***************************************************************** 11/23/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.272 ***************************************************************** 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 NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 BBC NEWS: UN plots Chernobyl zone recovery 2 PRI: Amount of electricity coming from nuclear power down in 21 3 US: dailypress.com: Feds approve site for nuclear reactor -- 4 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin to produce less power due to shutdowns 5 New Scientist Tech: Nuclear industry may running out of steam - 6 US: Jurassic Park: Marketplace dinosaur seeks more public financing. 7 The Guardian: Ambitions of nuclear power industry in UK are 'a fanta 8 RussiaToday: Russia to merge nuclear firms into global giant 9 US: FresnoBee.com: Nuclear power plant plan loses backer NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 10 US: ReviewJournal.com: Workers' claims may be reopened 11 BBC NEWS: Litvinenko a year on: Our stories 12 BBC NEWS | Europe: Litvinenko death fuels UK-Russia spy war 13 US: The Modesto Bee: Nuclear firms to pay for river fixes? 14 UPI.com: Radioactivity's danger overstated? - 15 US: UPI.com: Bomb builders lost out on compensation - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 16 US: IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Uranium Supply to India - Hot Election Is 17 US: Northern Colorado Business Report: Colorado Medical Society oppo 18 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions taking heat 19 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Time for feds' help? 20 US: Africa - Reuters: Niger extends state of alert in uranium-rich n 21 US: Deseret Morning News: EnergySolutions wants to take radioactive 22 US: aiken standard: EnergySolutions wants to bring nuclear waste thr PEACE 23 [southnews] Sue Wareham - Climate Change and Nuclear Weapons 24 WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO PAKISTAN'S NUKES? 25 The Daily Yomiuri: No nukes, no proliferation 26 BBC NEWS: US storm over book on Israel lobby US DEPT. OF ENERGY 27 Tri-City Herald: New robot tested to clean radioactive waste from Ha 28 Boulder Daily Camera: Some Rocky Flats workers get another shot at b 29 KJCT8.com: Some Rocky Flats workers may get another chance for cance 30 Seattle Times: Accord reached over Hanford fine ($1.4 million) ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: UN plots Chernobyl zone recovery Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 November 2007, 12:24 GMT About five million people live in the contaminated areas The UN has said the "emergency phase" is over in the areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in Ukraine in 1986. A resolution has been adopted by the General Assembly in New York. It calls for continuing attention to "Chernobyl-related needs" but also urges a move to the "recovery phase". The 1986 explosion spewed radioactive fallout over swathes of the then-USSR - including Ukraine, Russia and Belarus - and many other parts of Europe. More than 330,000 people were forced to leave their homes after the world's worst nuclear accident. Estimates of the number of deaths linked to the radiation leak vary widely, with the World Health Organization (WHO) putting the death toll at 9,000. Experts are still studying the long-term effects on health, especially on children. Helping communities Tuesday's UN declaration proclaimed the next 10 years as a decade of "recovery and sustainable development" of the affected areas. UNDP is trying to change the legacy of Chernobyl from one of despair and hopelessness to one of hope and prosperity and health Cihan Sultanoglu UNDP It said the focus should now be on helping the communities to reverse the domino effect of poverty, poor health and fear that had hampered growth in the region. The General Assembly also requested the UN secretary general to provide a report on recovery efforts in 2010. The declaration comes on the back of a report by the WHO which found "the health impact of the accident was much less severe than was initially feared", the BBC's Thomas Lane in New York says. It also said the majority of the affected areas only suffered "low doses of radiation - doses that are close to naturally existing 'background levels'". This paves the way for the UN to alter its aid structure to the region, namely parts of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, our correspondent says. 'Overcoming stigma' Before the UN vote, Cihan Sultanoglu, a UN Development Programme (UNDP) official, said that "20 years of treating the residents of those regions as victims has created a culture of apathy". Ms Sultanoglu said the UN's new role should be "to help rebuild a sense of self-reliance". UNDP officials argue that "lifestyle issues" - like alcoholism and smoking - now pose a greater cancer threat than radiation for many residents in the affected areas. The agency is already involved with various assistance projects, including giving advice and loans to small-scale farmers. Ms Sultanoglu said the radiation resistance of several plants - including a rapeseed used in biofuels - held out hope for an agricultural revival. Other UNDP officials suggested that eco-tourism might also help the region, our correspondent says. But they conceded there would have to be plenty of attention to marketing, in order to overcome any "brand stigma" associated with Chernobyl. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 2 PRI: Amount of electricity coming from nuclear power down in 21 countries, study shows PR-inside 2007-11-21 13:08:15 - BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The amount of electricity that comes from nuclear power has decreased over the last five years in most of the countries operating nuclear plants, said a study released Wednesday. Decreases were found in 21 of the 31 countries with nuclear power stations, and the number of nuclear reactors dropped by five to 439 since 2003, according to the study, which was commissioned by the European Parliament's Green Party. The research itself was carried out by two European experts on nuclear energy. The study explained that since 1988, when the number of nuclear reactors in Europe peaked, aging nuclear plants have been closing and fewer new stations have been built due to strong competition from natural gas and other forms of renewable energy and an insufficient manufacturing capacity. Altogether, around 16 percent of electricity generated worldwide comes from nuclear power, the study said. France had the highest amount of nuclear-generated power in its electricity mix in 2006 _ 78.1 percent _ followed by Lithuania, Slovakia and Belgium, where the share was also higher than 50 percent. The United States had the highest number of nuclear reactors at 104. They provided 19.4 percent of the country's electricity. Terms & Conditions | About us | Contact PR-inside.com ***************************************************************** 3 dailypress.com: Feds approve site for nuclear reactor -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision moves Virginia's largest utility one step closer to construction. By CHRIS FLORES 247-4738 November 21, 2007 With the nuclear power plant parts on order and a site approved outside of Richmond, Dominion Virginia Power plans to apply for a construction license with the federal government in the next month. After a four-year review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a site permit approval to Dominion on Tuesday that allows the Richmond-based utility to build next to its existing North Anna reactors any time in the next 20 years. Dominion is the third company to receive a permit to build a new nuclear power plant. Dominion is now one step closer to building the first new nuclear power plant in the country since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. Utilities nationwide are scrambling to be among the first group in a nuclear resurgence so they can get federal subsidies aimed at spurring new plants. The new streamlined federal approval process will still take a long time, but Dominion is comfortably moving through the steps. The new regulatory system is meant to avoid delays that killed the financing of plants — still one of the biggest remaining hurdles — in the late-1970s and early-1980s. The permit issued Tuesday means the government has examined how the site's physical environment would affect — and be affected by — a new nuclear plant, regardless of its design. Taxpayers split the bill for the permit with Dominion through a program run by the U.S. Department of Energy, which paid $10.5 million of the $21 million cost. Dominion ordered the large nuclear reactor parts that take the longest to build from GE Energy for an undisclosed price in May. GE must get the reactor design approved by the NRC, which hopes to be done with its review by 2010. The license Dominion applies for next will take up to 30 months to approve and covers how the plant is constructed and operated. Besides the federal subsidies Dominion has received so far and hopes to get in the future, Virginia laws were changed this year to encourage the plant. Dominion will get to charge a higher rate to its customers in Virginia as a bonus for building the plant. Copyright © 2007, Newport News, Va., Daily Press ***************************************************************** 4 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin to produce less power due to shutdowns - By ÄŚTK / Published 23 November 2007 Ceske Budejovice, Nov 22 (CTK) - The nuclear power plant at Temelin, southern Bohemia, will this year produce 12.3 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, about one percent less than had been planned, Temelin spokesman Marek Svitak told CTK Thursday. The reason is that the shutdowns for refuelling were 24 days longer than planned, Svitak explained. Last year, Temelin generated 12 TWh of electricity. Next year, Temelin plans to produce a record 13.6 TWh. The previous record output was 12.6 TWh three years ago. The other Czech nuclear power plant, in Dukovany, southern Moravia, last year supplied a record 14.025 TWh, and this year plans a slightly lower output. As of December, Milos Stepanovsky will become Temelin's new director, replacing Vladimir Hlavinka. The plant's operator CEZ this year launched the Bezpecne 15Tera project within which shutdowns of the plant are to be reduced. Temelin would as of 2012 for the following 30 years supply 15 terawatthours (TWh) of power annually. The Czech Republic's two nuclear power plants, Temelin and Dukovany, have six reactors (two in Temelin and four in Dukovany). Temelin has a capacity of 2,000 megawatts and covers 15 percent of the country's electricity consumption. Dukovany has a capacity of 1,760 MW. Temelin was put into operation in December 2000. 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. ***************************************************************** 5 New Scientist Tech: Nuclear industry may running out of steam - 25 November 2007 - Rumours of a nuclear power renaissance have been greatly exaggerated. So says an audit of the nuclear power industry released on Wednesday. The report, commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points out that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030, and that 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them. "The world has five fewer nuclear reactors operating today than it did in 2002" The Paris-based nuclear consultants who compiled the report argue that the industry is growing too slowly to meet this target, and may even be shrinking. The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been under way for 20 years or more. The idea that nuclear power is about to experience major growth is "pure fantasy", says the report's author, Mycle Schneider. The industry is facing "a dramatic loss of competence, sceptical financial markets and the severe shortage of manufacturing capacity", he says. The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report. From issue 2631 of New Scientist magazine, 25 November 2007, page 5 * © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. ***************************************************************** 6 Jurassic Park: Marketplace dinosaur seeks more public financing. This is an op-ed recently published by the Columbia Tribune, in Columbia, Missouri, where there is an active public discussion regarding the proposed building of a new nuclear reactor in nearby Callaway County. By MARK HAIM Published Tuesday, November 20, 2007 http://showmenews.com/2007/Nov/20071120Comm008.asp In a July 31 interview with a New York Times reporter, Michael Wallace, co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear - Ameren’s partner in the proposed new Callaway reactor - said, "Without loan guarantees, we will not build nuclear power plants." They’ve picked our pockets before, and now they are back for more, tens of billions more. Having failed the test of the marketplace nearly three decades ago, the nuclear power industry has repackaged itself. Today it’s trying to sell its overpriced product as the answer to global climate change. Wall Street isn’t buying it, however, so the nuclear lobby wants you and me, the taxpayers, to underwrite a whole new generation of plants. They want $50 billion in federally guaranteed loans. And that’s just a down payment - the amount they’re asking for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. More than 50 years ago, when the Atoms for Peace program began, its backers promised us limitless energy so abundant it would be "too cheap to meter." By 1985, Forbes Magazine declared, "The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale." And in 2001, The Economist, Britain’s leading financial journal, wrote "Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter." For decades nuclear power has been a classic example of lemon socialism. Taxpayers have picked up the tab for everything from research and development to assuming ultimate responsibility for the deadly waste that needs to be isolated in perpetuity, to acting as the insurer of last resort in the event of a major nuclear accident. Over the 50-year period of 1948-1998, nuclear power received $74 billion in federal research and development subsidies (in constant 2003 dollars). This was 56 percent of all federal energy research and development money. Despite nearly six decades of pump-priming and $13 billion in new subsidies in the 2005 energy act, nuclear power is still not ready to stand on its own two feet. Before Congress agrees to underwrite a new generation of nuclear dinosaurs, I hope they will consider the following: ? The last U.S. nuclear plants were ordered in 1973. No one really knows how much a new nuclear plant will cost or how long it will take to build one. ? Plants being built in Finland, China and Taiwan are all significantly over budget and behind schedule. In September, Thompson Financial reported Finland’s Olkiluoto-3, the first reactor to be ordered in Western Europe since the disastrous 1986 Chernobyl accident, is delayed more than two years. Its original cost estimate was 3 billion euros ($4.35 billion), but this has now risen to 4.5 billion euros ($6.53 billion), and the latest estimated completion date is still four years off; thus the final price ta g is still unknown. ? Moody’s Investor Services in October estimated new generation nuclear plants in the United States will cost as much as $6 billion to $9.6 billion each, more than double optimistic industry projections. ? The leading U.S. investment banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, in comments for rulemaking on the Federal Loan Guarantee Program, indicated their unwillingness to finance new nukes. They said in part: "We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit." ? The Congressional Budget Office shares this skepticism. In a 2003 report examining costs of the prospective energy bill, it expressed concern that taxpayers would be saddled with heavy losses if loan guarantees were provided for nuclear plants, saying in part: "CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high - well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs relat ive to other electricity generation sources." ? The Government Accountability Office in February expressed its concerns that taxpayers would bear an undue burden if the government implemented a loan guarantee program, saying in part: "Although LGP guidelines call for borrowers to be charged fees to cover program costs, the program could result in substantial financial costs to taxpayers if" the Department of Energy "underestimates total program costs." They went on to say, "DOE will have to estimate the subsidy cost to determine the fees to charge borr owers, but it currently has no policies or procedures for doing so. Estimating this cost could be difficult because the program targets innovative energy technologies, and loan performance could depend heavily on future economic conditions, including energy prices, which are hard to predict accurately." Where are we headed? Before diving, it’s essential to know how deep the water is and what rocks might lie below the surface. If we, the taxpayers, underwrite eight large new nuclear plants to the tune of $48 billion, we might be saddled with huge losses. Even if everything went well, however, with no defaults, is this really the best place to invest our limited funds? Consider: If eight large nukes are built, we would net only 12,800 megawatts of generating capacity. This $48 billion, coincidentally, is about the same amount of capital currently invested in the entire global wind industry. But $48 billion has purchased 74,000 megawatts of generating capacity. If our interest is in cutting our use of fossil fuels - both because they are finite and because burning them alters the climate - the fastest and most cost-effective route is investing in efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources. We can get the energy we need, and get it more quickly and more cheaply, if we eschew the nuclear option. We would also avoid the downsides of nuclear power, including waste, accident risks, terror threats, transportation issues, weapons proliferation risks and more. As Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, said in a 2006 paper, "Every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar." If we take seriously the charge to address climate change and peak oil, we must move expeditiously to invest in efficiency and renewables. We can’t afford to allow the nuclear industry to hijack our energy policy and divert us from cost-effective solutions. Mark Haim has been active around sustainability and energy concerns for more than 30 years. He is a co-founder of Missourians for Safe Energy. Mid-Missouri Peaceworks 804-C E. Broadway Columbia, MO 65201 573-875-0539 E-mail: mail@midmopeaceworks.org Web site: www.midmopeaceworks.org Check out our News Blog http://www.midmopeaceworks.org/articles.php "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." -- Dwight David Eisenhower ***************************************************************** 7 The Guardian: Ambitions of nuclear power industry in UK are 'a fantasy' : guardian.co.uk Business Web o David Gow in Brussels o Thursday November 22 2007 The prospects of a nuclear power renaissance in Britain are zero and the global industry is in steep decline, Green MEPs warned yesterday. An independent consultants' study, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007, casts severe doubts over the government's expected proposals this year to build up to 10 nuclear power stations to replace a rapidly ageing capacity. Mycle Schneider, the report's co-author, said the government's plans were seriously jeopardised by an acute shortage of skilled engineers and manufacturing bottlenecks. "I can't think of any other country where the crisis in engineering is more absolute," he said. "You don't educate engineers in Britain any more, let alone nuclear engineers. The only perspective I can see is that EDF [the French state-owned power group] orders its own reactor and brings in people from elsewhere to build it." His report, co-authored by a London-based consultant, Anthony Froggatt, said that there are 439 nuclear reactors operating in the world - five fewer than five years ago - and 32 units are said to be "under construction" - 20 fewer than in the late 1990s. In the EU's 27 states the number of operating units had declined to 146 from 177 in 1989. In Britain, where half the nuclear plants were out of operation last month, the 19 reactors account for 18.3% of electricity generated, compared with 22% four years ago and many of them are more than 30 years old, small and inefficient. The average age of operating nuclear power plants in the world is 23 years. Schneider ridiculed operators' plans to extend the plants' lifetime to 40 years but said that even if that were feasible it would be impossible to maintain global output. He calculates that, on top of the 32 units under way, an extra 69 would have to be planned, built and started up by 2015, the equivalent of one every six weeks. In the following decade 192, or one every 18 days, would have to be connected to the grid. Rebecca Harms, a German Green MEP, said: "The gap between the expectations being promoted by the nuclear industry and reality are perfectly highlighted by the bungled attempt to build a new reactor at the Olkiluoto plant in Finland. After only two years of construction the project is already two years behind schedule and the budget is set to be overrun by 50% or €1.5bn [Ł1.08bn]. It seems clear that the grandiose ambitions of the nuclear industry will remain in the realm of fantasy." ***************************************************************** 8 RussiaToday: Russia to merge nuclear firms into global giant November 23, 2007, 11:44 President Putin is set to officially unite Russia's nuclear power producers into the United Nuclear Industrial Corporation on Friday. The move is aimed at doubling the nuclear industry's share of national power generation by 2030. It's also hoped the merged nuclear company will be able to compete with the West. The atomic industry generates a quarter of the electricity used by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries. But with ecological concerns and limited availability, global production is set to increase by up to 93% by 2030, depending largely on the choices made by China and India. Tvel, Russia’s top producer, is racing to make up for what it calls the “lost 1990s”, by tendering for contracts worldwide, from Slovakia to Taiwan and mainland China. But the new boss of a major EU power plant, Czech Temelin, has sensationally revealed to Russia Today that Russian nuclear fuel producers should seek global contracts because foreign rivals put cost first, and reliability second. "Russia has one big advantage over the rest of the world: product stability. Western technologies put production economies first and product efficiency second," Milos Stapanovsky, Temelin CEO said. Back in the big league While Tvel fuels Temelin, the agency building the plants is Rosenergoatom. Its boss, Valery Andryutin, speaking in the Czech Republic, revealed how Russia is back among the major players. "The nuclear industry is actually one of the few industries where Russia is truly world-class," he said. "Winning tenders to build big plants in the likes of Bulgaria last year and Taiwan means that for the first time Russia is challenging the world leaders," Andryutin added. Rosenergoatom has won around 10 per cent of nuclear plant construction, mainly in East Europe. It still lags behind Westinghouse and Europe’s Areva. The creation by President Putin of the United Nuclear Industrial Corporation is designed to both raise the nuclear industry’s share at home, and to allow competition with the West in their own markets. Globally, the merged company will compete to win contracts to build 40 new power plants in China, returning Russia to the big league of nuclear construction. Nuclear is actually one of the few industries where Russia is truly world-class Valery Andryutin, CEO of Rosenergoatom Copyright © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization "TV-Novosti" 2007, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 9 FresnoBee.com: Nuclear power plant plan loses backer State lawmaker doesn't see enough support for ban-lifting legislation. By E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau 11/21/07 00:00:00 SACRAMENTO -- A Republican state lawmaker has abandoned his pursuit of a ballot initiative that would have lifted the state's decades-old ban on nuclear power plants. The initiative would have cleared the way for a proposed nuclear power plant in Fresno. Assembly Member Chuck DeVore of Irvine withdrew the proposal this week, but vowed to try again in coming years. Polling revealed decent support but not enough to justify a multimillion-dollar campaign, he said. "We came to the conclusion that this is going to take a multiyear public education effort," he said. John Hutson, leader of the group trying to bring a nuclear plant to Fresno, said the group is moving forward with its plans and is confident the ban will be lifted some day. About 13% of the state's electricity supply comes from nuclear power, including two California plants. But a state law passed in 1976 prohibits the construction of plants until the federal government finds a way to dispose of high-level nuclear waste. A proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been plagued by delays and political opposition. The Fresno group is seeking to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor. Hutson said the target opening date is 2017. DeVore has touted nuclear power as the only way to increase the state's electricity supply while complying with new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power plants produce few greenhouse gas emissions. But environmentalists have raised concerns about storing radioactive waste and nuclear weapons proliferation, as well as cost overruns associated with previous plants. "We should be moving forward with 21st century clean energy technologies instead of pouring more money down the nuclear rathole," Bill Magavern, of Sierra Club California, said in a statement Tuesday. The reporter can be reached at eschultz@fresnobee.com or (916) 326-5541. * © Copyright 2007 The Fresno Bee ***************************************************************** 10 ReviewJournal.com: Workers' claims may be reopened RADIOACTIVE EXPOSURE AT TEST SITE Nov. 23, 2007 Audit unearths flaws in assessment documents By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Compensation cases of more than 700 Nevada Test Site workers who blamed their illnesses on exposure to radioactive materials could be reopened after an audit found flaws in the documents used to assess them. Peter Turcic, director of the Labor Department's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, said any denied case affected by changes being made to the documents will be returned to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, for revisions in radiation dose estimates. Those cases in question will be "sent back to NIOSH immediately in order to give claimants adequate due process," Turcic said in a telephone interview. He said the total number of cases, 730, doesn't include 53 that were awaiting decisions and will be returned to NIOSH. Nor does the total include another 180 returned previously to NIOSH for dose-estimate revisions. NIOSH officials acknowledged last week that an audit conducted two years ago by a contractor, Sanford Cohen and Associates, resulted in a "total rewrite" of at least two of six sections of the test site's technical basis document, also known as the site profile. Larry Elliott, director of the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, said the number of dose reconstructions that will have to be reworked remains to be seen. "We don't know how many that will be until we complete revision of the document," he said. "It could be all or none." Each dose reconstruction typically costs between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on the claimant's work history. The task involves evaluating how much radiation a person was exposed to and how much radioactivity entered a person's body based on the time and location where he or she worked, activities that took place and any dosimetry and employment records that exist. One section of the site profile document contains historical information about tests and activities involving radioactive materials or releases. If dose reconstructions show that workers' cancers are more than likely caused by their workplace exposures, then they stand to receive $150,000 each in compensation plus reimbursements for medical costs. As of last week, the Labor Department had paid $18.9 million to 161 former test site workers or their survivors after dose reconstructions showed their illnesses probably were linked to exposure to radioactive materials at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. If new information warrants any changes, a review will be conducted to determine whether compensation is warranted in cases previously denied, Chris Ellison, a NIOSH communications team leader, wrote in an e-mail last week. She said NIOSH staff members are revising the site profile and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health is reviewing it. Lynn Anspaugh, a Henderson health physicist and former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist who is a consultant to the audit firm, said significant information was missing from the test site's profile even though some of it had been well known for decades and can be found easily on the Internet. "They're going to have to go back and re-examine every claim that's been denied," he said. One example, he noted, was the lack of disclosure about operation of the Bare Reactor Experiment Nevada, also known as the BREN tower, in Area 4 of the test site from 1962 to 1966. The site profile document references the BREN tower only in Area 25 but doesn't mention that the unshielded reactor was used in Area 4 of Yucca Flat. It was hoisted up and down the tower, which was 55 feet taller than the Empire State Building, to estimate radiation doses received by survivors of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan. Anspaugh said program officials need to find out how operations were conducted there involving the BREN tower and determine whether there was a potential for exposure of workers traveling on the main road through the area and in nearby camps where they spent time on the job. The site profile fails to mention that after the BREN tower was dismantled in 1966 and moved to Area 25, it was used for Operation HENRE (High Energy Neutron Reactions Experiment) to develop information for the Atomic Energy Commission's biomedical research program. "Not even considering the BREN reactor, they have made substantial changes in the method for dose reconstruction. These changes have not yet been approved by the advisory board, and we understand that additional changes are on the way," Anspaugh said. Ellison said NIOSH officials only "recently found out about the activity in the BREN reactor from 1962 to 1966. We are continuing to update the site profile and will include this information," she wrote. Anspaugh said one flaw with the site profile is that no "site expert" is listed for the test site, one who could be held accountable for documenting all events that could have resulted in doses to the workers. When asked about this, Ellison wrote that the document lists "subject experts" but didn't explain why there was no specific "site expert" for the Nevada Test Site other than to say, "We have also consulted with a variety of site experts ... and will continue to do so as issues arise." John Funk, a former test site worker whose radiation cancer claim has been denied and appealed since the program's inception in 2001, alerted NIOSH officials two weeks ago about incomplete information regarding the BREN tower. Funk is chairman of the non-profit advocacy group Atomic Veterans and Victims of America. He said he's pleased that NIOSH is revising the test site's profile "but not satisfied yet because the recent disclosure of the BREN tower operating in Area 4 ... is grounds for another total rewrite of the technical basis documents and the site profile." "So does that mean we will have to wait another two years to get the BREN tower issues cleared up?" Funk asked. "And I also wonder why NIOSH was recommending only last month to deny Nevada Test Site workers special exposure status (to eliminate the need for many dose reconstructions) when they knew damn well these changes would impact that decision," he said. Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0308. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 11 BBC NEWS: Litvinenko a year on: Our stories Last Updated: Friday, 23 November 2007, 03:04 GMT Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-210 A year ago on Friday, the Russian dissident and writer Alexander Litvinenko died in London of radiation poisoning. It subsequently emerged that he had been given a massive dose of polonium-210. British police tried, unsuccessfully, to extradite the chief suspect, the former KGB operative Andrei Lugovoi. Here, various people who were caught up in the story at the time describe how they got involved, and what they have learned since. MARINA LITVINENKO This is one year of my life without Sasha and it's still not easy to understand that he's not here. Marina Litvinenko says every day her husband was ill was a "torture" This last month, November, has been the hardest time for me. It is like everything that happened is happening again - it is so fresh. After he died, it was like each day I had fight to be alive. Each day was like torture. It was horrible. After my husband died it became necessary for people to know that somebody can use this polonium as a weapon against humanity. We have to know about this material so that people will not use it again. What is important now is the investigation into his death. I am absolutely sure that Lugovoi is not the only person. He had nothing against Sasha... but who was behind him? Because Russia refused to extradite him I feel there are strong powers behind Lugovoi. My message to Lugovoi is: Come to London and defend yourself in a British court. DEREK CONLON, PIANIST, MILLENNIUM HOTEL BAR I was the pianist in the Pine Bar at the Millennium hotel. That was where Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned. He was given the polonium in a cup of tea. Derek Conlon suffered the 3rd highest level of contamination About an hour after he left, I sat at the same table, and drank coffee out of the same cup. They later found that although the cup had been through the dishwasher, it hadn't been cleaned properly. A couple of days later they closed the bar - but no-one told me why. It was only when I watched the news three weeks later that I learned about the poisoned Russian, and that I should contact the Health Protection Agency. When I telephoned, I was told straight away to come into University College Hospital where doctors took samples of my urine and blood and sent them off for testing. A week later I was called back to the hotel, and shown into a room where there were two doctors. The doctor said: "We have some bad news for you, the results are a little high." I later learned that I had suffered the 3rd highest contamination of all the people affected. I was really worried at first - I thought I might get cancer. But I've just had my last test and they have found that most of the stuff is out of my body. As time has gone on I've decided that I will use the experience to make the most of my life. I wrote a song - "A sad and lonely man" - based on my experience. It came second in the jazz and blues section of the UK Songwriting Contest. PC ANDY WIGLEY, BARNET POLICE One of my roles is to liaise with Barnet Hospital and when I got the call on my mobile saying a Russian spy had been poisoned, I thought my boss was joking. I was taken up to the private ward and introduced to his wife. She told me the KGB was trying to kill him - they had been to the hospital a couple of times with what they originally thought was food poisoning. I then went through to the bedroom and there he was on the bed. He was yellow and had lost his hair. I held his hand and chatted to him - he was sick about six times - once on my arm. He was genuinely terrified: once he heard a helicopter, and thought it was Russian special forces trying to kill him. He appeared to know what was happening to him: he said he was a retired KGB spy himself and was convinced he had been poisoned with radioactive lithium. That's what the KGB used, he said. Although I hadn't believed it at first about being a spy, Mr Litvinenko told me certain information when I was there. I can't repeat what he said, but it convinced me he was telling the truth. I stayed with him until they moved him to UCHL hospital. Afterwards we helped secure the Litvinenko house while it was tested for radioactive contamination. I got a commendation last summer for the way I helped handle the situation. Looking back on it now I can see he was terrified for good reason. Although as a police officer you have to distance yourself from some things, looking back on it I feel really sorry for the poor bloke. He must have been in awful pain. NIGEL LIGHTFOOT, CHIEF ADVISER, HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY It was a huge job to trace the contamination and find out who had been affected. During the first two weeks I worked 18 hours a day, six days a week. Professor Nigel Lightfoot conducted his investigation in the public gaze Our teams eventually traced the contamination to around 40 separate premises. It was in hotels, a sushi bar, offices - basically everywhere the suspect had been. It was like following a trail around London that got bigger all the time. Every time we identified a new site we had to seal it off, test for radiation and run a risk assessment. In the end we calculated about 1,500 people might be at risk, of whom 17 were actually found to be contaminated with polonium, which puts them at a slightly higher risk. It was all new territory for us: none of this incident had been rehearsed. But we learnt some valuable lessons. The first is that we were right to keep the public informed. It's important that people have the information that they need so that they can make their own risk assessment. That way you avoid panic. And the other thing we learned was that you need a large team for this sort of incident - we had 400 people working at its peak - and they all need to work together. ALEX GOLDFARB, LITVINENKO FRIEND AND CAMPAIGNER On the first anniversary of Sasha's death on Friday, I will read out his last statement in front of the hospital where he died. Alex Goldfarb is convinced that President Putin ordered the murder It will be a rhetorical statement - when he died he did not know about polonium and the cover-up perpetuated by the Russian government and Mr Putin personally. Putin was frustrated because he wasn't able to extradite Litvinenko to Russia, and he was mad at the British, so he decided to get him by other means. When Sasha first got ill I discounted it because the doctors didn't think it was serious at first. I came to the hospital on the 14th day - the doctors still thought he had a stomach bug. The day afterwards, it was official - as soon as it was clear it was polonium we knew he was doomed. He took one sip of the tea. But if he had taken two sips he would have died within the week. I write in the book ("Death of a Dissident" by Alex Goldfarb and Marina Litvinenko) that our whole generation was turned into neurotic by fears of nuclear death by cold war, and now I saw it with my own eyes. It was our worst nightmare when he died. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 12 BBC NEWS | Europe: Litvinenko death fuels UK-Russia spy war Last Updated: Friday, 23 November 2007, 03:33 GMT By Frank Gardner Security correspondent, BBC News One year after the agonising death from polonium poisoning of former KGB officer-turned-dissident Alexander Litvinenko, relations between Britain and Russia have gone from strained to rocky. Litvinenko died in a London hospital in November 2006 Litvinenko was a British citizen (his citizenship came through shortly before he was poisoned) and his death in a London hospital was investigated with some urgency by detectives from Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command. For them, this was not just a case of some Moscow spat spilling over onto the streets of London, it was the deliberate, planned murder of a Briton on British soil using a lethal radioactive substance that potentially endangered the health of many people. In January 2007 the Metropolitan Police handed the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) a file that contained, among other things, the name of their chief suspect in the case: Andrei Lugovoi, another ex-KGB officer who had met Litvinenko for tea at the time he fell ill. Mr Lugovoi, who is now poised to enter Russian politics, denied then and continues to deny any involvement in the murder. Andrei Lugovoi has denied involvement in the murder Yet police detectives who followed the forensic trail of polonium-210 around London and Europe say they can see no other explanation of how Mr Lugovoi and his effects could have been so heavily contaminated with polonium, while he himself escaped poisoning. Polonium emits radioactive alpha particles which can be stopped by human skin or even a piece of paper, but which can be lethal if ingested. Litvinenko is believed to have drunk a heavy dose disguised in a pot of tea. Officials expelled The CPS digested the police file and then, in May, announced it had enough evidence to charge Mr Lugovoi with murder, and instructed its lawyers to request his extradition from Russia to Britain to stand trial. That, said Russian officials, was not going to happen, as it was "against the Russian constitution". How about a trial in Russia instead, they offered? Out of the question, said the CPS, which feared for the safety of key witnesses like the poisoned Russian's widow, Marina Litvinenko, if she went to Moscow to testify. There were fears Litvinenko's widow would be in danger in Moscow So British officials huffed and puffed, but Russia would not budge. Then in July the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, announced the expulsion of four Russian diplomats without revealing whether they were spies or not. Russia responded by expelling four Britons from the embassy in Moscow. Russia's President Vladimir Putin - perhaps under-estimating how seriously Britain took Litvinenko's murder, perhaps seeking to calm the situation - dismissed the whole spat as all rather silly. But since the summer relations have not improved, in fact if anything they have deteriorated further - though trade ties continue to flourish. Mr Lugovoi, whose extradition has foundered, has hit back with counter-accusations of "dirty tricks" by Britain's MI6, even suggesting it had a hand in Litvinenko's murder. MI6 complaint The Kremlin is deeply irritated by the presence in Britain of Mr Putin's opponents, like Boris Berezovsky (who appears to have survived an assassination plot this year). Moscow has complained of a lack of co-operation in its own investigations in Britain. In October, Britain annoyed Russia further by appointing the most famous KGB defector, Oleg Gordievsky, a Companion of St Michael and St George (CMG) in the Queen's Birthday Honours. Vladimir Putin has been dismissive of the spat Russia responded a month later by awarding the MI6 defector George Blake the prestigious Order of Friendship. To anyone outside Whitehall this might all sound quite childish, a game of tit-for-tat where nobody wins. But on 5 November Jonathan Evans, the director-general of the security service MI5, took the almost unprecedented step of publicly accusing Russia of spying on Britain and of taking up his organisation's time in countering this espionage when it needed to stop al-Qaeda. "Since the end of the Cold War we have seen no decrease in the numbers of undeclared Russian intelligence officers in the UK - at the Russian embassy and associated organisations conducting covert activity in this country," he complained. "So, despite the Cold War ending nearly two decades ago, my service is still expending resources to defend the UK against unreconstructed attempts by Russia, China and others, to spy on us". * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 13 The Modesto Bee: Nuclear firms to pay for river fixes? Friday, November 23, 2007 Companies say hands off uranium plant cleanup fund By MICHAEL DOYLE BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The nuclear energy industry would be tapped to pay for restoring the San Joaquin River under an evolving proposal that's incited a fierce backstage fight. Publicly, Congress is adjourned. Privately, lawmakers, staff and lobbyists are maneuvering over a San Joaquin River restoration bill approved by a House panel last week. Companies including Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. are weighing in, warning against using nuclear energy dollars for San Joaquin River work. The tensions complicate the river restoration efforts and underscore the difficulties of finding a way to afford environmental ambitions. "Of course I support the terms of the river settlement," said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, "but I can't support a tax increase." Radanovich was the original House sponsor of a bill that helps settle a 1988 lawsuit filed by environmentalists unhappy with the operations of Friant Dam east of Fresno. The lawsuit settlement, and subsequent legislation, would restore water flows below the dam and restock the San Joaquin River's depleted salmon population by 2013. Democratic Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno recently supplanted Radanovich as the bill's sponsor. The legislation won approval last week from the House Natural Resources Committee on a party-line vote. Costa said the bill's details will be perfected. "We're not going to move the bill until next January or February," Costa said. The revised House bill, with an estimated federal price tag of $500 million, took money from oil and gas companies working in the Gulf of Mexico to fund the San Joaquin River work. That was a temporary fix, designed to slide the bill out of committee. Although no final decisions have been made, lawmakers anticipate turning to another source of money, called the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund. 'Has nothing to do with the San Joaquin' Nuclear energy companies pay into the fund to offset the massive cleanup costs associated with uranium enrichment at three federal facilities in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. "The cleanup of these plants ... will cost billions of dollars and could span several decades," Government Accountability Of- fice executive Robin Nazzaro told a Senate panel last week. The fund, established in 1992, has collected up to $150 million annually from the nuclear power industry. The industry contributions are due to expire this year. Because much more work remains on the plants, Congress is considering extending the industry payments. Environmentalists say that with utility industry revenues exceeding $298 billion annually, the industry easily can afford to continue the payments. Industry officials aren't necessarily opposed to extending the fund if changes are made, but they want the money focused on nuclear energy issues. Lobbyists for individual companies as well as the nuclear industry have been fanning out to make their case on Capitol Hill. "Our position is quite simple: The D&D fund should be used for its intended purpose -- to clean up and dismantle the three facilities," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Mitch Singer said. "This has nothing to do with the San Joaquin or any other river restoration." A Kentucky lawmaker and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, are drafting a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposing use of the nuclear energy fund. Nunes has been the most consistent critic of the river restoration plan. "Their ultimate game plan is to raise taxes on someone," Nunes said. Bee Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle can be reached at mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com or 202-383-0006. Copyright © 2007, The Modesto Bee. ***************************************************************** 14 UPI.com: Radioactivity's danger overstated? - Published: Nov. 23, 2007 at 3:57 PM BERLIN, Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Studies of some of the worst radiation incidents show effects on workers and residents aren't nearly as severe as commonly thought, a German newspaper said. From the dropping of U.S. atomic bombs on Japan in World War II to a 1957 accident at a secret nuclear facility in Siberia to German uranium mines to the nuclear radiation release at Chernobyl in 1987, researchers are finding long-term dangers seem overblown, Der Spiegel reported Friday. Instead of tens of thousands of deaths from those incidents, documented cancer and other radiation-related deaths have been only in the hundreds, the German newspaper said. Research shows health-related problems, including genetic deformities, also were overstated. The research includes work done by GSF Research Center for Health and the Environment in Neuherberg, Germany -- Europe's largest radiation protection institute -- for the European Union's Southern Urals Radiation Risk Research project, and by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, as well as a U.S.-Japanese epidemiological study. "For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the health risks of radioactivity," Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist, told the newspaper. "But contrary to widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands." © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 UPI.com: Bomb builders lost out on compensation - Published: Nov. 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM DENVER, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- U.S. officials said former workers at Colorado's Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant may have been wrongly denied compensation for related illnesses. The Rocky Mountain News said Thursday that in order to offer these overlooked individuals potential assistance, U.S. officials have begun a major study to help those who became ill from their time at the Denver plant gain fair compensation. Former local union official Tony DeMaiori said the recent comments from the federal officials draws attention to the flaws inherent in the U.S. government program. "This just shows you how flawed the whole program is," the former Steelworkers union official said. "Now, the government and its contractors will be making more profit on the sick nuclear workers when they have to redo everything." The related federal aid program was created by Congress seven years ago when scientific evidence showed that those making atomic weapons for the escalating Cold War were placed at risk. The newspaper said that those former workers will receive federal aid if they can prove their ailments were caused by exposure to dangerous levels of radiation at the plant or if the government chooses to automatically approve them for compensation. © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Uranium Supply to India - Hot Election Issue Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:31:46 -0800 Stephen de Tarczynski MELBOURNE, Nov 22 (IPS) - Analysts say that the stalling in the Indian parliament of the India-United States civilian nuclear agreement could prove convenient for the opposition Australian Labor Party (ALP) -- if it wins the Nov. 24 elections -- to avoid supplying uranium to India. ”I see this as an interesting factor in the election campaign in Australia because one thing that was differentiating the government and Labor, of course, was that the government had announced it would negotiate the uranium export relationship with India and Labor had said that it wouldn't,” says Rory Medcalf, director of the International Security program at the Sydney-based Lowy Institute for International Policy think-tank. Prime Minister John Howard announced in August his government's controversial decision to provide uranium to India, subject to certain pre-conditions being met. This decision -- which reverses Australia's long-held policy of supplying uranium only to countries that have signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- is opposed by the ALP, whose leader, Kevin Rudd, has pledged to scrap the agreement if he is elected. And with opinion polls consistently showing the ALP ahead of Howard's governing coalition, Rudd may well be confirmed as the nation's next prime minister. Among such requirements as a safeguards agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) of civil nuclear supply to India, one of the key pre-conditions of the Howard government's uranium agreement with India is the successful completion of the 123 nuclear cooperation deal between India and the U.S. However, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has so far failed in attempts to procure support from his Congress Party's communist allies for the nuclear deal. Subsequently, Australia's agreement to supply uranium to India has also stalled. But with the ALP expected to return to power for the first time since 1996 by winning this weekend's poll, a potentially damaging issue between two of the region's leading democracies may well be averted. ”This sort of lets Labor off the hook,” Medcalf told IPS. ”If Labor wins the election, I think it was heading for a bit of a rift in relations with India, at least in its first year or so in office, because of this issue,” he says. With India failing to ratify the 123 agreement, an ALP government would avoid the ramifications of a decision to quash the lucrative uranium export agreement. According to Medcalf, it puts the ALP in the relatively comfortable position of being able to ”simply say, look, this is a non-issue. Until there's any movement on the U.S.-India deal then the rest of the world shouldn't even consider the question of selling uranium to India.” Dr Robert Ayson, director of studies at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, agrees that India's domestic opposition to its nuclear deal with the U.S. has let a potential ALP government ”off the hook”. ”I think it has. I think they don't have to make that call now, at least in the short term,” says Ayson. ”Because even the Howard Government would need to wait for that agreement between the Americans and the Indians to be completely locked up and solid and then for those other safeguards and approvals to come through, and then it would be willing to negotiate the sale of uranium to India,” he says. ”So, in a sense, Mr Rudd doesn't have to make that choice,” Ayson told IPS. But Prof. Joseph Camilleri, from La Trobe University, disagrees. He says that India-Australia relations are unlikely to be ruffled even if all pre-conditions are met and an ALP government maintains the party's position not to export uranium to India. ”I don't think it would be unduly fussed. I don't think this is something over which India's going to go to the barricades about.'' India ”knows that the programme on which it is engaged is highly unpopular internationally and quite a bit unpopular inside India itself, which is why it is having so much (of a) problem getting it through,” Camilleri told IPS. Camilleri argues that it is ”touch and go” as to whether India's parliament passes the 123 nuclear agreement. ”Indeed, it may well be that the present government collapses should it push it too hard,” he says. The Lowy Institute's Medcalf says that while India's hitherto inability to ratify its nuclear deal with the U.S. should avoid an effect on Australia-India relations in the short term, he argues that due to India's energy requirements, the topic is likely to be broached again. ”I think we're going to come back to this issue in years to come because India has energy needs and it sees uranium as part of the mix,” Medcalf told IPS. Medcalf adds that nationalist sentiments may also play a part. ”The Indians feel extremely strongly about this issue, about what they see as the legitimacy of their nuclear aspirations,” he says. Camilleri, on the other hand, argues that nuclear energy could soon be losing its attractiveness due to concerns about how much net energy nuclear power is actually able to produce. ”I think there is a big debate about to emerge around the actual contribution that nuclear energy can make to energy supplies. And I think now there is a body of evidence gradually coming to the fore that the rosy picture that's been presented by the advocates of nuclear power is riddled with difficulty,” says Camilleri. But with Singh still pressing for the parliament to adopt the Indo-US deal, it seems that India's attraction to nuclear power has not waned. And despite the domestic opposition, India has begun talks with the IAEA on a safeguards agreement. Additionally, China has indicated that, as a key member of the NSG, it may be willing to support civil nuclear cooperation with India. ***** + Nuclear Ambitions ű The World's Deadly Arsenal (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp) + INDIA/US: Nuke Deal on Pause (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39624) + ASIA PACIFIC: War Games Muddy APEC Summit (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39177) + POLITICS-AUSTRALIA : Uranium for India - Business or Strategy? (http://www.ipsnews.net/login.asp?idnews=39004) (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/NR/IF/ST/RDR/07) = 11220822 ORP012 NNNN ***************************************************************** 17 Northern Colorado Business Report: Colorado Medical Society opposes uranium mining NCBR Article By Staff November 20, 2007 -- The Larimer County Medical Society is receiving support from the Colorado Medical Society board in its opposition to proposed uranium mining in Weld County, near Nunn. The CMS board of directors unanimously approved an action on Nov. 16 to affirm support for the LCMS's position against the issuance of a mining permit for the Centennial Project. The groups' opposition to the in-situ mining operation is based on "the potential risks it poses to the health of residents," according to the approved action. The CMS had two committees review the resolution submitted by the LCMS during October and November. The issue was debated for as much as four hours, and testimony was given by members of the Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, the LCMS, Powertech representatives and the president of the Colorado Mining Association. "I fully anticipated support and recognize the initial unwillingness to support our resolution since the uranium mining controversy has not been publicized outside of Larimer and Weld counties," said Cory Carroll, M.D., president of the LCMS and the author of the resolution. "We decided to bring this issue to the public's attention because we felt that there was only one true rational conclusion; uranium mining has inherent dangers and those risks are not acceptable for the citizens of Nunn, Fort Collins and countless others communities that use the aquifer." The LCMS may attempt to gain support for the resolution from the American Medical Association, Carroll added. 2 reader comments Cynthia Burkhart in Nunn, Colo. at [11/20/2007 11:11:27 AM] Kudos to the CMS and LCMS for recognizing the dangers of uranium mining to the communities in Northern Colorado! A note to Mr. Walker -- uranium does not just mine itself. It takes a lot of fossil fuel to get it out of the ground, process it to burn, and to dispose of the waste products associated with both mining and burning. Furthermore, there are many graves filled with those folks who participated in the early uranium mining projects. And -- there is one contaminated aquifer already. We don't need another one. Roy Walker in SLC at [11/20/2007 7:41:00 AM] Just a technical note to your opposition of in-situ uranium mining: During the 1970s - '80s uranium was extracted from phosphoric fertilizer prior to adding ammonia. The uranium concentration was great enough to be economically viable as a source of uranium for nuclear power plants. As this extraction is no longer done, the uranium is sprinkled everywhere in farming communities and enters the fresh water sources as soluble uranium without any apparent harm or detection by heath officials. If you are sincerely worried about in-situ uranium recovery entering the aquifers, an existing source should also be recognized. As uranium addition by farming has not been a concern, neither will the proposed in-situ uranium mining. The uranium is already present and causes no harm, or even detection for the past 100 years. ©2007 Northern Colorado Business Report. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions taking heat Lawmakers question the safety of accepting Italy's waste imports The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 11/22/2007 12:22:50 AM MST A pair of lawmakers are questioning a bid by EnergySolutions Inc. to import 20,000 tons of radioactively contaminated material from Italy through ports in New Orleans and Charleston, W.Va., bound for the company's facility in Tennessee, with some of it ultimately reaching Utah. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., both senior members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last week concerned that the company won't know what kind of waste it would be getting before it arrived in the ports. If the waste arrives at the ports and is more contaminated than EnergySolutions is equipped to handle, the congressmen asked, what would happen then and how could the NRC guarantee the material would not be a risk to the public? The representatives note that EnergySolutions went so far as to apply for an export license along with its import license in order to return waste to Italy if it proves to be more irradiated than planned. EnergySolutions says that the waste will be carefully inspected before it leaves the Italian ports to ensure it falls within the permitted limits. "EnergySolutions will know exactly what the contents of the waste will be before it leaves Italy," said Greg Hopkins, senior vice president for communications. The company applied for an export license, it says, in the "extremely unlikely event" that any material does slip through the screening, so it can easily be returned to Italy without delays. Hopkins said that is the "NRC's general practice." Shipments of about 200,000 cubic feet per year could start next spring and continue over a five-year span, assuming the permits are approved. EnergySolutions plans to ship the waste to Bear Creek, Tenn., where metals will be melted down and made into shielding for nuclear facilities. Much of the remainder of the waste - things like contaminated paper, plastic or wood - will be incinerated. About 8 percent of the total imported material will end up at EnergySolutions' Utah low-level waste dump in Clive, located about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Other companies have received approval from the NRC to import radioactive material, and EnergySolutions' metals facility has imported more than 2.2 million pounds of metals from Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom since 1995 to be made into shields. The congressmen state that the current application is unique, however, because of the volume of waste that would be shipped. "That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear-watchdog group. "As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal." They asked for a response to their inquiry to the NRC by the end of the month. Before approving the license, the NRC must publish a notice in the Federal Register and allow comments from the public and affected government entities. The notice has not yet been published. Earlier this month, EnergySolutions went public, raising nearly $700 million in its initial public offering. --- * The Associated Press contributed to this report. What will happen next? * The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must publish a notice and accept public comment before reaching any decision on the EnergySolutions licence. The congressmen have asked for a response by the end of the month. ***************************************************************** 19 San Bernardino County Sun: Time for feds' help? Rialto mulls assistance with toxin cleanup Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 11/22/2007 09:01:33 PM PST A swath of northern Rialto should be considered for a federal Superfund cleanup, an influential city councilman said. After years of holding back the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rialto may now be ready to call in the feds for help. City Councilman Ed Scott, a member of the city's perchlorate subcommittee, said state agencies have failed the city in its effort to clean up underground plumes of a toxic chemical called perchlorate. Wayne Praskins, a Superfund project manager, may attend a Dec. 4 City Council meeting to discuss with council members the bells and whistles of how EPA's Superfund program works, according to Scott. Scott said he will ask the council to vote on asking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office to request that the 160-acre site in northern Rialto be considered for a Superfund cleanup. Superfund is a federal government program that has been around for decades. Billions have been spent to clean up hazardous waste sites. The 160-acre industrial site is part of an area where a number of parties are accused of using perchlorate and contaminating the city's water supply. Perchlorate, a chemical used to produce explosives, can interfere with the thyroid gland. Praskins, who works out of San Francisco, said Scott has asked him to come to a council meeting soon. While receptive to coming, he said in an interview that he was unaware of the timing. The earliest he thought the EPA would be able to add the site to the Superfund list, known as the National Priorities List, is this spring. He was doubtful that he could push for a spring listing. Praskins said that the EPA could begin its clean-up orders to suspected polluters before then. "Our ability to try to get additional work done at this site ... can occur whether or not the site has been added to the Superfund list," Praskins said. The EPA official said he was unsure what area could be classified for cleanup under Superfund. The options include the 160-acre site or a bigger swath of land in north Rialto that extends throughout the city, and which includes the larger six-mile-long underground plume of perchlorate. "It's an option," he said. The perchlorate was first discovered in 1997, but Rialto officials have vehemently resisted letting the EPA lead the cleanup even though surrounding water agencies also dealing with the same contamination have asked for the EPA's help. Rialto officials have said the EPA would take too long to clean up the perchlorate and that having a Superfund site in the city could create a stigma for developers and possibly cause land values to tumble. jason.pesick@sbsun.com (909) 386-3861 ***************************************************************** 20 Africa - Reuters: Niger extends state of alert in uranium-rich north Fri 23 Nov 2007, 13:20 GMT NIAMEY, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Niger's President Mamadou Tandja extended a state of alert on Friday in the desert north of the country, home to some of the world's largest uranium reserves, where security forces have been battling a Tuareg-led uprising. "The state of alert declared in the region of Agadez is extended for three months from November 24, 2007," Tandja said in a decree. (Reporting by Abdoulaye Massalatchi; Editing by Nick Tattersall) © Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 21 Deseret Morning News: EnergySolutions wants to take radioactive waste to Tooele County Associated Press Published: Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007 2:00 p.m. MST CHARLESTON, S.C. ? A company that handles radioactive waste wants to bring 20,000 tons through U.S. ports for eventual disposal in Utah. EnergySolutions Inc. said the waste from Italy would be processed in Tennessee before being sent to its facility in Clive, Utah, 70 miles west of Salt Lake City. "That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear-watchdog group. "As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal." EnergySolutions, based in Utah, said licenses had been previously granted to companies that imported radioactive items from France and the Czech Republic. The waste would come through ports in Charleston and New Orleans. Two congressmen have raised questions about the plan, noting that EnergySolutions has not been specific about the origin of the waste, other than "reactors, fuel cycle facilities, research facilities, and material licenses or facilities equivalent to U.S. Superfund sites." Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., said the waste could exceed federal radiation limits, meaning it would not be allowed to enter the country. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre said the agency will take public comment on the EnergySolutions application. The review typically takes six months. EnergySolutions, which handles radioactive waste from hospitals, universities, government agencies and other sources, has operated a landfill in South Carolina since 1971. The landfill will close next year to all but three states: South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. If EnergySolutions gets approval from the NRC, it's not clear where the materials would be unloaded here in Charleston. "We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, spokesman for the State Ports Authority. Shipments would likely be moved through federal facilities, such as the Naval Weapons Station, or private terminals, he said. On the Net: www.energysolutions.com deseretnews.com: Home | ***************************************************************** 22 aiken standard: EnergySolutions wants to bring nuclear waste through S.C., La. Friday, November 23, 2007 The Aiken Standard Website Associated Press CHARLESTON ? A company that disposes of radioactive nuclear waste by burying it wants to ship 20,000 tons of the material from overseas through ports in Charleston and New Orleans, raising fears because of the large amount. EnergySolutions Inc. wants to ship about 200,000 cubic feet of waste into the United States, process it in Tennessee before burying it at a site in Clive, Utah, where the company is based. "That's a lot of waste," said Arjun Makhijani, executive director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nuclear watchdog group. "As far as I know, it's unprecedented for such a large amount to come to this country for disposal." In a statement Tuesday, EnergySolutions argued that licenses had been previously granted to companies that import radioactive items from France and the Czech Republic. The company also said it was a leader in safe handling and disposal of radioactive materials. However, two congressmen wrote in a letter to federal regulators who will ultimately decide if the material can be shipped to the U.S. that EnergySolutions had not said exactly where the waste would come from, other than "reactors, fuel cycle facilities, research facilities, and material licenses or facilities equivalent to U.S. Superfund sites." Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Ed Whitfield, R-Kentucky, also argued some of the waste could exceed federal radiation limits, meaning it would not be allowed to enter the country and would have to be shipped back to Italy. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre said the agency will begin taking public comments on EnergySolutions' application soon. The approval process typically takes six months. EnergySolutions, which handles radioactive waste for hospitals, universities and companies, has operated a nuclear waste landfill site in South Carolina since 1971. But under legislation passed earlier this year, that landfill will close to all but three states next year ? South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. If EnergySolutions gets approval, it's not clear where the materials would be unloaded in Charleston. "We don't handle any radioactive materials," said Byron Miller, spokesman for the State Ports Authority. Shipments would likely be moved through federal facilities, such as the Naval Weapons Station, or private terminals, Miller said. On the Net: http://www.energysolutions.com/ ***************************************************************** 23 [southnews] Sue Wareham - Climate Change and Nuclear Weapons Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:38:42 -0600 (CST) Here's a family friendly election idea for both Mr Howard and Mr Rudd. Let's save humanity from scorching or self-destruction so that our children and their children have an environment worth growing up in. You can't get much more family friendly than that. The two major challenges: climate change and nuclear weapons By Sue Wareham Posted Thursday, 22 November 2007 ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate Here's a family friendly election idea for both Mr Howard and Mr Rudd. Let's save humanity from scorching or self-destruction so that our children and their children have an environment worth growing up in. You can't get much more family friendly than that. There are two things that directly threaten the planet as we know it. Climate change and nuclear weapons. While the first of these is receiving some long overdue attention, albeit more in rhetoric than action by the major parties, the two national leadership hopefuls are silent on the matter of 27,000 nuclear weapons. The use of just one of these weapons could unleash cataclysmic human and environmental destruction. As with climate change, there have been warnings enough. At the start of this year, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its Doomsday Clock forward to five minutes to midnight, stating that "We stand at the brink of a new nuclear age. Not since the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices". Hans Blix, the former UN chief weapons inspector and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was in Australia last week to receive the Sydney Peace Prize. He said that "we must wake up to a second inconvenient truth - new build-ups of arms". Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned last year that "nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to all humanity" and that we are "asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft". And the list of those calling for nuclear weapons abolition goes on. However it is no longer confined to the usual suspects, but reads more and more like a who's who of Cold War hawks, including Kissinger, Schultz and McNamara, who have come to realize that nuclear weapons will spread unless they are abolished. There is also the growing realization that these weapons have not prevented wars, but have merely made them more perilous. Robert McNamara, former US Defense Secretary, speaks from his in-depth experience of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he says that we were "a hair's breadth from absolute disaster" during that time. The silence from Howard and Rudd on the issue of nuclear weapons is alarming, especially given the recent performances of the erstwhile Cold War enemies. In August Russian President Putin resumed 24 hours a day long-range strategic bomber flights, and he has compared tensions over US plans for a missile shield in Europe to the 1962 missile crisis. At the UN last month, our ally the US achieved the singular distinction of voting against every resolution on nuclear disarmament. Perhaps most urgent of all the resolutions was the call for the US and Russia to take thousands of their weapons off hair trigger alert, a status that leaves open the possibility of accidental launch. 124 countries voted in favour, and 3 against (the US, the UK and France). Australia, in top form with its concern for weapons of mass destruction, abstained. Meanwhile as nuclear-armed Pakistan heads in the direction of political chaos, the fate of its nuclear arsenal is anybody's guess. And the US (nuclear arsenal approximately 10,000 weapons) threatens military action against Iran (nuclear arsenal zero), with no hint of awkward embarrassment about having caused way more than enough trouble in the region already. The warnings are stark. The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons stated in 1996 that the proposition that nuclear weapons could be retained indefinitely and never used "defies credibility". Blix's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission repeated the message last year. Nuclear catastrophe is inevitable - unless we act to prevent it. Urgent action on nuclear weapons is a winner for any political party in Australia. Opinion polls in Australia and around the world show that an overwhelming majority of people want nuclear weapons abolished. It was Australians who initiated ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was launched by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in April this year. On 14 August, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Robert McClelland outlined a future Labor government's support for the ICAN goal of a Nuclear Weapons Convention to outlaw these most terrifying of all weapons. While the nature and strength of that support remains to be seen, this was an extremely welcome announcement. A treaty to ban nuclear weapons is strongly supported by the Democrats and the Greens. All political parties need to step up to one of the greatest challenges of our age. As with climate change, precious time has been lost by governments ignoring or denying the problem. Australia has been missing in action. Australian families deserve a government that puts their future above the interests of the fossil fuel industries and the nuclear weapons states. Unless Australia changes direction, we may be leaving our children little more than a scorched nuclear wasteland. Dr Sue Wareham OAM is President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia). Declaration: Dr Wareham is a member of the Greens. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6652 ***************************************************************** 24 WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO PAKISTAN'S NUKES? Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:43:15 -0600 (CST) November 19, 2007 Eric Margolis http://www.ericmargolis.com/ WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO PAKISTAN'S NUKES? NEW YORK - Henry Kissinger once quipped that being America's ally is more dangerous than being its enemy. The latest example: Washington is abuzz with leaks the Bush Administration plans to dump its faithful but embattled Pakistani retainer, Gen. Pervez Musarraf, and replace him by a new general or a cooperative civilian-led government. This column already reported Washington's `regime change' plans a week ago, citing vice chief of staff Gen. Afshaq Kiyani as Musharraf's most likely replacement. As turmoil spreads across Pakistan, Musharraf's grip on power daily grows weaker. White House efforts to broker a shotgun marriage between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto seem to have failed. She just told me there would be no deal with Musharraf, period. But one never knows. Bhutto also told me she was wisely reaching out to Pakistan's leading Islamic Party, Jamiat Islami. For the first time, I hear Pakistanis calling Musharraf, `pharaoh.' This is a storm warning signal. `Pharoah' is what Iranians called their hated, US-backed Shah, and Egyptians the equally hated US-installed dictator, Anwar Sadat. They now use the same epithet for Egypt's current military ruler, Hosni Mubarak. The Shah was overthrown by a popular revolution; Sadat was assassinated to national joy; and Mubarak is in deepening trouble. America's profoundly counter-productive policy in the Muslim World has been to support dictators and monarchs who follow Washington's orders, no matter how unpopular or bitterly opposed, rather than nurturing genuinely popular, democratic governments. Musharraf's nasty dictatorship is the latest example. Washington forced him to wage war against his own Pashtun tribal citizens who support nationalist and religious forces in Afghanistan fighting western occupation. `Pharoah' Musharraf now appears headed for the same fate as the Shah and Sadat. Either the army will overthrow him or, his usefulness at an end, Washington may simply discard him. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is again studying military strikes against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The Pentagon worries they could fall into the hands of al-Qaida. Neconservatives, who have hijacked US foreign policy, fear Pakistan's nuclear weapons - that number up to fifty - could be seized by anti-government forces if the nation were plunged into chaos, and somehow be used against Israel. Therefore, neocons urge air strikes and ground attacks by US special forces to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Pakistan's nukes are heavily guarded by special army units and military intelligence, ISI. They are kept in components, with nuclear cores apart from the rest of the bombs. Benazir Bhutto told me that when she was prime minister, she asked to inspect Pakistan's main reactor at Kahuta and its nuclear arsenal - but was refused entry by the army. It is highly unlikely Pakistan's nukes could fall into the hands of mobs or al-Qaida - unless the army splinters in a power struggle. But the weapon's precise locations are not fully known to CIA or DIA. Chances are they are also being moved to thwart detection. Any US attack would be bloody, dangerous, and might easily go terribly wrong. Adding danger, a US attack on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could quickly be joined by Pakistan's old foe, nuclear-armed India, and/or even Israel. Both reportedly drew up plans for a `decapitating' strike against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in 1991 and again 1999. President George Bush recently claimed Iran was intent on starting World War III. Or `World War IV,' as the crazies who now advise presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani call it. We are looking at an apocalyptic war all right, but not started by Iran. An American attack on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, or an all-out attack on Iran, could amply fill the bill. Three things restrain Bush and mentor Dick Cheney from unleashing war against Iran: need to use three secret US bases in Pakistan to attack eastern Iran; Pentagon opposition; and growing warnings from Russia's Vladimir Putin. Political chaos in Pakistan has thrown a spanner into neocon plans for World War IV. Posted by Eric Margolis =========== ***************************************************************** 25 The Daily Yomiuri: No nukes, no proliferation The rising anxieties about nuclear weapons are rooted in two major and parallel developments: a renaissance of nuclear power and a resurgence of old-fashioned national security threats that supposedly had ebbed with the end of the Cold War. After the well publicized accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, opposition to nuclear power was so strong that many reactor plants were shut down, plans for new ones were canceled and virtually no new reactor was built over the past decade. With the spiraling price of oil caused by a spike in demand and disruptions to supply, the economics of nuclear power has changed. With the accelerating threat of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the balance of environmental risk has shifted. Adding technological developments, the politics of constructing and operating nuclear power reactors has also altered. The net result is plans for building several reactors to add to the 435 reactors in 30 countries that provide 15 percent of the world's electricity today. Asia will account for 18 of the 31 planned new reactors. The spurt in Chinese and Indian demand is a function of booming economic growth and population. In Japan and South Korea interest in nuclear power arises from lack of indigenous oil and gas resources and the desire for energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This throws up three clusters of concern: -- How do we ensure that the plants are operated with complete safety? -- How do we secure the plants against theft, leakage and attacks of weapons-sensitive material, skills and knowledge? -- How do we build firewalls between civilian and weapons-related use of nuclear power? These concerns extend also to the international trade in nuclear material, skills and equipment. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, observed in 2004 that "Nuclear components designed in one country could be manufactured in another, shipped through a third, and assembled in a fourth for use in a fifth." The challenge on the national security front is fourfold. First, the five Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty-licit nuclear powers--Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States--have ignored their NPT obligation to disarm. Instead they are busy enlarging, modernizing and upgrading their nuclear arsenals and refining nuclear doctrines to indicate retention and expanded use of these weapons for several decades yet. The lesson to others? Nuclear weapons are indispensable in today's world and becoming more useful for dealing with tomorrow's threats. Second, three states outside the NPT--India, Israel and Pakistan--have been accepted, more or less, as de facto nuclear weapons powers. Third, as an intergovernmental agreement, the NPT doesn't cover nonstate groups, including terrorists, who might be pursuing nuclear weapons. The turmoil in Pakistan, with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf playing the "loose nukes" card to retain U.S. backing, highlights the related danger of links between rogue elements of security forces and extremists. Fourth, some countries may be cheating on their NPT obligations and seeking nuclear weapons by stealth. The drumbeats of war being sounded in Washington on Iran bring back memories of 2002-03. This is a story we've heard before. We didn't like the ending the first time and are unlikely to like it any better the next time round. The disquieting trend of a widening circle of NPT-illicit and extra-NPT nuclear weapons powers in turn has a self-generating effect in drawing other countries into the game of nuclear brinksmanship. The renaissance of nuclear power cannot be explained solely by the interest in nuclear energy for civilian uses. What might be the solution? Of the 27,000 nuclear weapons in existence today, 12,000 are deployed and ready for use, with 3,500 on hair-trigger alert. To begin with, some practical and concrete measures are long overdue: Bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force; negotiating a verifiable fissile materials treaty; retrenching from launch-on-warning postures, standing down nuclear forces. That is, reviving, implementing and building on agreements for reducing the role, readiness and numbers of nuclear weapons in defense doctrines and preparations. But these amount to tinkering, not a bold and comprehensive vision of the final destination. What we need are rules-based regimes on the principles of reciprocity of obligations, participatory decision-making and independent verification procedures and compliance mechanisms. U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., declared, "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." In January, three former U.S. secretaries of defense and state--George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger--and Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, called on Washington to take the lead in the abolition of nuclear weapons. The national security benefits of nuclear weapons, they argued, are outweighed by the threats posed to U.S. security by uncontrolled proliferation. The symbiotic link between nonproliferation and disarmament is integral to the NPT, the most brilliant half-successful arms control agreement in history. The number of countries to sign it--188--embraces virtually the entire family of nations. But the nuclear arsenals of the five NPT nuclear powers expanded enormously. With almost four decades having elapsed since 1968, the five NPT nuclear powers are in violation of their solemn obligation to disarm, reinforced by the advisory opinion of the World Court in 1996 that the NPT's Article 6 requires them to engage in and bring to a conclusion negotiations for nuclear abolition. Despite this history and background, a surprising number of arms control experts focus solely on the nonproliferation side to demand denial of technology and materiel to all who refuse to sign and abide by the NPT, and punishment of any who cross the threshold. The term "nonproliferation ayatollahs" is applied pejoratively to them. The latest episode in this long-running and tired serial is the United States, Britain and France threatening Iran with war to stop it from acquiring--not using, merely acquiring--nuclear weapons. From where do the leaders of nuclear-armed Britain and France derive the moral authority to declare that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Nuclear weapons could not proliferate if they did not exist. Because they do, they will. The policy implication of this logic is that the best guarantee of nuclear nonproliferation is nuclear disarmament through a nuclear weapons convention that bans the possession, acquisition, testing and use of nuclear weapons, by everyone. This would solve the problem of nonproliferation as well as disarmament. The focus on nonproliferation to the neglect of disarmament ensures that we get neither. If we want nonproliferation, therefore, we must prepare for disarmament. Too many, including the government of Japan, have paid lip service to this slogan, but not pursued a serious program of action to make it a reality. The elegant theorems, cogent logic and fluent reasoning of many authoritative international commissions, including the Tokyo Forum, have made no discernible dent on the old, new and aspiring nuclear powers. A coalition between nuclear-armed and nonnuclear countries, led perhaps by India--which has crossed the threshold from a disarmament leader to a hypocritical nuclear power--and Japan, the only country to have suffered an atomic attack, might break the stalemate and dispel the looming nuclear clouds. Time is running out for the hypocrisy and accumulated anomalies of global nuclear apartheid. Either we will achieve nuclear abolition or we will have to live with nuclear proliferation followed by nuclear war. Better the soft glow of satisfaction from the noble goal realized of nuclear weapons banned, than the harsh glare of the morning after of these weapons used. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 26 BBC NEWS: US storm over book on Israel lobby Last Updated: Thursday, 22 November 2007, 17:22 GMT By Henri Astier BBC News The Bush administration - like its predecessors - has stood by Israel The power of America's "Jewish lobby" is said to be legendary. Commentators the world over refer to it, as though it were a well-established fact that US Jews wield far more influence than their numbers (2% of the population) would suggest. But this presumed influence is also a delicate issue in the US, and is rarely analysed. How does the lobby work? Is its power truly legendary, or just a legend? Two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, have set out to answer those questions, and triggered a firestorm of controversy as a result. [Many critics] tried to smear us by either saying or hinting that we are anti-Semitic Stephen Walt Mearsheimer/Walt interview America spends $3bn a year in largely military assistance - one-sixth of its direct aid budget - to help a prosperous, nuclear-armed country, and strongly backs Israel in negotiations on Middle East peace. But according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the US gets remarkably little in return. They reject the argument that Israel is a key ally in America's "war on terror". On the contrary, they contend, US patronage of Israel fuels militant anger - as well as fostering resentment in Arab countries that control vital oil supplies. One-sided The authors also reject the common view of Israel as a democratic outpost that needs protection from deadly enemies. Whose interests do US soldiers in Iraq defend? If both these arguments are weak, they say, the real reason behind US support for Israel is domestic - the activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and like-minded groups and think tanks. Mearsheimer and Walt do not talk of a "Jewish lobby", as these groups do not speak for all US Jews and include many non-Jews, but of an "Israel lobby", whose main aim, they say, is to convince America that its interests are aligned with those of the Israeli state. The book analyses the lobby's sources of influence - notably its financial muscle and the reluctance of critics to speak out. Pro-Israeli contributions to US campaigns dwarf those of Arab-Americans or Muslim groups. Like other interest groups, the Israel lobby also influences debate by rounding on politicians and commentators who take positions it does not like - but it does it particularly effectively, according to Mearsheimer and Walt. Those who might think of questioning US support for Israel know they are in for a fight, making it more trouble than it is worth. The resulting lack of discussion, the book says, has skewed US policies across the Middle East. Most controversially, it argues that the lobby played an important role in the Iraq war. No conspiracy For any anecdote they come up with, you can come up with an anecdote that demonstrates the opposite Robert Lieberman Columbia University "Their conclusions are classic anti-Semitic canards - such as control of foreign policy against the interest of the US, the Jews controlling the media and getting America into war," ADL director Abraham Foxman told the BBC News website. After reading the original article, Mr Foxman wrote a book-length rebuttal entitled The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control. Many attacks have been highly personal. In a fierce critique of their scholarship, Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote in the New Republic of the original article: "Were 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body." Virtually all reviews of the book in the mainstream US press have been negative. "They have often misrepresented our arguments badly or tried to smear us by either saying or hinting that we are anti-Semitic," Mr Walt told the BBC News website. He and Mr Mearsheimer deny recycling old fantasies of Jewish conspiracies. Their book repeatedly states that pro-Israeli lobbying is not secretive, but conforms to the open rules of America's democratic system. The authors regard their excoriation in the US press as a sign of the lobby's effectiveness, and point out that reviews abroad have been much more favourable. "This in some way confirms our basic argument that it's much easier to talk about this subject outside the United States than we do inside the US," he says. Cause and effect However, some of Mearsheimer and Walt's US critics have been less vitriolic and harder to dismiss as angry polemic. Robert Lieberman, a Columbia University political scientist, argues that they overstate the lobby's financial power. I have written articles in Haaretz that no American newspapers would touch Tony Judt Mearsheimer and Walt cite cases of members of Congress losing their seats after running afoul of pro-Israeli groups which then bankrolled their opponents. But Mr Lieberman says the contributions involved are unlikely to make a difference and the book fails to establish a clear link between lobby money and victory. Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in 2004 despite the fact that he got more pro-Israel funding than any candidate that year. "For any anecdote they come up with, you can come up with an anecdote that demonstrates the opposite," Mr Lieberman says. Perhaps the most contentious argument in the book is the direct causal link it tries to establish between lobby activity and US Middle East policies. But political preferences can be influenced by any number of factors, such as popular pressure, party politics or heartfelt conviction. Although Mearsheimer and Walt do their best to discard those alternative explanations for the US pro-Israeli stance, many are unconvinced. "Is this the manipulation of a tiny group, or is this politicians not wanting to take a stand that is unpopular with the broader public?" Walter Russell Mead, of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the BBC News website. Mr Mead - who wrote a lengthy critique of the book in the journal Foreign Affairs - also says Mearsheimer and Walt give too vague a definition of the lobby to make any credible conclusion about its impact. Opening up The fact that the book invites criticism, however, is also a strength. Its scholarly, dispassionate tone is meant to encourage a debate. "Reasonable people can disagree and one of the reasons we want to have a discussion is to get issues out in the open so people can talk about them," Mr Walt says. Tony Judt - a prominent historian and critic of Israel - does not accept every point made by Mearsheimer and Walt, but he credits them with lifting a taboo. The main effect of the lobby, he says, has been self-censorship. "There are people out there who are anti-Semitic obviously, and you don't want to find yourself in their company, so you end up saying nothing," he says. Mr Judt himself is not afraid to speak out, but he has to tread more carefully when he criticises Israeli policies in the US than he does in Israel itself. "I have written articles in Haaretz that no American newspapers would touch," he says. In this context, he adds, Mearsheimer and Walt's book is an "enormous act of intellectual courage". * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 27 Tri-City Herald: New robot tested to clean radioactive waste from Hanford tanks Published Thursday, November 22nd, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER An 800-pound robot powered over a pile of junk at the Hanford Cold Test Facility on Wednesday, used its blade to push aside heavy pipes and rocks, then swept the concrete clean with a spray of water. Hanford engineers are hoping it performs as well when it's lowered into Hanford Tank C-109 to help clean up rocklike radioactive sludge later this winter. It's the latest technology developed for the Department of Energy to help empty the 530,000-gallon tank and others like it of radioactive waste. "We expect to get the hardest waste, the last 10 to 15 percent," said Ryan Dodd, acting president of closure operations for CH2M Hill Hanford Group. "With the current technology it has been a challenge." DOE has 149 single-shell tanks, some dating from World War II, that were used to hold radioactive waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. CH2M Hill has emptied seven of the underground tanks, threading equipment through risers just a foot in diameter and using video cameras inside the tanks to guide their work. At Tank C-109, it has removed all but 15 percent of the radioactive sludge using a method called modified sluicing. Water was sprayed from the top of the enclosed tank at about the pressure and flow of a water hose to move sludge toward a pump in the center. "It ends up leaving piles at the edge of the tank," said Ken Wade, a facility representative for DOE. The piles are made of hard pieces of sludge that form a coarse gravel of fist-sized radioactive chunks containing metals. Not only does the modified sluicing have trouble moving the chunks and any contaminated debris or equipment left at the bottom of the tanks during decades of operations, but it also does not break up the rock-like chunks into small enough pieces to be pumped out. With existing technology DOE likely would not be able to meet a legal requirement that 99 percent of the waste in Tank C-109 be removed, Dodd said. To do the job, CH2M Hill engineers have worked with the company Non Entry Systems in Wales to develop the Foldtrack. The first robot has arrived at Hanford and is being tested in a mock tank just north of Richland. "It's demonstrating very well," Dodd said. The robot can stretch itself out to about 12 feet long to fit through the narrow riser. Once on the floor of the tank, it folds in half, placing its two crawling tracks in parallel with a blade for pushing waste in the front. While modified sluicing uses a spray of 100 pounds per square inch, the Foldtrack can spray at 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per square inch directly at the waste to break it up or move it. CH2M Hill last year began using other robots that spray 30,000 pounds per square inch to dissolve solid layers of radioactive salt cake left in some of its underground tanks. But those robots would just push around the chunks of sludge in Tank C-109, which don't dissolve. The Foldtrack has four nozzles that can fan a spray of water across the bottom of the tank. It also has a single nozzle that can spray water ahead or above the robot. It can be used to wash down the walls of the tanks and remove waste that adheres too tightly to be dislodged by modified sluicing, Wade said. The blade at the front of the tank can be used to push the robot's weight in waste, 800 pounds. The robot trails a tether threaded through the riser that encases both a water line and also a hydraulic line that allows it to be operated. Development of the first robot cost about $500,000 and it could be in use when tank pumping is expected to resume in late winter. Work has been temporarily stopped after a waste spill in July at the S Tank Farm. CH2M Hill also is planning to use the Foldtrack at a second tank, C-108, where retrieval is about 90 percent complete using modified sluicing. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 28 Boulder Daily Camera: Some Rocky Flats workers get another shot at benefits Associated Press Thursday, November 22, 2007 DENVER — Some people who worked at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant may soon have a second chance to get more federal aid for work-related cancers. The U.S. Labor Department next week will reopen the cases of 427 workers who were denied aid previously. Department officials say government calculations may have wrongly suggested the radiation they were exposed to wasn’t high enough to cause their cancers. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the outcome of the reviews would affect thousands of others who also have asked to get federal help for health problems they blame on their work. Rocky Flats, about 15 miles northwest of Denver, made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads. It operated from 1951 until it was shut down in 1991. Former workers at Rocky Flats and other nuclear weapons plants have said they developed cancer and other diseases because of their jobs. Seven years ago, Congress created a program that made them eligible for special health benefits if they could prove that exposure to radiation likely caused their ailments. In June, a federal panel that reviews workers’ cases voted to recommend benefits for an estimated 4,000 former Flats workers. But Jennifer Thompson, who worked at the plant and now advocates for the workers, said that left about 15,000 ineligible. Earlier this month, more than 800 people from another group of former Flats workers were added to the program after it was determined that they were mistakenly excluded. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 29 KJCT8.com: Some Rocky Flats workers may get another chance for cancer aid Associated Press - November 22, 2007 11:44 AM ET DENVER (AP) - Some people who worked at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant may soon have a second chance to get more federal aid for work-related cancers. The U.S. Labor Department next week will reopen the cases of 427 workers who were denied aid previously. Department officials say government calculations may have wrongly suggested the radiation they were exposed to wasn't high enough to cause their cancers. Some Rocky Flats workers have been added to the program but many others have been rejected. Rocky Flats made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads, and many former workers have said they developed cancer and other diseases because of their jobs there. The plant is 15 miles northwest of Denver. Information from: Rocky Mountain News, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KJCT. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 Seattle Times: Accord reached over Hanford fine ($1.4 million) Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - Page updated at 12:00 AM By SHANNON DININNY The Associated Press YAKIMA — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reached an agreement with its regulators Tuesday to settle a $1.14 million fine for cleanup failures at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. The fine was the largest ever levied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Northwest office over work at the Hanford nuclear reservation in south-central Washington. The penalty concerned operations at a landfill for contaminated soils and other hazardous and radioactive wastes from cleanup operations. The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, workers labor to rid the 586-square-mile site of waste left from decades of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear-weapons arsenal. The problems came to light in January, when a subcontractor at the site discovered that an employee had been recording data for compaction testing at the landfill, when no testing had been done since June 2005. Landfill workers also failed to perform weekly inspections of the landfill's system to collect and remove liquids, in an effort to cut the risk of leaks, the EPA said. "With this enforcement action, we sent DOE a message that they and their contractors have taken to heart," said Elin Miller, EPA's regional administrator in Seattle. Under the agreement, the Energy Department and its contractor, Washington Closure Hanford, will still pay a $285,000 fine. They also will buy emergency-response boats for Benton County and build a greenhouse and nursery to aid habitat restoration. Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************