposal option would cost around $2 billion; Long-term storage would cost around $0.6 billion; And the economics of a quick re-use as fuel vary from a cost of $2 billion to an income of $4 billion. The report notes that it is outside its scope to make recommendations: "recommending options should follow an integrated, transparent decision-making process conducted by the NDA, government, regulators and other stakeholders." It concludes: The 'waste' option is low-risk and low cost. If the uranium price is low, it could even has the lowest cost of all. The 'store' option is flexible and puts off large capital expenditure for significant periods. The 'use' option could realise significant value from the materials (particularly if the uranium price is high) but is subject to significant downside risks. ***************************************************************** 43 Guardian Unlimited: Australia, US Concerned by Chinese Power Thursday July 5, 2007 9:16 AM By ROD McGUIRK Associated Press Writer CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Australia and a top U.S. military official expressed concern Thursday that China's rapid military buildup and use of a missile in space could add to instability in the Asia-Pacific, and backed a greater role for Japan in regional security. Releasing his government's first defense policy update since 2005, Prime Minister John Howard said China's economic rise was good for the world, but added a caution that it was also a pivotal player in several tense issues in the region. ``The pace and scope of its military modernization, particularly the development of new and disruptive capabilities such as the anti-satellite missile, could create misunderstandings and instability in the region,'' the policy report said. The policy brings Canberra closely into line with Washington, which has expressed similar concerns about China's military expansion. The two are already close allies, with a defense pact and Australian contributions to U.S.-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Separately Thursday, the commander of the United States' Japan-based naval battle group voiced Washington's concern about China rapid military expansion. ``Certainly we are a bit wary of China,'' Rear Adm. Rick Wren, the commander of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk's battle group, told The Associated Press. ``They seem to be fairly opaque in communicating what they intend to do with this large military buildup.'' Wren, speaking aboard the carrier as it came into Sydney Harbor for a port visit, said the United States wants China to become a stabilizing force in Asia. ``Certainly we need them to be a stabilizing force in this region,'' he said. ``But until we can actually define that, we will continue to practice our skills and be ready for whatever the president calls on us to do.'' More than 5,000 U.S. sailors were due to take shore leave in Sydney after completing the Talisman Saber exercises, a biennial event that this year pitted 20,000 U.S. troops and 7,500 Australian forces and dozens of ships and planes against fictional enemies in a variety of land and sea-based scenarios off Australia's northeastern coast. Japan took part in the Talisman Saber exercises as an observer, and Wren said Japan would take a ``much bigger'' role in future exercises. He did not elaborate. ``The importance of multilateral alliance in this theater is very important,'' Wren said. ``What we both want to do is expand that in the interest of creating a stronger and long-lasting regional stability, and so we are bringing in many other nations.'' Cooperation could include non-combat roles such as disaster relief and other humanitarian operations, he said. The Australian policy document said cooperation between Australia, Japan and the United States would become increasingly important in maintaining stability in Asia, and noted ``Australia has no closer nor more valuable partner in the region than Japan.'' ``Japan's more active security posture within the U.S. alliance and multinational coalitions is in keeping with its economic and diplomatic weight,'' it said. Howard said China's economic rise was good for the world, but that ``U.S.-China relations, China-Japan tensions and long-standing flash points in Taiwan and the Korean peninsula will require continuing careful management.'' The report said mishandling tensions between Taiwan and China could have ``disastrous consequences for the region.'' The United States and Japan are stepping up efforts to build a joint missile defense system in Asia, partly as a bulwark against regional threats such as a nuclear-armed North Korea. Australia, a steadfast U.S. ally that has about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, is studying whether to participate in the defense shield. Australia and Japan signed a security agreement in March that will enable Japanese forces to train alongside Australians for disaster relief and peacekeeping missions, and boost cooperation between the two countries in counterterrorism measures and intelligence sharing. --- Associated Press writer Meraiah Foley in Sydney contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 44 edmontonsun.com: Lost radioactive gear poses threat Wed, July 4, 2007 By CP OTTAWA -- At least 76 radioactive devices - several of which could be used in a terrorist attack - have gone missing in Canada over the last five years, newly compiled figures show. They're stolen from cars, disappear from construction sites, fall off trucks and generally go astray at an alarming pace. The Canadian Press has created the first public database showing the rate at which these widely used devices vanish, often for days, sometimes without a trace. It chronicles dozens of thefts and mishaps involving hazardous equipment employed daily in tasks ranging from oilwell measurements to pioneering medical research. Thirty-five of these were nabbed by thieves. Three others were found in a roadside ditch, a garbage landfill and a farmer's field. Copyright 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 45 ITAR-TASS: Russia rules out nuke fuel may fall into wrong hands 04.07.2007, 18.15 MOSCOW, July 4 (Itar-Tass) - Russia rules out that nuclear fuel supplied to the Bushehr nuclear power plant may fall into wrong hands. Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency deputy head Anatoly Kotelnikov explained that under the treaty, Russia supplied nuclear fuel to atomic facilities and then brought it back for processing. He told journalists on Wednesday, fuel will return to Russia from Iran. This is an indispensable condition. The IAEA watches this. TVEL fuel will be supplied to Bushehr that is considered low enriched (3 percent). The nuclear power plant itself will be equipped by up-to-date security systems, the Russian official said. He stressed that Russia seriously complied with all nuclear fuel storage conditions. In addition, Russia sends the IAEA reports on all facts containing nuclear substances waste, Kotelnikov said. More often the so-called uranium tablets disappear. People take them and believe that they may get a large sum of money per one tablet. But their price is not big because it is low enriched uranium and it only poses a threat to health of those keeps it at home, the Russian official explained. ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 46 SPI: Radiation from health scans causes concern Thursday, July 5, 2007 Andy Rogers / P-I Breast cancer patient Cheryl Smith receives a CT scan from technologist Carrie Richardson at Virginia Mason Medical Center. Smith dismisses radiation fears, but some medical experts do not. Increasing use stirs cancer fears By LAURA GEGGEL P-I REPORTER (Editor's note: This story has been changed since it was first published. The previous version incorrectly stated that Magnetic Resonance Imaging uses radiation.) Cheryl Smith's cancer went into remission after her mastectomy two years ago, but she travels from Port Angeles to Seattle annually so doctors at Virginia Mason Medical Center can scan her to check for a relapse. Last month, she had her second CT scan, four years after she was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer. She said the radiation exposure from the scan is hardly a major concern for her. "I think about it once in a while," said Smith, 58, but she noted that people flying around the world regularly receive relatively high levels of natural radiation 40,000 feet closer to the sun. But Smith's CT scan subjected her to nearly 300 times the radiation she would have received on a roundtrip, coast-to-coast flight, according to data from the American College of Radiology. Americans are being exposed by scans to record amounts of ionizing radiation, the most energetic and potentially hazardous form of radiation. Some researchers are concerned not only that the procedures are being overused, but also that patients may have no idea how much radiation they are receiving. Some physicians are worried that increased radiation exposure could lead to higher cancer rates. "A CT scan of the chest will give you about the same radiation dose to the breast tissue as 10 to 20 mammograms," said Dr. Fred Mettler Jr., professor emeritus of radiology at the University of New Mexico and representative to the United Nations for nuclear radiation effects. "Most women don't have a clue," he said. "Most people would get up and leave if they knew that." Mettler is the principal investigator for the National Council on Radiation Protection's report on sources and magnitude of radiation exposure in the United States. Funded by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, the report is expected to be published early next year. Most radiation exposure previously came from natural background radiation. While advances in radiology have radically transformed medical practice and allow pinpoint diagnostics and treatment, they also have meant that more people are getting more radiation. Clinical imaging exams in the United States are largely responsible for the per capita dose of ionizing radiation increasing almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006, concludes the new report. Though CT scans make up only 12 percent of all medical radiation procedures, they deliver 46 percent of the total dose of radiation exposure in the United States, Mettler said. The report found that the number of CT scans jumped from 3 million in 1980 to 62 million in 2006. Mettler called the increase "staggering." He said that amounts to about one CT scan a year for every five people in the United States. No one is saying that CT scans should be eliminated. However, researchers such as Mettler believe the Food and Drug Administration should take a more active role, and that patients need to be better informed about radiation doses. Despite their high radiation, diagnostic radiation machines are not regulated by the FDA. Only mammogram facilities must be periodically accredited by the American College of Radiology to qualify for Medicare funding. Other countries do have regulations. The United Kingdom requires hospitals to carry out periodic dose audits to show that the mean radiation doses for the entire hospital do not exceed national reference levels. "The Europeans are ahead of us in this area in measuring dose and making people more aware of what the risks are," said Dr. Brent Stewart, a professor of radiology at the University of Washington. "The American College of Radiation is taking a very progressive stance in implementing these ideas of dose consciousness. We need to do more to raise the consciousness of referring physicians." The radiology department at Virginia Mason employs precautions when it comes to CT scans, checking if the patient has had a CT scan at another hospital within 24 hours and sometimes questioning the size of the requested scan. Radiology technologists also give women 70 and younger a breast shield that deflects a percentage of low-dose radiation known to linger in breast tissue. "We generally don't use CT scans unless there is a life-threatening condition," said Giao Nguyen, an emergency room doctor at Virginia Mason. "When you image a patient, you're trying to answer a question," said Dr. Marie Lee, a radiologist at Virginia Mason. "You want to be sure that the question you're asking can be answered by the radiation." Lee compared the images produced by a CT scan as akin to looking at a detailed anatomy textbook, but cautioned that radiation in larger amounts can have complications that may lead to cancer. Stewart said that the University of Washington Medical Center and Harborview Medical Center are trying to implement an electronic order entry system that would allow physicians access to radiology guidelines and show how frequently patients are receiving radiation. Stewart offered patients some advice. "The patient, as a good consumer, ought to know as much as possible and ask as many questions as they need to be satisfied," he said. Like driving on the highway, he said, using medical radiation involves risk. Radiologists are still studying the correlations between medical radiation and cancer rates. A 2004 study in The Lancet surveying data from 1991 to 1996 suggested that medical radiation accounts for only 1 percent of American cancer cases, but a May 2007 report from the American College of Radiation stated that most radiation-induced cancers can take 10 to 20 years to occur. Stewart said there is still some debate about the carcinogenic effect of medical radiation. "At this point, we don't know for certain whether small doses of radiation like chest X-rays are injurious to a person overall," Stewart said. But Mettler wants more safety precautions in place. Radiation doses for the same procedure can vary in the hands of different practitioners by as much as a factor of 10, reports the FDA. He would like to see the FDA actively involved in pressuring manufacturers to use lower radiation doses that still produce good images. "There's a huge amount of pressure to order these things, but people just don't know how much radiation there is," he said. SCANS CT, or Computed Tomography, scans take a series of X-ray slices of an area of concern. A computer combines the slices to form a multidimensional view. Dyes, each highlighting separate soft tissues in the body, such as blood vessels or the colon, show up in shades of gray on the resulting CT image. Carrie Richardson, a radiation technologist at Virginia Mason Medical Center, said the denser areas are grayer: "The overall density of a healthy organ should be all the same tone." If an organ appears to be different hues, physicians may order a biopsy. Magnetic Resonance Imaging also captures images of patients using non-ionizing radio waves. But MRIs require more time than CT scans, provide less detail and cannot portray motion as well. This report includes information from The New York Times. P-I reporter Laura Geggel can be reached at 206-448-8397 or laurageggel@seattlepi.com. 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com 1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 47 Massey News: British MPs acknowledge nuclear test veterans report The report into the health of New Zealand nuclear test veterans, undertaken by a team led by Dr Al Rowland of the Institute of Molecular Biosciences, has been acknowledged in the United Kingdom House of Commons. The Labour Mp for Norwich North, Ian Gibson, lodged an early day motion – a device to stimulate debate and recognition in the house – applauding the study. Dr Gibson and John Baron, Conservative MP for Billericay, also planned to request a parliamentary inquiry into the detonations, which took place in the South Pacific from 1957. The New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association commissioned Dr Rowland to look at the cells of 50 veterans for damage. Dr Rowland says the findings are unequivocal: in a matched control group of men of the same age, his team found an expected frequency of 10 chromosome translocations per 1000 cells, but in the veterans’ group, the average number of translocations was considerably higher at 29 chromosome translocations per 1000 cells. Workers who were close to the Chernobyl nuclear accident or involved in the clean up after the accident had about 20 translocations. Dr Gibson has asked for a copy of the report. “We really need a similar thing for this country.” There were 40,000 servicemen and civilians at the UK tests, 22,000 of them from Britain and the rest from Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. Dr Gibson’s early day motion (EDM), lodged on 15 May, has attracted support from 87 other MPs. Although most EDMs are never debated, they are used to publicise the views of individual MPs, draw attention to specific events or campaigns, and to demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view. More than 400 of the 551 sailors who took part in Operation Grapple have died. The New Zealand Test Veterans Association is now urging the New Zealand Government to fund studies into the health of veterans’ children and grandchildren. Contact Us | About Massey University | Sitemap | Disclaimer Massey University 1999 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 Tennessean: Radiation levels in landfill raise group's concern - Nashville, Tennessee - Wednesday, 07/04/07 - Tennessean.com Wednesday, 07/04/07 Offices, stores have levels higher than Rutherford site, officials say By ANNE PAINE Staff Writer A lot of folks in Rutherford County were alarmed when they found out that some of the debris dumped at a local landfill had low levels of radiation. But there are other places in Middle Tennessee where you can find just as much radiation, if not more, than in the materials that can be dumped at Middle Point Landfill. The state Capitol, for one place. Maybe even your own kitchen, if you have a granite countertop. That's according to spot checks in downtown Nashville last week with a machine that measures radiation. Radioactivity at high levels can cause injury or death, but radiation exists virtually everywhere in nature, often in low amounts referred to as "background" levels. "The presumption is most people would not consider them a significant risk," said Ronald Price, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center physicist. That doesn't relieve the fears of many people in Rutherford County, like Kathleen Ferris. The co-founder of Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee said she knows there's radiation everywhere but worries that people might be made ill from additional amounts, no matter how small, from the landfill. "Nobody knows what the tipping point is, and it may not be the same for every person," said the retired college professor of English literature, author and photographer. Capitol has radiation Roger Fenner, a state health physics consultant, watched the gauge on his hand-held radiation monitor Thursday as he walked through the state Capitol. The red line jumped on the loaf-of-bread-sized apparatus as he moved to the center of the main floor, the level that includes the visitor counter and the governor's office. "There's just a little bit of something" the machine was picking up, said Fenner, who works for the radiological health division of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The reading showed a possible yearly dose of about 61 millirems, 61 times what's permitted in the type of materials at issue at the landfill. To get that much radiation, the person would have to stand on that spot year-round. "None of these readings would be unhealthy," Fenner said. He walked over to the information desk, where Jennifer Watts was working, and the red line dropped to a level comparable to about 26 millirems a year, an average background reading. "Oh, good," Watts said with a smile. "I sit here a lot." Accusations reported The controversy in Rutherford County over the landfill started in May, when a national nuclear watchdog group put out a report accusing the nuclear industry of bypassing safeguards as it funnels debris with low levels of radioactivity to landfills. Private firms take leftovers, though not the "hot" cores, when old nuclear plants, for instance, are closed. Workers separate items with "low-level" radioactivity to send to facilities that can handle it, and others with small amounts or no radioactivity to ship to Middle Point and four other Tennessee landfills licensed in a state program. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation officials say that the 10-year-old program gives them more oversight of the materials that might end up anyway in landfills under less strict federal guidelines and that it includes requirements to keep out dangerous materials. The state legislature last month imposed a temporary halt to additional radioactive materials coming into the BFI Middle Point landfill, which is owned by the private Allied Waste. It went into effect June 28, when Gov. Phil Bredesen signed it. Also last week, the Rutherford County Commission approved spending up to $20,000 to do testing for contamination, including well and river water and liquid that gathers in the landfill liner. Elsewhere in the Capitol office complex, outside the office of state Rep. John Hood of Murfreesboro, the monitor indicated about a 45-millirem exposure potential over a year. The brick on a church on nearby Church Street was double that. Along Union Street and Fifth Avenue North, the red line jumped to more than three times the amount, to about 150 millirems, when Fenner stood by an office building with granite walls. The level rose again at a home building supply store, when Fenner put the monitor near granite slabs being sold for countertops and, next, bags of fertilizer rich in potassium, which has a bit of radioactivity. Billy Freeman of the State of Tennessee Division of Radiological Health measures radiation levels Sunday at the Allied Waste Middle Point Landfill in Rutherford County. (DIPTI VAIDYA / THE TENNESSEAN) Roger Fenner, a health physics consultant for the state of Tennessee, measures the amount of radiation emitted from the steps within the State Capitol building Thursday June 28, 2007. (ALAN POIZNER / FOR THE TENNESSEAN) Roger Fenner, a health physics consultant for the state, measures the amount of radiation being emitted from a granite wall in a downtown Nashville office building. (ALAN POIZNER / FOR THE TENNESSEAN) WHAT'S THE RISK? The risk of that dose is one in a million of getting and dying from cancer and compares to the risk of dying from lung cancer by smoking 1.4 cigarettes. Source: Georgia State University TO LEARN MORE To read the report from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, go to www.nirs.org/radwaste/outofcontrol/outofcontrol.htm To learn more about radioactivity, go to hps.org/ For maps showing radiation levels nationwide due to geology go to: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/DDS-9.html Getting there The state Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee will discuss the program in which radioactive processors send materials to five licensed landfills, including Middle Point Landfill in Murfreesboro, at 1 p.m. Thursday in the 17th floor conference room of the L&C Tower, 401 Church St., Nashville. The committee will have 60 days to make recommendations to the legislature on what's called the "Bulk Survey for Release Program." Anne Paine can be reached at 615-259-8071 or apaine@Tennessean.com. Copyright 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Brattleboro Reformer: Duration of spent fuel storage at VY depends on Yucca Mtn. approval BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Tuesday, July 3 BRATTLEBORO -- Two years ago, the state Legislature gave Entergy permission to store spent fuel in above ground dry casks at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. During hearings to allow the facility, Entergy warned the state it would run out of storage space by 2008 if it wasn't allowed to pull its oldest fuel out of the spent fuel pool and put it into containers of steel and concrete. Spent fuel from the plant, which has operated since 1972, has been stored in deep pools of cooling water as a temporary measure until a federal repository for the waste can be established. Such a facility at Yucca Mountain, which would be operated by the Department of Energy, has been held up for years, subject to litigation from the state of Nevada, environmental groups and anti-nuclear organizations. In 2002, Congress approved and the president signed into law the Yucca Mountain Development Act, which completed the site selection process and authorized the construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain. Shortly after the president signed off on the site in 2002, Nevada formally objected to the court of appeals. Most of its objections were tossed out but the court did rule in favor of one of the state's complaints related to radiation standards at the proposed site. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 1987 required the federal Department of Energy to locate and build a deep, mined geologic repository for high-level waste and, with the Department of Transportation, develop a system to move the waste from nuclear power plants to the repository. To pay for the repository, electric utility customers have been paying a surcharge of 1/10 of a cent for every nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. Through mid-2006, the fund had reached more than $28 billion. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the DOE has indicated it will submit a proposal for the Yucca Mountain facility to the NRC for approval sometime next year. The process could take three to four years, he said. DOE has said it would like to open Yucca Mountain between 2017 and 2020. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes "there is reasonable assurance a federal repository for spent fuel will be available in the first-quarter of this century," said Sheehan. According to the Waste Confidence Rule issued by the NRC, he said, fuel can be stored safely at Vermont Yankee for at least 30 years after the plant shuts down. Though the spent fuel will eventually belong to the Department of Energy, "dry cask storage falls under our jurisdiction," he said. Sheehan called the dry casks "very large robust structures" with steel reinforced concrete similar to the containment vessel that wraps around Vermont Yankee's boiling water reactor. "They have a permit to store waste that is generated by the end of 2012," said Sarah Hoffman, adding a popular misconception in Vermont is that the waste won't be stored in Vernon for longer than 20 years. "There's no outside date for how long." At one time, because of its granite formations, the state of Vermont was on a short list of sites for a nuclear waste repository, said Hoffman. Because it was on the list, the state legislature passed a law requiring its approval to store any waste in the state. Entergy, which currently has a 20-year license extension request before the NRC, needs to receive approval from both the state Legislature and the state's Public Service Board to extend that license to 2032, said Hoffman, even if the NRC approves it. "With the plant comes the waste," she said, which could become a sticking point for Entergy's relicensing effort. "When the Legislature is looking at the issue of relicensing, it will also look at new waste created by any kind of extension or certificate of public good," she said. As far as DOE's promise to take possession of the spent fuel in the next decade, Diana Sidebotham, the president of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said she has heard it before and doesn't believe the federal government's assurances. "This waste will be on the site for a very long time," said Sidebotham. "We think fuel can be safely stored on site for up to 30 years after the plant ceases operation," said Sheehan, adding "we are confident that there will be a repository" before then. But one nuclear waste expert called dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee "de facto permanent." Kevin Camps, with Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said even the commissioners of the NRC are split on whether Yucca Mountain should be the place for nuclear waste. "Yucca Mountain is looking ever more likely not to open," he said, meaning waste could be stored in Vernon for much longer than the public may think. And the nuclear industry can't be trusted, he said. In Minnesota, a nuclear plant operator was given permission to install 17 dry casks. In 2003, it came back and asked for more than 60 more storage containers. "If you let them start, they're not going to stop," said Camps. "Especially with a company like Entergy," which knows that "there are federal laws that would give the federal agencies the right to override a state's authority." Dry cask storage construction in Vernon is currently underway, said Larry Smith, spokesman for Vermont Yankee. Sometime in the fall, he said, technicians will begin to move spent fuel from cooling ponds into the storage containers. As far as when the spent fuel will be removed from the site in Vernon, said Smith, "we can't speculate on when the Department of Energy will take the fuel." "Our responsibility is to be good stewards of the fuel that is on site now and have it ready to be taken whenever that is," he said. As part of its dry cask agreement with the state, Entergy agreed to pay $2.5 million into the state's clean energy development fund. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 50 Murfreesboro Post: State officials: Landfill safe Welcome Visitor (login), Fri, Jul 6, 2007, 00:42 CST, 95 Readers Online By Michelle Willard, Post staff writer-July 5, 2007-5:40 PM Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR) program and Middle Point landfill are safe for the public and environment, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) officials told the State Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee today. The committee met in Nashville as the first step in the process of evaluating the BSFR program, which allows low-level radioactive waste disposal in licensed Tennessee Class I landfills. The General Assembly passed legislation last month that placed a moratorium on the program at Middle Point and requested a study of its possible impact. The committee also set a firm date for a meeting in Murfreesboro to gather public opinion on this issue. The meeting was set for July 17 at 6 p.m., the location has not yet been disclosed. Several TDEC officials addressed the committee Thursday giving an introduction to the BSFR program and low-level radioactive waste. “It was an excellent presentation. A lot more information, detailed information, than I had gained through any other sources,” Tennessee State Rep. Donna Rowland said. Kathleen Ferris of Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee (ENDIT) was not as convinced as Rowland. “I think it’s a horse and pony show,” said Ferris, organizer of the grassroots group. “What they’re doing is simply giving the conclusion to these people who are going to make the decision. … They’re not giving objective, scientific expertise.” TDEC representatives gave a far-reaching overview of the BSFR program, its history and the possible health and environmental effects of low-level radioactive waste. Glen Pugh from Solid Waste Management described bulk survey waste as special waste and explained the special waste disposal process. He also said special waste only constitutes 0.13 percent of the total waste in Middle Point, one of five landfills in the state authorized to accept such waste. Eddie Nanney, director of the Division of Radiological Health (DRH), gave a brief history of the program, urged the public to use “common sense” when thinking of the BSFR and described the radiation level as “negligible.” Roger Fenner then attempted to place radiation levels into perspective. TDEC limits radiation exposure through this program to one millirem per year, as compared to 25 per year by the Nuclear Regulatory committee, Fenner explained. One millirem is ten-times less radiation than a dental x-ray and has the cancer-causing effect equivalent to smoking 1.4 cigarettes, he explained. However, his efforts did not win over Pat Sanders of ENDIT. “I would have liked to see a molecular biologist involved … Not just numbers but what’s out there and what it does to our bodies,” Sander said. Rowland, on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity to formulate more questions for the upcoming public presentation in Murfreesboro. 615-869-0800 | online@murfreesboropost.com | 630 Broadmore Blvd. Suite 120, P.O. 10008, Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ***************************************************************** 51 Ely Times: Water fight at Yucca Mtn. elynews.com :: Thursday, July 05, 2007 By KEITH ROGERS Stephens Media "He did lift the restriction," said Allen Benson, spokesman for the Energy Department's Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas. "Until he reinstates it, we will continue to abide by the federal district court order that we operate under." Meanwhile, Gov. Jim Gibbons has remained mum on the issue. The Review-Journal last week asked the governor's communication director about Gibbons' stance on the matter. "The governor and his staff are looking into this issue and all of its potential ramifications," Communications Director Brent Boynton said Friday. Taylor issued a cease-and-desist order on June 1 against the Energy Department. But he also gave the agency a reprieve on his own order while federal officials submit the information he requested on the drilling program and the water use. Taylor has said he never granted the Energy Depar-tment permission to use Nevada water for drilling bore holes to gather scientific data. Under a court-approved agreement, the Energy Department is only supposed to use the state's water for flushing toilets, fire suppression and dust control. The Energy Department does not have approval to use Nevada water for scientific investigation of the site, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Bob Loux, Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency chief and a critic of the Energy Department's effort at Yucca Mountain, has said the federal entity is using the water to cool drill bits and collect samples from what will be 80 bore holes by the time the effort is completed. The samples are being gathered from deep below where the Energy Department wants to put surface facilities for handling and aging spent nuclear fuel. Leave Your Comment No comments posted. Reader Comments Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Ely Times does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Copyright 2007, The Ely Times Stephens Media, LLC ***************************************************************** 52 News & Star: Sellafield safety rows cost me job Published on 04/07/2007 By Deborah Kuiper A MAN who helped remove asbestos from the giant Sellafield site claims he was unfairly dismissed because he raised too many safety issues. Peter Hudson, who was made redundant by C&D Environmental Company Limited on January 8, says that through his role as a workplace safety spokesman he raised countless issues about paperwork and equipment. And the 53-year-old, from Whitehaven, says he was victimised for speaking out. He said: “This became a bone of contention between myself, the site manager Kenny Jones and the supervisors. “Because of my position as union and safety spokesman I feel I was victimised.” But his bosses insist he lost his job because he wasn’t prepared to travel to other sites where they had contracts. Mr Hudson, who is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, says the problem came to a head in October after an incident in which work was held up for two days. He said “I had been at them for two or three years about paperwork and safety and likely they had had enough of me and wanted shot of me.” He says the site manager approached him and said: “it seems to me you are stopping every job you go on”. And Mr Hudson says Mr Jones threatened to ‘cabin up’ the workers and stop the bonus payments if they didn’t get back to work. But Mr Jones denies that this was a threat, and says it was a statement of fact. The following week Mr Hudson, who doesn’t drive, was asked to go to Barrow for two weeks. He said he was not willing to travel and that as his back had been bothering him for some time he was going ‘on the sick’. When he contacted the office to say he would be returning to work on January 8, he was told to report for work at a Scottish site. And when he tried to return to Sellafield he was not allowed on site. Later that day C&D operations manager Paul told him if he was not prepared to travel he would be dismissed. At an employment tribunal yesterday Mr McKeown said Mr Hudson was made redundant because he was unwilling to travel away from the site at Sellafield. The company is based at Mansfield and has contracts with British Nuclear Group at Sellafield and Dounreay as well as Lloyds Pharmacy, Total Garages and HSBC. Mr McKeown said: “As there was no work on the Sellafield site and he wasn’t willing to travel to other sites there was no alternative but to make him redundant.” The tribunal heard that all the asbestos removal operatives were being offered temporary transfers to other sites because work at the Sellafield site had dried up following the loss of a large contract at Calder Hall. However, Mr Hudson maintains that work at Sellafield was found for at least four of the other operatives. And he says the appeal hearing about his dismissal was unfair because it was conducted by Mr McKeown. The hearing continues. ***************************************************************** 53 Hanford News: Report says workers exposed to radioactive materials in May This story was published Thursday, July 5th, 2007 the Herald staff Workers at the tank farms in central Hanford inhaled very low levels of radioactive material in two incidents in May, according to staff reports of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. In both incidents, exposure was below the limit requiring reporting to the Department of Energy, but CH2M Hill Hanford Group reported them as management concerns, said Joy Shoemake, spokeswoman for CH2M Hill. The tank farms have 177 underground tanks, most of them still holding radioactive and chemical waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. In the first incident, 14 employees doing maintenance work in C Tank Farm were exposed to radon 220, also known as thoron gas. The calculated exposure for workers was at a level barely detectable by meters, Shoemake said. CH2M Hill had not expected thoron to be a problem, but the isotope it decays from was known to be in a tank, the DNFSB report said. In the future, the work planning process will consider whether thoron might be present and post the work area as having airborne radioactivity, if needed, according to the DNFSB. In the second incident, a worker cutting up a pipe rack in S Tank Farm inhaled low levels of cesium. The exposure was not at a level believed to cause health effects, Shoemake said. Expected corrections include requiring a job-specific radiological work permit before any work is done that can resuspend contamination, according to the DNFSB. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Inside Bay Area: Congress members lobby for lab workers Employees worried about changes to pension plan pack meeting with McNerney By Eric Louie, MEDIANEWS STAFF Article Last Updated: 07/04/2007 02:54:42 AM PDT LIVERMORE ? Six Bay Area Democratic Congress members sent the U.S. Department of Energy a letter Monday with concerns over a new benefits plan for Lawrence Livermore Lab workers. Congressman Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, said his office has received between 300 and 400 e-mails, letters and phone calls on the issue since last week. McNerney spent Monday evening at the Pleasanton Senior Center talking with the employees. Eighty or more packed a meeting room with him, and an even larger number crowded the corridors outside, waiting for their chance to speak out. "Clearly the concerns are there," McNerney told the crowd. "We want to make sure the compensation is good enough to attract the best talent" to the lab. Recently, lab employees learned their University of California pension plan would be changed. Current workers must pick between two new retirement plans. New employees will not get the choice, and will be enrolled in a plan that could result in retirement benefits 20 percent lower than those offered by the current UC plan. It is related to a change in lab management from UC to a partnership among UC, Texas A&M University and industrial partners, including Bechtel-National Inc. Pushed by Congress, the National Nuclear Security Administration had put lab management up for bid. The transition to new managers will be complete Oct. 1. Pension plan changes worry lab administrators concerned about attracting and keeping the best scientific minds. The letter sent Monday to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman ? signed by McNerney, Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Mike Honda, D-Campbell; Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo; and Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater ? says the lab needs to have the resources to attract and retain the "most able employees." It said the lab must be able to compete with comparable national labssuch as Los Alamos and urges the department to accept a pension and benefits plan proposed by the new operator comparable to that put in place at Los Alamos two years ago. Monday night, McNerney said he does not believe that the new package for the Los Alamos people was even enough. Jeff Collins, 34, of Livermore, an electrical engineer at the lab for five years, whose wife also works there, said the changes have him wondering if he should be looking for a different job. "It's an even more broken form of Social Security" that is being offered Lawrence Livermore workers, he said Monday evening. In their letter to Bodman, the local Congress members said: "Recruiting and retaining the scientists and engineers who can continue to achieve these results is critical, not only to the regional economy of Northern California, but also to the security of our nation ... . Maintaining a structure of laboratory leadership is integral to our nation's scientific leadership." Past audits have said the federal government was overpaying UC for lab pensions. When Los Alamos management changed two years ago, the nuclear agency said the lab could pay benefits no greater than 105 percent of that paid by like employers. Since then, the amount paid by the private sector has decreased, so the amount offered Livermore workers would be less than for Los Alamos employees. Contact Eric Louie at elouie@cctimes.com or (925) 847-2123. 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 55 Inside Bay Area: Compensation for nuclear workers lost in red tape Many people stricken with fatal cancers unable to get federal aid By Betsy Mason, MEDIANEWS STAFF Article Last Updated: 07/05/2007 02:30:57 AM PDT Gerry Giovacchini believes the tumors in his neck, arm and eyes ? as well as one in his spinal column that fractured two vertebrae and invaded his right lung ? were caused by radiation exposure during the 26 years he worked at Sandia/California National Laboratories in Livermore. In 2002, he applied for compensation through a government program for Cold War-era Department of Energy workers exposed to radioactive and toxic materials that made them ill. But five years later, he still hasn't been paid. Since 2001, when the federal Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act went into effect, 148,181 claims have been filed. So far, just 38 percent have been paid. Thousands have been waiting years for a decision. Qualifying workers are eligible for a $150,000 lump sum payment, medical expenses and lost wages. It is clear that the federal government got more than it bargained for when it approved the compensation program. At the time, it estimated it would cover more than 3,000 workers and cost U.S. taxpayers $13 million a year for a decade. More than five times that much has already been spent on administrative costs, and $2.8 billion has been paid to claimants. The U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees the program, expects to receive a total of approximately 20,000 new claims this year and estimates more than $4.5 billion more in compensation will be paid through 2011. But many workers suspect the government of intentionally dragging its heels and using any possible excuse to deny claims. Either way, the odds are not in the claimants' favor. Of claims that have been ruled on by the Department of Labor, 62 percent have been denied. They are fighting cancer and other diseases while also fighting to prove their cases to the same government that promised to help them. Some have lost both battles. "The U.S. government is acknowledging that we made a mistake," Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson said when the compensation program was first announced. "We need to right this wrong." Instead, workers and their families feel they have been wronged again. Proof Employees from 363 laboratories and work sites across the country that were run by the Department of Energy and its contractors are eligible for the compensation program. People at these sites were exposed to hazardous materials. Giovacchini says the sites where he developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma coincide with areas exposed to radiation. For six of his years there he was a technician in an X-ray laboratory and thinks he repeatedly received low levels of ionizing radiation. Once, while calibrating an X-ray beam used to analyze nuclear material, the shutter that was supposed to turn off the beam failed to close. He was exposed to radiation for 20 or 30 minutes before he realized what had happened. Like many workers, Giovacchini wore a dosimeter badge on the job to keep track of how much cumulative radiation he received. If his badge recorded a cumulative dose considered high enough to cause his specific cancer, his claim would be approved. But the lab can't locate his dosimeter readings. Medical records can also go missing or be unclear, and an unambiguous diagnosis of beryllium disease, silicosis or a cancer with a known link to radiation can be difficult to dig up. And in some cases, workers are expected to prove their particular illnesses can be linked to exposure. For family members of workers who have died, the task of gathering all the necessary information is even harder. Because much of the work was classified, loved ones were kept in the dark about it. "He was very secretive," Tom Goglio said of his father Joseph, who worked for contractors at Livermore and Berkeley labs as an engineer and materials tester and died in 1991 of esophageal cancer. "All we have is residual information." Goglio's claim, filed in 2003, was denied in February. More likely than not Determining whether workers received enough radiation to make them sick is up to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The process, known as dose reconstruction, can take years. Natalie Salsig's claim, filed on behalf of her husband William who was an engineer at Berkeley lab and died of prostate cancer, has been at NIOSH since August 2003. "They just give me the runaround," Salsig said. "It seems they shouldn't have started this if they couldn't follow through." According to NIOSH, collecting information from the DOE and from claimants is very time-consuming. The longer people worked, the more sites they worked at, the more things they were exposed to and the more types of cancer they have, the longer the process can take. When data is scarce, NIOSH uses estimates or average levels of exposure based on compiled information from each site, known as a site profile. "Great care is taken to ensure estimates are claimant favorable," said Jim Neton, associate director for science in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support at NIOSH. "When there are two equally plausible exposure scenarios, we use the one that gives the higher dose." But many workers feel they are not given the benefit of the doubt and that site profiles and dosimeter data are given far more weight than accounts from the people who know best what went on at the labs ? the workers themselves. "My job entailed accountability of nuclear materials," said Tom Chatmon, the Livermore lab employee with multiple myeloma. He spent entire days in a vault watching over the materials. Sometimes he went to the Livermore airport to pick up spent plutonium cores from test explosions at the Nevada Test Site and brought them to the lab for analysis. "At the time, I didn't know anything about plutonium or uranium. We were told we weren't dealing with anything dangerous." Chatmon says eight of the 15 people who worked in his group, including himself, have developed cancer, and many of those have died. His claim was denied four years after he filed it, but he has appealed the decision. The Labor Department makes the final call on whether to approve a claim, largely based on the dose reconstruction in most cases. The radiation dose, along with what is known about the rate of a given cancer in the general population, and the effects of high doses of radiation on victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is plugged into a software program that calculates the probability that a claimant's job exposure caused his or her cancer. If the probability is greater than 50 percent, the cancer was "more likely than not" due to exposure, and the claim is approved. This type of procedure is based on generally accepted epidemiological techniques. The underlying scientific assumption is that risk of cancer goes up in a linear fashion as radiation dose is increased. Some workers feel the government has intentionally set the bar too high in order to keep the cost of the compensation program down. "We think they're waiting everybody out," said Denise Schmidt, daughter-in-law of Willard Schmidt who was a machinist at Berkeley and Livermore labs for 34 years and has lymphoma. He filed a claim in 2004, and is still waiting for a decision. Disillusionment DOL officials have repeatedly insisted that they are not trying to keep compensation costs down and point to the $2.8 billion that has been paid. But an Office of Management and Budget memo to the DOL obtained by the Associated Press in 2006 cited strategies to "contain the growth in benefits under the program." Bay Area representatives say they are concerned, but very little action is currently being taken on behalf of local workers. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, was a co-sponsor of the original compensation act and worked to bring a DOL resource center for sick workers to Livermore in 2004. A staff member in her office is currently helping nine workers with their claims, but no further legislation is planned. Aaron Albright, spokesman for the House Education and Labor Committee, which is chaired by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, said the compensation problems will be examined by the committee later this year. The office of Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, only recently received a request for help from one constituent. "We're keeping an eye out for it," said spokesman Andy Stone. In the meantime, some sick workers from Sandia, Livermore and Berkeley labs are feeling disillusioned and betrayed. Others have died while waiting for compensation. Gina Lamons, a former administrative worker at Sandia and Livermore labs who got a rare form of sarcoma 16 years ago at age 34, is among those who have given up. She filed a claim in 2003 and was denied in 2006. "I didn't have the energy," she said. "I just feel like this was an exercise so the government could say they tried to compensate these people. It was just so they could put some stats together and they never intended to give anyone anything." Others, like Giovacchini, are committed to sticking it out, no matter how much work it takes. "I have nothing to do but die with this disease, and I'm going to die fighting it probably, and I'm going to die fighting this claim," he said. "These people served their time in the laboratories during the Cold War and this is the way they're treating them now. It's an embarrassment to the United States." Contact MediaNews staff writer Betsy Mason at (925) 847-2158. 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 56 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL's Fischer accepts Battelle position Director of technology development named commercialization VP By Frank Munger (Contact) Wednesday, July 4, 2007 Alex Fischer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s director of technology and economic development, will leave ORNL at the end of the month to take a top position at Battelle headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. Fischer, 40, has been named Battelle’s vice president for commercialization, and he will be in charge of commercialization activities at all labs managed by the company. UT-Battelle, a partnership of Battelle and the University of Tennessee, manages ORNL for the U.S. Department of Energy, and Battelle manages or co-manages six other federal labs. In a telephone interview Tuesday, Fischer said he’s been doing the Battelle job half-time for about a year, commuting back and forth between Oak Ridge and Columbus. His decision coincides with Jeff Wadsworth, the former director of ORNL, taking an executive position at Battelle to oversee Battelle’s laboratory contracts. Fischer said Wadsworth asked him to come to Columbus as Battelle centralizes the leadership of its lab holdings. Battelle currently does about $150 million in contracted research and development with the private sector and about $20 million in commercial licensing activities, he said. UT-Battelle will advertise for his successor at ORNL, Fischer said. To be successful in tech transfer at the national labs, it’s important to have an understanding of the science and technology, he said. “But equally important is business experience,” Fischer said. “I have found that working at any of these labs is a unique environment.” Before joining the Oak Ridge staff five years ago, Fischer served in the administration of Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist as deputy governor and commissioner of economic development. “From a personal standpoint, it was an enormously tough decision to leave my home state, especially given everything I’ve done in the state and community. But Battelle is an amazing organization, and Jeff Wadsworth is an amazing leader.” Fischer said uprooting his family would be emotional, but he said it would be healthy for his children — ages 7 and 9 — to experience other places. “Life’s an adventure,” he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 57 lamonitor.com: Task force effort results in drug arrest The Online News Source for Los Alamos CAROL A. CLARK Monitor County Editor After three month's surveillance, an employee from the Plutonium Facility (Technical Area-55) at Los Alamos National Laboratory was arrested June 26 and charged with possession of a controlled substance. According to Magistrate Court documents obtained in Espanola, Daren Chacon, 29, admitted to owning two plastic bags containing 30.5 grams of cocaine discovered by Middle Rio Grande Valley Task Force agents. The agents found the drugs in a pair of jeans lying on the backseat floor of the red 2007 Kia he was riding in. In a First District Court Search Warrant, an agent with the task force stated that information was received from a confidential informant who knew "of a location where narcotics were being sold on a continuous and ongoing basis." The informant went on to purchase cocaine from Chacon in controlled buys at his home in Gallina, according to the warrant. "There is no indication, evidence or suspicion that the investigation of this individual is related to his job or workplace," LANL spokesman Jeff Berger said this morning. "Members of the Middle Rio Grande Valley Task Force recently approached laboratory security about a dru- related investigation. The lab has cooperated fully with the task force. We have no indication that any illegal activity took place at the lab." Berger added that LANL has a robust policy against substance abuse and illegal drug activity, including random drug testing. According to the Statement of Probable Cause, filed in Magistrate Court in Espanola, agents were "conducting continuous surveillance upon Chacon" as he left the laboratory that day. Chacon was noted in the document to be the passenger in the red car bearing a temporary New Mexico registration. Chacon was followed as he traveled from Los Alamos eventually through Espanola, according to the report. As the Kia drove north on U.S. 84/285, it was detected on stationary radar at 57 mph in a posted 45 mph zone by the Rio Arriba County Deputy Sheriff. The vehicle was stopped by the sheriff a short distance later, as stated in the court document. The female driver of the Kia was found to be the registered owner, and according to court documents, gave agent Ronnie Watkins verbal consent to search her car. Agents found a radiation monitoring badge and a radiation protection wristband in the car along with the two bags of cocaine. In conducting the narcotics investigation concerning Chacon, agents from the Middle Rio Grande Valley Task Force obtained a District Court Search Warrant on June 22 to search both Chacon and his residence in Gallina, which they served at 8:55 p.m. on June 26. While searching Chacon's single-wide mobile home in Gallina, just north of Espanola, agents found a variety of rifles and ammunition in addition to 1.3 grams of cocaine in a bathroom. The case has been assigned to Espanola Magistrate Court Judge Alex Naranjo, who set bail at $5,000. Chacon was arraigned June 27, and according to court documents, pleaded not guilty and was released after posting a $500 cash bond. Chacon is charged with possession of a controlled substance, which is a felony. Additional charges may be added. Chacon refused to comment on his arrest during a telephone call later on Tuesday. FBI spokesman Bill Elwell said this morning that FBI agents do work with the Middle Rio Grande Valley Task Force from time to time. "Whether they worked on his particular drug investigation is not readily known," Elwell said. 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 Oak Ridger: Hiroshima fallout expert visits Cytogenetic Lab - Story last updated at 12:27 am on 7/4/2007 By: Special To the Oak Ridger | The Oak Ridger Akio Awa, foreground, and Gordon Livingston check images of blood culture samples looking for chromosomal aberrations. Awa was visiting the Cytogenetic Biodosimetry Laboratory from Hiroshima on a six-month assignment under a contract administered by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation on behalf of the Armed Forces Radiation Research Institute. Akio Awa, a native of Hokkaido, Japan, has been a visiting cytogeneticist at the Cytogenetic Biodosimetry Laboratory, which is managed by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, since February 2007. ORAU Communications Specialist Rebekah Winkler had the chance to talk with him about how he went from childhood aspirations of being a cartoonist to a career of mapping chromosomes as a cytogeneticist, and what he learned from studying atomic bomb survivors and their children in Hiroshima. Awa retired from Japan’s Radiation Effects Research Foundation, formally the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission as chief of the Department of Genetics in 1995. While he has maintained consultant status at RERF, he has spent the last six months analyzing blood cultures at the CBL along side Drs. Gordon Livingston and Mark Jenkins. Awa is widely considered to have performed the most extensive radiation cytogenetic population studies in the world, including nearly 30 years spent studying the effects of “Little Boy,” the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. He lives in Hiroshima with his wife, Toshiko. They have two sons and a granddaughter. His last day at ORISE was Tuesday; he returns home Monday. Q. You were young when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. What effect did that event have on you and any interests you had in studying human genetics? A: I was always interested in genetics, mostly of vertebrate animals such as mice and rats. I was in sixth grade and living in my hometown of Sapporo, Hokkaido (about 1,500 miles from Hiroshima), when the bombs were dropped. We didn’t know about the event until two days later. It was seven or eight years until we knew more details about what happened. At that time, no one knew much about radiation and the possible effects from exposure. I was unaware of the seriousness of the bombings until I began working for the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in 1967. Q. As a child, what drew you to be interested in animal genetics? A: When I was a kid, I was not science minded. I wanted to be a cartoonist. When I went to the university, since my brother was an internist — a physician — my father wanted me to be a physician, so I was forced to choose a scientific department. When I got into the Science Department I was satisfied with it. I had no desire to study the medical course, so I turned to science, and I had more interest in animal genetics. And after 1956 the human chromosome number was defined at 46, when it had formally been 48. And then the technique became very simple. Q: Tell us about the research you did for ABCC in Hiroshima. A: I began working in cytogenetics in 1956 at Hokkaido University, looking for chromosome aberrations in leukemia patients undergoing treatment. The studies were looking for aberrations resulting from the drugs used for treatment. In 1967 I was recruited into radiation cytogenetics by ABCC to work on the atomic bomb survivor cytogenetic studies. I focused on two projects while with the ABCC, which was eventually reorganized into the RERF in 1975. I studied blood cultures of A-bomb survivors looking for any chromosomal aberrations that may have resulted from the event. I also studied blood cultures from children of survivors, looking for any genetic effects, hereditary problems, and/or increases in mutative diseases. Over 16 years with the agency, I studied cultures from 16,000 children — 8,000 children of A-bomb survivors and 8,000 children whose parents were not exposed to the atomic radiation — and we showed that, at that time, no ill effects of radiation were observed in the children. Q: How did Livingston track you down and bring about your collaboration with the CBL in Oak Ridge? A: Livingston began e-mailing my successor at RERF in 2004 about my experiences using Giemsa staining and karyotyping of chromosomes. Livingston was trying to find out if Giesma staining would be a suitable alternative to chromosome painting — a painstaking and expensive process — for old blood cultures from U.S. nuclear workers he had not yet evaluated. Once I received Livingston’s e-mail from RERF, he and I began communication regularly, sharing cytogenetics-related notes and opinions. We continued our communication until we met in Bethesda, Md., for a biodosimetry conference in July 2006. After the conference, I visited Oak Ridge for the first time for a meeting of the CBL Scientific Advisory Board. Then we began making arrangements for me to visit the CBL as a guest cytogeneticist. Before returning to Hiroshima, Awa will travel with Jenkins and Livingston to the Cytogenetics Biodosimetry Workshop sponsored by the Armed Forces Radiation Research Institute. The workshop will be held at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda. While he looks forward to his return home, Awa hopes to be able to work with the CBL again, possibly via the Internet from Japan. He also hopes to return to the United States in the future for further travel and possible collaborations with the CBL. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 59 Oak Ridger: ORNL wins six R&D 100 Awards, pushing total to 134 - Story last updated at 12:54 am on 7/5/2007 By: From Staff Reports | The Oak Ridger Researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory have won six R&D 100 Awards, given annually by R&D Magazine to the year's most technologically significant new products. ORNL leads all DOE labs with 134, second overall in all-time winners. ORNL researchers were recognized for the following inventions: • Piranha, developed by Mark Elmore, Brian Klump, Robert Patton, Thomas Potok, Joel Reed and Jim Treadwell of ORNL's Computational Science and Engineering Division. The Piranha knowledge discovery engine uses intelligent agent technology and a very large cluster computer to analyze large volumes of text data with unprecedented speed and accuracy. Piranha sorts huge numbers of text documents into groups that are easily processed by people. The system can find similar documents to a document of interest, remove duplicated documents such as identical news stories from different sources, and automatically classify documents by topic. Because of the scalability of the agent architecture and better algorithms, Piranha runs 100 times faster than other search engines and can work with continuously changing data sets. Piranha has been used by the U.S. military and Department of Homeland Security to analyze large sets of streaming data. Piranha was funded through the DOE Work for Others program. • Pharos Neutron Detector System, developed by Richard Riedel of ORNL's Neutron Scattering Science Division, Ronald Cooper of the Neutron Facilities Development Division and Lloyd Clonts of the Engineering Science and Technology Division. Pharos is a small low-power neutron detection system that can be used to identify nuclear materials at airports and harbors. Pharos can determine from what direction and distance neutrons come from, allowing it to track targets after they have been identified. It has large-area detector coverage, extremely low power requirements and digital communication capability. Funding for the Pharos Neutron Detector System was provided through the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program, which is DOE discretionary funding. • Cast Nickel Aluminide for Improved Productivity of Steel Heat-Treating Furnaces, developed and submitted jointly by Duraloy Technologies, Mittal Steel USA, Anthony Martocci (consultant), Vinod Sikka and Michael Santella of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division and Jeffrey McNabb of ORNL's Fabrication Division. Cast nickel aluminide has a unique combination of high-temperature strength and oxidation resistance, which is critical for continuous operation of steel plate heat-treating furnaces. The nickel aluminide eliminates the need for frequent furnace shutdowns, provides significant savings in energy and cost and reduces CO2 emissions. Funding for this project was provided by DOE's Industrial Technology Program. • High-Performance LMO-enabled, High Temperature Superconducting Wires, developed and submitted jointly by SuperPower Inc., Parans Paranthaman and Tolga Aytug of ORNL's Chemical Sciences Division and Amit Goyal of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division. LMOe-HTS is a high-current, second-generation superconducting wire with the unique combination of strength, flexibility, fabricability, throughput and low cost needed for power-grid applications, including coils and motors. The wire set three world records for superconducting in 2006. As replacements for copper power cables, cables made from the ORNL/SuperPower wire will carry more electricity much more efficiently and can be retrofitted to the standard grid infrastructure. This project was funded through the DOE Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution High Temperature Superconducting program. • Large Area Imager for Standoff Detection, developed and submitted jointly by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Space Sciences Laboratory at the University of California-Berkeley, Lorenzo Fabris and Thomas Karnowski of ORNL's Engineering Science and Technology Division and Klaus-Peter Ziock of ORNL's Nuclear Science and Technology Division. The Large Area Imager is a search instrument capable of finding radiation sources within a 100-meter swath while traveling at 25 mph. It reduces the search time for radiation sources by a factor of 25 and has unprecedented sensitivity to weak sources. Funding was provided by the Department of Homeland Security. • Armstrong Process CP Ti and Ti Alloy Powder and Products, developed and submitted jointly by International Titanium Powder, Craig Blue, Jim Kiggans, Stephen Nunn and Phil Sklad of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division, ORNL postdoctoral fellows William Peter and John Rivard, Art Clemons of ORNL's National Security Directorate, BAE Systems, AMETEK, National Energy Technology Laboratory and Red Devil Brakes. The Armstrong Process is a new method of producing titanium powder that reduces costs significantly. Titanium's strength, low mass and corrosion resistance make it ideal for many manufacturing uses, but it is prohibitively costly because of the difficulty and expense of extracting it from ore. The Armstrong Process extracts titanium from ore much more cheaply than conventional methods, making titanium feasible in many new applications. This is the most significant development in the titanium industry in 50 years and can produce titanium continuously, unlike other methods. Funding was provided by sources that include DOE's Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 60 LocalNews8.com: Spark from unknown source blamed for flash fire in lab – Idaho Falls, Pocatello - Associated Press - July 3, 2007 8:34 PM ET BOISE, Idaho (AP) - A spark from an unidentified source is being blamed for igniting a flash fire that caused minor burns to a chemist at the Idaho National Laboratories last month. That's the conclusion from a team of investigators studying a June 12th fire that started when a spark ignited a sample of red phosphorus ... an element used in more ordinary products such as matchbook strikers and signal flares. INL- spokesman John Walsh says the spark may have been produced by either a lab tool, static electricity or friction. The fire led to the shut-down of a lab inside the Reactor Technology Complex and an ongoing review of safety guidelines for handling red phosphorus. Walsh says the chemist suffered minor burns, was treated at an on-site medical facility and returned to work the next day. About 36 other workers were also released that day for precautionary monitoring. The fire occurred as the chemist was transferring fine powder red phosphorus into a steel canister to test a machine that analyzes explosive devices. All content Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KIFI. 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: *****************************************************************